Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 22nd Dec 2006 11:15 UTC, submitted by Francis Kuntz
Apple "I have tested, and continue to run in a production setting, two instances of Windows 2003 Server hosted by Parallels Desktop, running on OS X Server 10.4.8 on a 3 GHz Xserve. To skip to the punch line, it works, and it's as fast as all get-out. Parallels does not stretch the truth when it claims near-native performance; Xserve is capable of knocking off any two-socket Netburst (Pentium 4) Xeon server going back at least two years. Compared to Xserve, those Intel boxes eat more electricity and give off more heat than they give back in capacity for work."
Thread beginning with comment 195665
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: How about support?
by broken_symlink on Sat 23rd Dec 2006 13:53 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: How about support?"
broken_symlink
Member since:
2005-07-06

not necessarily. in the above post practically all the tasks the first virtual system could of been moved to the linux host. same with the freebsd system. then you would of just had 1 windows server running terminal services. but it all really depends on how comfortable you are with managing that stuff. because it can be a pain when things go wrong. i had an idea similar to the article, but the xserve is just too expensive. because all i really need is a windows server running terminal services to run 1 app. in the end i went with a lowend dell server running win2k3 because it was just cheaper for me.

Reply Parent Score: 1