Kyle Hamilton:
Why would you not accept a virtually-hosted system? The benefits of
virtual machines (including "if the hardware goes down, the VM can be
brought up again with a minimum of fuss") are many and varied,
especially for an organization like Mozilla -- while the risks of
having a physical machine in the datacenter behind the firewall, not
under the same administrative control or jurisdiction are very high.
I am curious what your rationale is.
Sure, I can share that with you. Controls and protection for vmware and
similar hyper-visors are limited (besides eventual (and unknown) flaws
in the hyper-visor, kernel and hardware), doesn't come close to what I
can be put in place on a physical system (yes I know about boot
passwords, file system encryption and the like). Having to share a
physical system via a hyper-visors bears certain risks and I'd prefer
for certain usage to refrain from that.
Obviously you are right concerning the convenience to move a VM image
around, however I'd bet that sufficient backup and experience would
result in about the same downtime (plus about two hours) on a physical
system in case of hardware failure, something I prefer to take into
account when I see fit. VMs make sense in many, many cases and I'm not
against it when applied correctly, still for certain stuff it doesn't.
--
Regards
Signer: Eddy Nigg, StartCom Ltd. <http://www.startcom.org>
Jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <xmpp:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Blog: Join the Revolution! <http://blog.startcom.org>
Phone: +1.213.341.0390
_______________________________________________
dev-tech-crypto mailing list
dev-tech-crypto@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-tech-crypto
