>While I agree with some of your points I do wonder which SOHO would use ESXi.
Mine is ,and i'm aware of several others.
>Running ESXi on a single hardware server allows for multible OS's to be run at the same time.
>I myself would not recommand it and I would only start using ESXi when atleast 2 or more hardware servers are available and then tools like vCenter, FT, HA become available.
You're expanding costs span beyond usual SOHO budget in my region with this.Not that i dont agree with redundancy it provides,but sometimes you just can't afford it.
>Especially if a single hardware server is used by an exchange/sql/ad microsoft enviroment. That's me tho.
>One could consider running SBS additions of Microsoft if that were the case.
My company, to be specific, uses both. One does not exclude usability of other. Microsoft solutions on other hand ,again raise the costs.Not to mention i have a hybrid server enviroment that's not exclusivly MS based.
>Within Linux if not mistaken server functionality is for most, if not all, of the basic SOHO needs,available which again can be run on a single hardware host (correct me if I >am wrong tho).
You are wrong (in my point of view), having independant standalone virtual servers bring flexibility and modularity that can't be matched by a single host of any kind. Let me remind that SOHO doesnt mean "we're selling flowers and only need mail server" kind of company, it marks the size of company by number of employees and budget available, not the diversity or complexity of work done in it.
>ESXi lacks the terminal and VMware makes it a point of this saying ESXi is more secure because of it. Adding a console would undermine that concept.
I'm not geting this part, how is a console that requires physical acces for start underminingg the security concept ? if i am able to enter the server room and console, i'm able to plug out whole box and take it with me-you have that same (lacking) console in ESX , is product that you pay for less secure than free one ?
>No to mention it would also make the footprint bigger of the hypervisor if they did. Again this is an agrument by VMware to minimise the interface of ESXi as is.
"bigger footprint" we're talking about is in range of 10th's of MB, wich can easily be acomodated on any up to date host, i was refering to need for basic file level manipulative tasks,nothing more (after all you have them already in the kernel,but you're forced to use the VIC to utilise them). You have that on a comertial ESX instalation, and it doesnt temper the security concept. My conclusion is that only reason for lack of that and some stronger monitoring tools is to "encourage" users to buy a comertial product when they discover the flaws of free edition. I'm not blaming anyone for that - sound bussiness logic ; but i felt the need to advise potential users about problems they may face in disaster recovery situations if they use the non comertial product.
