John,
Honestly I am no worse off than many in a single server setting. If the hardware dies, the server(s) die.
My situation at Home is slightly odd, I have various servers running so that my clients and business partners can exploit the fact that I don't sleep much.
But I see a limited niche for the Virtual Server product despite my own oddities. It certainly makes a planned transition from Win2k server to Win2003 server less risky on the same hardware plant.
I do not think the intention of the Virtual server product is to reduce your hardware plant necessarily. I agree that hardware redundency should be a consideration. VS is to handle the odd compatability issue, and to ease upgrades. And to certainly aid support folks.
Or in my odd situation, to reduce the hardware farm required to support multiple server OS versions.
Honestly I am no worse off than many in a single server setting. If the hardware dies, the server(s) die.
My situation at Home is slightly odd, I have various servers running so that my clients and business partners can exploit the fact that I don't sleep much.
But I see a limited niche for the Virtual Server product despite my own oddities. It certainly makes a planned transition from Win2k server to Win2003 server less risky on the same hardware plant.
I do not think the intention of the Virtual server product is to reduce your hardware plant necessarily. I agree that hardware redundency should be a consideration. VS is to handle the odd compatability issue, and to ease upgrades. And to certainly aid support folks.
Or in my odd situation, to reduce the hardware farm required to support multiple server OS versions.