Stephen Harris wrote: > On Thu, Mar 01, 2007 at 01:31:34PM -0500, Ross S. W. Walker wrote: >>> [mailto:centos-bounces at centos.org] On Behalf Of Stephen Harris > >>> I acknowledge I have farmed out my risk to an "untrusted third party", >>> but that's part of risk management; my evaluation is that > >> Risk management? Is this a home network or a business network? > > It's my home network. I have documents on my machines that are private > and personal. I don't want hackers on my machines. Therefore I have a > risk that needs to be managed. Just because I use professional jargon > doesn't mean it isn't relevant. > >> Well then, sounds like your mind is made up already, why ask? > > I asked what virtualisation technology people recommended; I didn't even > _mention_ Fedora in my original list because I knew it wasn't suitable. > Someone asked me "why not a bare-bones FC6 Xen box" and I answered > why not. > So long as Xen works as promised, it shouldn't matter too much what the host is, it just doesn't have any network connexion terminating at itself. I'd not rule out FC{6,7} for the host, I'd just not run it as a guest except for testing. However, if you want a slimmed down host, look at Debian. You should be able to get a host in under 512 Mbytes of disk. It will also have updates into the forseeable future. There's a package, xen-tools, of scripts to help building new guests, and it even supports rpmstrap to build CentOS. I've not tried hosting CentOS 4 yet (my test hardware lacks virtualisation), I'm having enough trouble^H^H^H^H^H^Hfun with Debian under Debian. And assorted unrelated matters. -- Cheers John -- spambait 1aaaaaaa at coco.merseine.nu Z1aaaaaaa at coco.merseine.nu Please do not reply off-list