luke.mccormick Posted November 11, 2006 Share Posted November 11, 2006 just wondering how many of us actually use Virtualization software. I find it a huge convenience, especially now that vmware server and ms virtual server are free. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lost Soul Posted November 11, 2006 Share Posted November 11, 2006 well i use vmware Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zxian Posted November 12, 2006 Share Posted November 12, 2006 VMware Workstation is what I use primarily. I've been wanting to play with VMware server though. I can think of lots of applications where I'd like to have multiple OSes on the server at once... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoffeeFiend Posted November 12, 2006 Share Posted November 12, 2006 I couldn't live w/o VMWare Server (looks like I'm the only one who voted for that, eh). Price is right too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luke.mccormick Posted November 12, 2006 Author Share Posted November 12, 2006 cool, Well I use Vmware server, because it's free and i don't like having my VM's hog my local system's resources. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
#rootworm Posted November 12, 2006 Share Posted November 12, 2006 i've always used vmware, it's superior under most circumstances...but yesterday i actually found microsoft's VPC to be more compatible in a couple instances where things weren't working for me in vmware.so now i guess i'll be using both. (i'll use both because vmware is still at least 50% faster for me, even when i give VPC more ram than vmware) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LLXX Posted November 13, 2006 Share Posted November 13, 2006 Where's the... All of the Above?Has anyone tried running one VM software inside another? That would be the real test of virtualisation - if it can truely imitate the real hardware. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jondercik Posted November 13, 2006 Share Posted November 13, 2006 Had to choose Vmware Server because the correct option, VMWare ESX server wasnt listed. Currently have about 200 virtual servers running in the infrastructure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nitroshift Posted November 13, 2006 Share Posted November 13, 2006 I chose none as it's easier (don't ask why) for me to ghost the OS partition and then install whatever on REAL hardware. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlkCrowe Posted November 13, 2006 Share Posted November 13, 2006 Virtualization? Heck yes!I have VMWare ESX 2.53 on 2 x HP 585 Quad-Opteron servers with 32GB RAM and am running 80 VMs between these 2 servers and neither one of them has hit 50% CPU utilization (with all 80 VMs powered up). With Virtual Center, I can "V-Motion" VMs between the 2 servers without ever taking the VM off-line. I'm getting ready to add a 3rd server to my farm and should easily get 120-150 VMs on these servers. I can't wait to get ESX 3.0 installed so that I can take advantage of some of the new High Availabilty and Resource Management features.As for the workstation, I use both VMWare Workstation and Microsoft Virtual PC. While VMWare is by far more powerful than Virtual PC, I usually only neeed the basic functionality that Virtual PC provides. I'm not virtualizing Active Directory or client server applications, so I don't want the overhead that comes with VMWare. In my experience Virtual PC has a smaller footprint and is easier to use for most inexperienced virtual software users.Let me use an "SAT Test" example to describe the 3... Microsoft Virtual PC is to VMWare Workstation as Notepad is to Wordpad VMWare Workstation is to VMWare ESX Server as Wordpad is to Microsoft WordOr for you *NIX guys out there...as Wordpad is to Vi. :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luke.mccormick Posted November 16, 2006 Author Share Posted November 16, 2006 sweet. I'm using the free Vmware server in my home environment and i love it...much more convenient than running workstation or VPCI guess i should've put ESX in the choices list but i wasnt thinking. I wish i had a good enough system to run 3 or 4 vms at once..but i don't have cash for a new server. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StateS Posted November 17, 2006 Share Posted November 17, 2006 I'm not virtualizing Active Directory or client server applications, so I don't want the overhead that comes with VMWare. In my experience Virtual PC has a smaller footprint and is easier to use for most inexperienced virtual software users.You could always use Qemu, with the KQemu acclerator which is open source and leaves even less footprints than Virtual PC. And if you don't like using command line tools you could always use QemuManager, which is a great windows frontend for Qemu. But anyway besides Qemu I also use the VMware player (along with VMmanager to generate the needed files to get started with the installation of a virtual machine in VMware player ) just to compare one with the other.Plus Qemu supports not just the x86 architecture but the x86_64, ARM, SPARC, SPARC64, PowerPC, PowerPC64, MIPS, m68k, and SH-4 each up to a certain extent of course.You can find the homepage for Qemu here: http://www.qemu.com/And for those of you who would like to try it out with the frontend: http://www.davereyn.co.uk/download.htm (I suggest downloading the complete package from there, the one that includes the frontend, qemu and the kqemu accelerator support)Oh and don't forget to download and install the KQemu accelerator from the Qemu website.And here is another site which will be helpful for ya: http://www.h7.dion.ne.jp/~qemu-win/This site has updates for the windows version of qemu. Twords the end of the page they have a version of Qemu compiled for windows with numerous amounts of patches applied to fix and even give new functions to qemu.Cheers! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
newsposter Posted November 17, 2006 Share Posted November 17, 2006 the concept of 'REAL' hardware is passe. It's been years since any user process or OS load was able to effectively use more than 25% of a processors capabilities. The real bottleneck is and always has been disk i/o. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
awergh Posted November 20, 2006 Share Posted November 20, 2006 what about the windows version of KQemu acclerator Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoffeeFiend Posted November 20, 2006 Share Posted November 20, 2006 Last I tried QEMU it was very SLOW (compared to VMWare). Drivers (for the emulated hardware running in the client OSes) weren't as nice either. Lots of little things. And with the other free virtualization products nowadays (vmware server and player), and other affordable options (e.g. parallels workstation for 50$), I just see no need for it - I'd rather pay for a commercial product than using QEMU if I had to.ESX and VirtualCenter are very nice if you have lots of monster servers with infiniband, an iSCSI SAN and all. But that nice hardware plus the software (thousands of $ per server) is just too expensive for most users (for those, there's GSX - reincarnated in a free app that's very good too). Either ways, it's totally overkill for my needs.No mentions of Parallels Workstation or Xen yet? (nor Cygwin or MinGW either?) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now