On 8 January 2015 at 15:19, Reindl Harald <h.reindl(a)thelounge.net> wrote:
Am 08.01.2015 um 21:34 schrieb Stephen John Smoogen:
> In most of the cases, we end up requiring someone to go to the system
> physically and doing some initial work if we run into any of 0-3. Of
> course that works great if you have a physical server. We virtualize
> most of our servers which ends up with even more weird problems of
> trying to get working
>
than you do something wrong
Of course I do Harald. Very few of us are perfect. Thank you for reminding
me of my failures. It has made me a better person.
especially om virtualized systems remote management is far easier
because
you have *one* remote console and if it is regular tested and all clients
have the needed access you reach 100,1000,10000 virtual servers without any
exception
Another thread, but it would be useful if you explained how this is
accomplished.
but back to topic: yes it is *way* too optimistic assume KVM or
similar
everywhere - for a small business you typically have a *server* as
router/firewall *because* you want to avoid the security problems of make
crap without regular updates directly reachable from the internet and that
includes:
* SOHO routers
* KVM devices
* any embedded device
* VMware consoles
so guess what there is running: a ordinary Linux setup (in my case) Fedora
and the only way to access some of them hundrets of kilometers away is just
SSH
this we agree on.
--
Stephen J Smoogen.