[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [sheflug] windows virtual server
David Willington wrote:
> Dear All
>
> I'm setting up moodle for a school. The test site is running on a LAMP
> server quite happily, but it's been suggested by the technicians that
> the production server could run on a LAMP server within windows virtual
> server, the advantage being that they can take snapshots of the LAMP
> server for backup purposes without having to get involved with the LAMP
> server itself. There seem to be a couple of drawbacks
> 1. Either windows or linux could go wrong
> 2. There are additional costs for them (the windows license, greater
> server overheads)
> My original plan had been to show them how a LAMP server works so that
> (over time) they become more confident in maintaining it, and their
> solution, to some extent, puts a barrier up here albeit probably only
> psychological. Can anyone suggest any other reasons why hosting in a
> windows virtual server would be a bad (or good) idea? I've also
> mentioned that we could host on windows / IIS, but as I've almost no
> experience of IIS it'd further blur the lines over who's responsible for
> what and what might go wrong.
>
Well that all sounds a bit of a worry. I've used VMWare the other way
around, and apart from user happiness in this situation, there's no
reason to run the stuff under Windows at all. Are there alternative
ways the whole system can be backed up over their network?
The real issue is that they think they need Windows to do the backup and
they seem to prefer an image of the disks.
Operationally the overheads are the opportunity for Windows to fail or
for Windows to affect the server's operation in some way. So not only
are they bringing extra cost but also an extra layer of risk. They may
have already spent the money on the license so cost might be irrelevant.
I would have a chat with the IT support team that's proposing the
condition and find out why they want to back the thing up that way.
It may be tricky to know how to discuss the issues with them but
projects can crash because of user resistance so I suggest you remain
confident and accept you may have to accpt their request but delineate
responsibilities and ask to retain the option to go to a fully fledged
LAMP server with backup capability suitable to their network and
hardware arrangements in the future. Note all events requiring your
support because of Windoze issues and point these out if/when the topic
is raised in the future.
I think it's worth pointing out that this extra layer is not necessary
(if you can provide replacement backup capability) and that it
introduces a further risk.
LAMP setups break too : you'd expect to have to deal with some issues in
a live server so out and out LAMP problems can't be blamed on Windows.
Could be someone there wants to get experience of this set up and might
take an interest in Linux as things swing along but who could be
resentful of having to learn Linux and LAMP at their perceived expense
of running the LAMP within a Windows box.
I've used IIS in the past but that was VB and asp. I am aware there is
perl for Windows now but why by in IIS when you have LAMP?
It sounds as if the major IT support function there is Windows drones;
keep them happy and they might give the project a chance :).
HTH
Lesley
___________________________________________________________________
Sheffield Linux User's Group -
http://www.sheflug.co.uk/mailfaq.html
GNU the choice of a complete generation.