Dedicated server prices?

[CLIFFORD ILKAY]

On July 7, 2005 14:19, Andrew Hammond wrote:
> CLIFFORD ILKAY wrote:
> > As for "hogging" a machine, you can hog 100% of a virtual server. As long
> > as you know what the resource limits are up front, I do not see a problem
> > with that.
>
> With the exception of IBM's AIX virtualization stuff, I haven't seen any
> virtualization solution which effectively deals with IO partitioning. So
> long as you're aware that some customer may decide to eat up all the
> disk IO on a regular basis, and prepared to deal with that, a
> virtualized solution may be right for you. Potentially it's a whole lot
> less expensive.

Hence my recommendation that one should inform the hosting provider about the 
nature of the applications that one intends to run. I would not put something 
that is I/O intensive on a physical machine that is running multiple virtual 
machines as I know this is a problem. As for being a whole lot less 
expensive, maybe. It usually lands somewhere in between shared hosting and 
dedicated servers but prices are really all over the map. Generally speaking, 
you get what you pay for. The so called "unlimited" accounts cannot be as the 
provider could not stay in business without overselling.
-- 
Regards,

Clifford Ilkay
Dinamis Corporation
3266 Yonge Street, Suite 1419
Toronto, ON
Canada  M4N 3P6

+1 416-410-3326
--
The Toronto Linux Users Group.      Meetings: http://tlug.ss.org
TLUG requests: Linux topics, No HTML, wrap text below 80 columns
How to UNSUBSCRIBE: http://tlug.ss.org/subscribe.shtml