Msg#: 4389369 posted 12:48 pm on Nov 21, 2011 (gmt 0)
I'm migrating to new hardware in the next few weeks and am wondering if it's worth my while to have seperate virtual servers for a few applications?
There's three basic things on my server: 1) My stuff, low load 2) a friend's stuff, low load but he runs FTP and I hate having that running on my server. 3) another friend's stuff, fairly high load - actually his site is driving the hardware upgrade.
Right now they're all on one box, one server. Would it make sense to set up 2 or three virtual servers on the new machine and partition that way? Or is that just a waste of overhead and more work?
Msg#: 4389369 posted 2:10 pm on Nov 23, 2011 (gmt 0)
From a purely cost point of view virtual servers are going to be a lot less pricey than running a machine per user. I only have very minimal experience with virtual servers under Linux, but I can see a lot of potential uses for it. Your situation sounds like a perfect reason to deploy virtual servers.
The neat thing I like about virtual servers is the hardware split. For example one virtual server only has its percentage of CPU usage, so even if a CPU intensive application is running on account 1 it will not effect the performance of other accounts (main exception being bandwidth)
There will be a little bit of work involved in getting the setup running as required, but you could set it up to scale through time. More users,more applications etc.