Is anyone here using Vmware?
My Win2k machine is getting a bit flaky so I'm looking at buying some new hardware (system unit only probably) and setting it up as a Linux box with Win2k running in Vmware. This would replace my existing two machines running Slackware Linux and Win2k.
I know there are some issues with running Vmware on a Slackware Linux box but these seem fairly easy to overcome, they are basically only to do with the startup scrips (BSD versus SysV).
Does anyone here have any experience of doing this? In particular how good is the hardware support for Win2k in VMware, I want to be able to use a scanner from Win2k in particular.
I suppose I ought to ask about good hardware too but I'll make that another thread.
cl@isbd.net wrote:
Is anyone here using Vmware?
Yes: vmware-server and (separately) vmware (full, not player) on Ubuntu.
Does anyone here have any experience of doing this? In particular how good is the hardware support for Win2k in VMware, I want to be able to use a scanner from Win2k in particular.
If the hardware is USB or parallel port based (as I assume your scanner is) then it ought to work just fine on VMware player at least. Basically, assuming you have it set up right anything you plug in to USB while VMWare has focus will get passed seamlessly to the virtual machine. Not sure how that would work with the server version but it wouldn't make sense for you to use it anyway. As far as I know player would work the same, except that it's not quite so easy to create a new VM using it (but not impossible).
Things to be aware of if you're not used to the VMWare approach is that everything that your Win2k install will see is the VMWare virtual hardware, not the real hardware. So amongst other things, even with a really good graphics card your VM will be limited to standard 2D stuff (no DirectX support, or at least none that's worth writing about).
Since you're looking at new hardware anyway, I would at least make sure that it will run Xen properly and allow full virtualisation that way; its probably too early just yet to actually use Xen for a Windows install but that may be a better long term goal.
On Thu, Sep 07, 2006 at 08:50:37PM +0100, Mark Rogers wrote:
cl@isbd.net wrote:
Is anyone here using Vmware?
Yes: vmware-server and (separately) vmware (full, not player) on Ubuntu.
Does anyone here have any experience of doing this? In particular how good is the hardware support for Win2k in VMware, I want to be able to use a scanner from Win2k in particular.
If the hardware is USB or parallel port based (as I assume your scanner is) then it ought to work just fine on VMware player at least. Basically, assuming you have it set up right anything you plug in to USB while VMWare has focus will get passed seamlessly to the virtual machine. Not sure how that would work with the server version but it wouldn't make sense for you to use it anyway. As far as I know player would work the same, except that it's not quite so easy to create a new VM using it (but not impossible).
I'm not quite clear on the difference between VM Player and VM Server. If I run on a 'real' Linux box can both allow me to have virtual Linux and Win2k machines running? If they can both do this what is the actual difference? What is "creating a new VM" if it's not setting up a Win2k or Linux virtual machine?
Things to be aware of if you're not used to the VMWare approach is that everything that your Win2k install will see is the VMWare virtual hardware, not the real hardware. So amongst other things, even with a really good graphics card your VM will be limited to standard 2D stuff (no DirectX support, or at least none that's worth writing about).
That shouldn't be an issue for me as I'm not doing any high powered graphics stuff at all.
Since you're looking at new hardware anyway, I would at least make sure that it will run Xen properly and allow full virtualisation that way; its probably too early just yet to actually use Xen for a Windows install but that may be a better long term goal.
Good idea, thanks, and for all the other advice and comments.
On Thu, 2006-09-07 at 22:45 +0100, cl@isbd.net wrote:
I'm not quite clear on the difference between VM Player and VM Server. If I run on a 'real' Linux box can both allow me to have virtual Linux and Win2k machines running? If they can both do this what is the actual difference? What is "creating a new VM" if it's not setting up a Win2k or Linux virtual machine?
VM Player can only boot an existing VMware system image (by default VMware creates a virtual filesystem in an image file) It can't create a new blank virtual machine into which you can install a system.
Also (from memory I don't use it as I have a few VM Workstation licenses) you can't create new virtual devices and add them to an existing machine with VM Player.
So it's fine to use to run a virtual machine you have built with one of the other products. I think it may also be lacking some of the more clever snapshot/non persistent disk/VM Team options of Workstation and Server
On Thu, Sep 07, 2006 at 11:40:46PM +0100, Wayne Stallwood wrote:
On Thu, 2006-09-07 at 22:45 +0100, cl@isbd.net wrote:
I'm not quite clear on the difference between VM Player and VM Server. If I run on a 'real' Linux box can both allow me to have virtual Linux and Win2k machines running? If they can both do this what is the actual difference? What is "creating a new VM" if it's not setting up a Win2k or Linux virtual machine?
VM Player can only boot an existing VMware system image (by default VMware creates a virtual filesystem in an image file) It can't create a new blank virtual machine into which you can install a system.
OK, I *think* I understand.
That essentially means that VM Player is essentially useless unless you also have at least VM Server somewhere to create an image. This isn't at all clear from the VM site, it sounds as if downloading VM Player is something that, by itself, might be useful. Are any of the 'ready made' system images from the VM site useful?
If I download VM Server is that all I need? I'm only going to run this on one machine, at least initially. I see then that having got it up and running on one machine I could then run the images I've created on another machine by using VM player there, is that right?
I definitely feel that it's very poorly explained on the VM site, and that 'server' isn't really a good name for VM Server.
Also (from memory I don't use it as I have a few VM Workstation licenses) you can't create new virtual devices and add them to an existing machine with VM Player.
So it's fine to use to run a virtual machine you have built with one of the other products. I think it may also be lacking some of the more clever snapshot/non persistent disk/VM Team options of Workstation and Server
Thanks for all the information and help.
One more (more directly Linux related) question:-
How difficult is it to create VM system images of 'non supported' operating systems? I run Slackware which being BSD'ish rather than SysV'ish isn't much like any of the supported Linuxs. I've found (via Google) how to install VM Server on Slackware, it's basically hacking and then unhacking the /etc/rc.d scripts.
However I'm not quite clear of the impact for creating system images. If I try and install Slackware as an image will I come across any big problems because it's "not supported" orshould it work without too much hassle? My *guess* is that there should be no problem because it's a pretty standard Linux with a normal kernel and everything so from the host's point of view will look like any other Linux OS.
cl@isbd.net wrote:
That essentially means that VM Player is essentially useless unless you also have at least VM Server somewhere to create an image. This isn't at all clear from the VM site, it sounds as if downloading VM Player is something that, by itself, might be useful. Are any of the 'ready made' system images from the VM site useful?
Mostly yes to all of the above. The point is that it allows people to create a share VMs and have "normal" people use them. So (for example) you can download a pre-made IPCop image to play with, or whatever. There are a lot of pre-made images out there to play with.
The interesting thing is that ultimately all you're doing is playing with a pre-installed (virtual) PC, so you can re-install it, and you can probably find a "bare" virtual machine to install to, from within VMPlayer (well that's my understanding anyway). You just can't change its hardware config.
Or you can create the image using server, or using the 30-day trial of the workstation product. The images are transferable between products (and between PCs).
I definitely feel that it's very poorly explained on the VM site, and that 'server' isn't really a good name for VM Server.
I agree on the first but not the second: it really does operate as a server. I perhaps didn't describe it very well.
How difficult is it to create VM system images of 'non supported' operating systems?
Generally no problem. You have a virtual machine, you an do what you like with it. The issue is drivers. A basic VM tends to have hardware that is well supported by all distros these days, but ultimately if your virtual ethernet card has no driver for your distro then you're stuck. The hardware it emulates should be on the site somewhere but I'll look it up if you're stuff (I'm rushing this emai as I should be somewhere else right now!)
I would be *very* surprised if you had any problems getting slackware running. Indeed, google for "vmware slackware appliance" and you'll find some Slackware-based virtual machines (you'd probably want to roll your own though).
VMWare mean "supported" in the sense of "it may well work but our support department can't help if it doesn't". Since the free product presumably isn't "supported" in that sense anyway it makes little difference. By emulating a full PC with a full set of hardware, anything which has drivers for that hardware should just work. Just remember its the emulated hardware that matters, not your own.
On Fri, Sep 08, 2006 at 09:20:36AM +0100, Mark Rogers wrote: [snip useful stuff, thanks!]
I definitely feel that it's very poorly explained on the VM site, and that 'server' isn't really a good name for VM Server.
I agree on the first but not the second: it really does operate as a server. I perhaps didn't describe it very well.
I hadn't realised the relationship between VM Server and VM workstation, given these two then 'server' does make sense. The odd thing (that I found confusing anyway) is that VM Server is free whereas VM Worksation costs $189.
By the way VM Server doesn't require VM Workstation does it? VM Server is a complete standalone product?
How difficult is it to create VM system images of 'non supported' operating systems?Generally no problem. You have a virtual machine, you an do what you like with it. The issue is drivers. A basic VM tends to have hardware that is well supported by all distros these days, but ultimately if your virtual ethernet card has no driver for your distro then you're stuck. The hardware it emulates should be on the site somewhere but I'll look it up if you're stuff (I'm rushing this emai as I should be somewhere else right now!)
Presumably then one just chooses well supported hardware for one's virtual machine - I assume it doesn't have to match the actual hardware on the host machine does it?
I would be *very* surprised if you had any problems getting slackware running. Indeed, google for "vmware slackware appliance" and you'll find some Slackware-based virtual machines (you'd probably want to roll your own though).
OK, thanks.
VMWare mean "supported" in the sense of "it may well work but our support department can't help if it doesn't". Since the free product presumably isn't "supported" in that sense anyway it makes little difference.
Yes, that's what I assumed it meant in this context, slightly different from the situation with VM Server where the installation actually interacts with the OS it's being installed on.
By emulating a full PC with a full set of hardware, anythingwhich has drivers for that hardware should just work. Just remember its the emulated hardware that matters, not your own.
Presumably there must be *some* correlation between the emulated hardware and the host PC hardware. I.e. you can't emulate an NIC unless the underlying hardware actually has a network connection of some sort (or at least the emulated NIC won't work unless you have an actual network connection).
Thanks for all the excellent and helpful feedback on this by the way, it's very useful.
cl@isbd.net wrote:
I hadn't realised the relationship between VM Server and VM workstation, given these two then 'server' does make sense. The odd thing (that I found confusing anyway) is that VM Server is free whereas VM Worksation costs $189.
Depends on the motives for releasing it.
Xen is competition for VM Server (not workstation). Major companies using it will want support and additional features in the (much) more expensive GSX/ESX products, so there probably aren't many sales lost by giving VM Server away.
Player was released as a way to drive Workstation sales, I guess.
By the way VM Server doesn't require VM Workstation does it? VM Server is a complete standalone product?
Yes, completely separate.
Presumably then one just chooses well supported hardware for one's virtual machine - I assume it doesn't have to match the actual hardware on the host machine does it?
The hardware is (more or less) fixed. You can find the specs on the VM website. Ie it always emulates the one type of ethernet card, the one video hardware, the one SCSI (or IDE) disk interface, etc. You can choose whether your disks are (virtual) SCSI or IDE connected, and you can decide whether to have an ethernet card (or more than one), but that's about it.
However, so many distro developers will have made use of VMWare in the past that the vast majority ship with drivers for VM.
Yes, that's what I assumed it meant in this context, slightly different from the situation with VM Server where the installation actually interacts with the OS it's being installed on.
Not sure what you mean here.
Both server and workstation (and player) are applications which sit on top of a "host" O/S, and they'll only run if that O/S works as a host. The range of choices here is wide but not exhaustive.
Once running all products emulate a complete PC. That PC is "built" from a fairly narrow set of (virtual) hardware, although which bits you select (and how many of them) is up to you. That PC is a standard x86 and will support any x86-based O/S that has drivers for its set of hardware. Here the range of options is much wider.
Presumably there must be *some* correlation between the emulated hardware and the host PC hardware. I.e. you can't emulate an NIC unless the underlying hardware actually has a network connection of some sort (or at least the emulated NIC won't work unless you have an actual network connection).
Yes and no.
You can run a virtual network between your host PC and your virtual PC(s) without having a real network card. Your (host) PC will have its own IP address on the VMWare virtual network interface, and each VM will also have their own IP addresses, and you can talk between them. If you have a real network then you have more options (like the virtual machines bridged to the real network so other PCs on your LAN can access them as if they were real PCs).
You can similarly have a CD/DVD drive in the virtual machine mapped to your physical drive, but you can also map it to an ISO (very useful for VM installs) so you don't actually need a physical drive. The same applies to floppy disk drives.
You would really benefit from downloading the 30-day trial of the workstation product and getting your head around these things - it's much clearer with one in front of you than "in theory". Then try server and see how it compares.
[next email...] OK, but I already run an X server on my Win2k machine to view my Linux machine's desktop so, presumably, the problems one encounters are akin to the problems of getting xdm working (which can be non-trivial).
Yes, in that its just a bit more complicated. VM Workstation is download and install, where VM Server is download, read the docs, install. Don't get me wrong: it's not hard to install, just not as simple as Workstation. That is at least 50% because its harder to get you rhead around what its doing, which is why I say try workstation first.
So you're saying that you think USB may work better when run using Player than using Server? Since my purpose is to use only one machine for everything is it possible/realistic to have Server and Player running on the same machine? Or would I run Server to create my images and then shut it down and run player to use them?
I have no experience of USB on the server. Since the VMs it creates are the same as those created by workstation I guess it must support USB. It probably isn't quite as seamless though, or at least its just more complicated. (Consider server and console on different PCs: which USB ports should it use? You don't want to go to the server to plug in your thumb drive, nor do you want to connect your printer to your local PC.)
VMWare player will not install on a machine that has workstation installed, so I've never tried it. Whether it will install alongside server I don't know. However, I do have workstation and console on the same PC, and I'm pretty sure I can run them both together if I wish (I'd probably need some more RAM though!)
Ah, OK, so it's an 'X like' thing. (With a major difference being that the 'server' and 'client' are reversed when compared with X !!)
"Like", but not "the same as". Not sure why you say the client/server are reversed though: when I run console on my desktop it acts as a window into the virtual machine running on the server. The virtual machine always runs on the server.
Looking at the Xen site(s) it seems that it's sort of at a beta stage if I understand it correctly.
I think so. So I recommend looking at the hardware (specifically CPU type) requirements, and using that when building your new box, but stick to VM for now.
[[Non-techie overview of Xen:
Xen runs as a "hypervisor" at the highest CPU level, with its virtual machines running at a lower level. However, the highest level is traditionally reserved for the O/S, which is what Xen is, but its also what the virtual machine O/S's are, and they also expect to run at that level. Unlike VM, Xen runs the virtual machines directly on the real hardware, so this causes a problem as the virtual machines conflict with Xen. (With VM the O/S sees a virtual CPU so there is no problem.)
Now if you have the source code for the O/S you can change it so it runs happily at the next level down. Hence you can run Linux (with a suitable kernel), but not Windows, using any Xen install.
However, some new CPUs have a new, higher, level which allows Xen to sit there and still run the virtual O/S at the level it expects. This allows an unpatched O/S to work, such as any Linux (without needing a specific kernel), or indeed Windows.
That's all from memory, and probably over simplified and even wrong in places, but its why I suggest checking the Xen website for suitable CPUs. ]]
On Fri, Sep 08, 2006 at 10:44:29AM +0100, Mark Rogers wrote:
However, so many distro developers will have made use of VMWare in the past that the vast majority ship with drivers for VM.
Yes, that's what I assumed it meant in this context, slightly different from the situation with VM Server where the installation actually interacts with the OS it's being installed on.
Not sure what you mean here.
Both server and workstation (and player) are applications which sit on top of a "host" O/S, and they'll only run if that O/S works as a host. The range of choices here is wide but not exhaustive.
Yes, so they *do* make assumptions about the layout of (for example) the rc files on a Linux box and, to install slackware, one needs to do a bit of creative moving/modificaition of the rc scripts.
Once running all products emulate a complete PC. That PC is "built" from a fairly narrow set of (virtual) hardware, although which bits you select (and how many of them) is up to you. That PC is a standard x86 and will support any x86-based O/S that has drivers for its set of hardware. Here the range of options is much wider.
That's how I understand it, but the Vmware site still says it only supports SysV based Linux variants as virtual systems. From what you're saying (and as I understand it) this is not like for the Server/Player installation which simply won't work on Slackware without some help. Installing Slackware on a Vmware virtual machine will probably work without any mucking about, it's just "not supported".
Presumably there must be *some* correlation between the emulated hardware and the host PC hardware. I.e. you can't emulate an NIC unless the underlying hardware actually has a network connection of some sort (or at least the emulated NIC won't work unless you have an actual network connection).
Yes and no.
You can run a virtual network between your host PC and your virtual PC(s) without having a real network card. Your (host) PC will have its own IP address on the VMWare virtual network interface, and each VM will also have their own IP addresses, and you can talk between them. If you have a real network then you have more options (like the virtual machines bridged to the real network so other PCs on your LAN can access them as if they were real PCs).
You can similarly have a CD/DVD drive in the virtual machine mapped to your physical drive, but you can also map it to an ISO (very useful for VM installs) so you don't actually need a physical drive. The same applies to floppy disk drives.
You would really benefit from downloading the 30-day trial of the workstation product and getting your head around these things - it's much clearer with one in front of you than "in theory". Then try server and see how it compares.
Yes, that sounds a good idea, I'll do that tonight (though the hardware may creak a little, espcially re: memory).
Ah, OK, so it's an 'X like' thing. (With a major difference being that the 'server' and 'client' are reversed when compared with X !!)
"Like", but not "the same as". Not sure why you say the client/server are reversed though: when I run console on my desktop it acts as a window into the virtual machine running on the server. The virtual machine always runs on the server.
Remember with X the *server* is the machine you have in front of you with the display on it, the *client* is the (probably) remote machine that is actually running the program you are using.
Thanks again for all the very useful help from various sources, I'll now go away for a while and probably try Vmware Workstation. Wait for the wails when it all goes wrong! :-)
On Fri, Sep 08, 2006 at 09:51:05AM +0100, cl@isbd.net wrote:
I hadn't realised the relationship between VM Server and VM workstation, given these two then 'server' does make sense. The odd thing (that I found confusing anyway) is that VM Server is free whereas VM Worksation costs $189.
VMWare Server doesn't have as many "features" as Workstation, workstation allows you to take multiple "snapshots" of a running vmware install and then revert to them etc. but VMWare server only allows you to take 1 snapshot to revert to. I think workstation also allows you more flexibility in exporting machine images etc.
Adam
cl@isbd.net wrote:
I'm not quite clear on the difference between VM Player and VM Server. If I run on a 'real' Linux box can both allow me to have virtual Linux and Win2k machines running? If they can both do this what is the actual difference? What is "creating a new VM" if it's not setting up a Win2k or Linux virtual machine?
Wayne has already answered the bit about Player.
vmware-server is very different. If I describe how I use it maybe it'll make sense...
I have a headless Ubuntu-based server running vmware-server buried deep in my "server room" (aka broom cupboard). It runs several virtual machines, one of which (FC5 based) is in constant use, with others (like a 2003 server) are there for when I need them, and are either paused or shutdown the rest of the time.
Making changes to a VM (or creating a new one) means firing up the console software on my desktop (either Linux or Windows based), and connecting to the server. The front end you get is very much like the normal VMWare workstation product, its just decoupled from the server part. If you want to insert a CD to the VM, that CD can go into your desktop PC's drive or the server's drive, for example. So the way it handles hardware is a little different from the way Workstation does things.
Of-course it's quite possible to run the console on the same machine as the server, and I would guess that the server does have USB support (maybe even allowing it to be mapped to the console? I can't remember off the top of my head, but it would be useful for stuff like thumb drives), but I've never tried it.
Installing server is also not as easy as installing the console - that's the main reason I have it on Ubuntu server (found a good howto). That said I started with one of the early betas, its probably easier/better documented now.
I'd probably suggest avoiding server unless you already have some familiarity with VMWare, but if you know your way around workstation then vmware-server really is an excellent product. Sure it would be nice if it free in more ways than one, which is why I suggested Xen as an alternative; I'd like to get that working myself but when I set this up Xen3 was just about to be released, and there was very little documentation for getting it working (I did try briefly but didn't have sufficient time to get it working). Familiarity with VMWare on the desktop made it a lot easier to set up vmware-server than Xen. That said I would *love* to see a Xen install in action and then have another go at an installation.
PS: Regarding parallel ports; Wayne suggested that the support wasn't great, but in my experience parallel and serial ports work fine. I haven't tried a scanner on them, but I have tried hardware protection keys ("dongles") on them and found that they work flawlessly, which I was surprised by.
A quick word on licensing: to meet the terms of MS' licence you'll require a separate licence for each MS-based VM, and OEM licences are non-transferable between machines. Suddenly having an almost limitless supply of (virtual) PCs makes you realise how good it is working with FOSS! If MS (and others) were actually able to properly enforce their licences, FOSS would have a *much* larger market share.
On Fri, Sep 08, 2006 at 08:43:30AM +0100, Mark Rogers wrote:
cl@isbd.net wrote:
I'm not quite clear on the difference between VM Player and VM Server. If I run on a 'real' Linux box can both allow me to have virtual Linux and Win2k machines running? If they can both do this what is the actual difference? What is "creating a new VM" if it's not setting up a Win2k or Linux virtual machine?
Wayne has already answered the bit about Player.
I *think* I understand what Player is now, it can be used to run 'already created' VM system images but that's all. Thinking about it it's probably not very useful except in an environment where there are a lot of pretty similar machines as, presumably, an image created on one machine will only run satisfactorily on another where the hardware is *reasonably* similar.
vmware-server is very different. If I describe how I use it maybe it'll make sense...
I have a headless Ubuntu-based server running vmware-server buried deep in my "server room" (aka broom cupboard). It runs several virtual machines, one of which (FC5 based) is in constant use, with others (like a 2003 server) are there for when I need them, and are either paused or shutdown the rest of the time.
Yes, OK, that makes sense.
Making changes to a VM (or creating a new one) means firing up the console software on my desktop (either Linux or Windows based), and connecting to the server. The front end you get is very much like the normal VMWare workstation product, its just decoupled from the server part. If you want to insert a CD to the VM, that CD can go into your desktop PC's drive or the server's drive, for example. So the way it handles hardware is a little different from the way Workstation does things.
Ah, I'm beginning (just) to see the light. The workstation product is a "run it and use it on a single machine" version of VMware, the server version is remotely accessible. Again (as I said in a previous reply) this isn't *at all* clear from the VMware site (not to me anyway, maybe I'm thick).
Since VMware Server is free and VMware Workstation is $189 there's no question which I'll choose! :-)
Of-course it's quite possible to run the console on the same machine as the server, and I would guess that the server does have USB support (maybe even allowing it to be mapped to the console? I can't remember off the top of my head, but it would be useful for stuff like thumb drives), but I've never tried it.
Is the 'console' just a web/html interface? I've found that VMware Server for Windows requires IIS (lots of money again) which suggests that it is. I was going to try VMware on Win2k just to see what it's like but requiring IIS makes that not very practical. I have Apache and all running on my Linux box so should be OK there.
Installing server is also not as easy as installing the console - that's the main reason I have it on Ubuntu server (found a good howto). That said I started with one of the early betas, its probably easier/better documented now.
By "installing the console" do you mean VMware Workstation?
I'd probably suggest avoiding server unless you already have some familiarity with VMWare, but if you know your way around workstation then vmware-server really is an excellent product. Sure it would be nice if it free in more ways than one, which is why I suggested Xen as an alternative; I'd like to get that working myself but when I set this up Xen3 was just about to be released, and there was very little documentation for getting it working (I did try briefly but didn't have sufficient time to get it working). Familiarity with VMWare on the desktop made it a lot easier to set up vmware-server than Xen. That said I would *love* to see a Xen install in action and then have another go at an installation.
It doesn't appear that Xen yet supports non-Linux system images to any extent yet though which rather rules it out for my requirements.
PS: Regarding parallel ports; Wayne suggested that the support wasn't great, but in my experience parallel and serial ports work fine. I haven't tried a scanner on them, but I have tried hardware protection keys ("dongles") on them and found that they work flawlessly, which I was surprised by.
Parallel ports are a non-issue for me, both my printers are on the network, and the scanner is USB or Firewire.
A quick word on licensing: to meet the terms of MS' licence you'll require a separate licence for each MS-based VM, and OEM licences are non-transferable between machines. Suddenly having an almost limitless supply of (virtual) PCs makes you realise how good it is working with FOSS! If MS (and others) were actually able to properly enforce their licences, FOSS would have a *much* larger market share.
Yes, I realise that I'm not supposed to make dozens of installations from one set of Win2k CDs. I have a couple of non-OEM Win2k CDs though so can legitimately install them on 'new' hardware as long as I get rid of the old installation.
cl@isbd.net wrote:
I *think* I understand what Player is now, it can be used to run 'already created' VM system images but that's all. Thinking about it it's probably not very useful except in an environment where there are a lot of pretty similar machines as, presumably, an image created on one machine will only run satisfactorily on another where the hardware is *reasonably* similar.
It always emulates the same hardware, and that's the key: no matter what your network card your virtual PC will always have a virtual AMD PCInet card (I think) in it. So the virtual machines are fully portable, between installs, between PCs, between people.
Ah, I'm beginning (just) to see the light. The workstation product is a "run it and use it on a single machine" version of VMware, the server version is remotely accessible.
Yes, but there's more to it than that. The server version is more like running an X server and lots of thin clients, therefore its harder to do (beyond your typical user, I would expect, but I doubt you'd have a problem).
Since VMware Server is free and VMware Workstation is $189 there's no question which I'll choose! :-)
You may have problems with the USB side of things. That said you should be able to transfer the VM to player if you do.
Is the 'console' just a web/html interface? I've found that VMware Server for Windows requires IIS (lots of money again) which suggests that it is.
No, the console is almost exactly the same interface you get running the workstation product. It's just that you can shut it down without it killing the machines (which continue running on the server). No idea why it requires IIS (I've only installed it on Linux); maybe it has a web interface I don't know about. But the main interface is like running an X-windows client; you get the desktop of the remote PC on your PC and use it as you would if you were sat at the "virtual" PC.
By "installing the console" do you mean VMware Workstation?
No, the console is the front-end client bit of the server-client model. (Both a are free.) And you can use the Windows client to talk to a Linux server and vice versa should you need to. If you install the client ("console") on the same PC as the server you get something reasonably similar to the workstation, but just much harder to install and with higher overheads, and lot of features you're not using and probably without some you want.
It doesn't appear that Xen yet supports non-Linux system images to any extent yet though which rather rules it out for my requirements.
My understanding is that with the right hardware it will support Windows. I'm not an expert here, someone else might know more.
On Fri, Sep 08, 2006 at 09:30:31AM +0100, Mark Rogers wrote:
cl@isbd.net wrote:
I *think* I understand what Player is now, it can be used to run 'already created' VM system images but that's all. Thinking about it it's probably not very useful except in an environment where there are a lot of pretty similar machines as, presumably, an image created on one machine will only run satisfactorily on another where the hardware is *reasonably* similar.
It always emulates the same hardware, and that's the key: no matter what your network card your virtual PC will always have a virtual AMD PCInet card (I think) in it. So the virtual machines are fully portable, between installs, between PCs, between people.
Surely only to the extent that the PCs that you're running the virtual machine on have the right *sort* of device. E.g. you're not going to get anywhere with a virtual machine that has a DVD drive unless you're running it on a machine that actually has a DVD drive.
Ah, I'm beginning (just) to see the light. The workstation product is a "run it and use it on a single machine" version of VMware, the server version is remotely accessible.
Yes, but there's more to it than that. The server version is more like running an X server and lots of thin clients, therefore its harder to do (beyond your typical user, I would expect, but I doubt you'd have a problem).
OK, but I already run an X server on my Win2k machine to view my Linux machine's desktop so, presumably, the problems one encounters are akin to the problems of getting xdm working (which can be non-trivial).
Since VMware Server is free and VMware Workstation is $189 there's no question which I'll choose! :-)
You may have problems with the USB side of things. That said you should be able to transfer the VM to player if you do.
So you're saying that you think USB may work better when run using Player than using Server? Since my purpose is to use only one machine for everything is it possible/realistic to have Server and Player running on the same machine? Or would I run Server to create my images and then shut it down and run player to use them?
Is the 'console' just a web/html interface? I've found that VMware Server for Windows requires IIS (lots of money again) which suggests that it is.
No, the console is almost exactly the same interface you get running the workstation product. It's just that you can shut it down without it killing the machines (which continue running on the server). No idea why it requires IIS (I've only installed it on Linux); maybe it has a web interface I don't know about. But the main interface is like running an X-windows client; you get the desktop of the remote PC on your PC and use it as you would if you were sat at the "virtual" PC.
Ah, OK, so it's an 'X like' thing. (With a major difference being that the 'server' and 'client' are reversed when compared with X !!)
By "installing the console" do you mean VMware Workstation?
No, the console is the front-end client bit of the server-client model. (Both a are free.) And you can use the Windows client to talk to a Linux server and vice versa should you need to. If you install the client ("console") on the same PC as the server you get something reasonably similar to the workstation, but just much harder to install and with higher overheads, and lot of features you're not using and probably without some you want.
OK, in the "something like X" context this makes sense of course.
It doesn't appear that Xen yet supports non-Linux system images to any extent yet though which rather rules it out for my requirements.
My understanding is that with the right hardware it will support Windows. I'm not an expert here, someone else might know more.
Looking at the Xen site(s) it seems that it's sort of at a beta stage if I understand it correctly.
.I *think* I understand what Player is now, it can be used to run 'already created' VM system images but that's all. Thinking about it it's probably not very useful except in an environment where there are a lot of pretty similar machines as, presumably, an image created on one machine will only run satisfactorily on another where the hardware is *reasonably* similar.
As a note on this one, to support a few "windows-only" apps that wine wasn't having (and in light of an abundance of disk space), I've happily taken a VMWare image (It may have been a syllable OS one, and this was purely to make the image creation process instant) with decent hardware and ram from an LXF cover disk, booted into it, then reset it with the XP install disk in the hard drive, installed XP Pro on it and closed/saved/backed up.
I then used that as a basis for multiple VMs with different setups for those windows-only apps. Everything was hunky dory.
If windows XP happily installs and runs on a fairly low-spec machine using nothing more than VMWare player, 2k probably will too.
Ten
On Friday 08 September 2006 10:36, Ten wrote:
.I *think* I understand what Player is now, it can be used to run 'already created' VM system images but that's all. Thinking about it it's probably not very useful except in an environment where there are a lot of pretty similar machines as, presumably, an image created on one machine will only run satisfactorily on another where the hardware is *reasonably* similar.
As a note on this one, to support a few "windows-only" apps that wine wasn't having (and in light of an abundance of disk space), I've happily taken a VMWare image (It may have been a syllable OS one, and this was purely to make the image creation process instant) with decent hardware and ram from an LXF cover disk, booted into it, then reset it with the XP install disk in the hard drive, installed XP Pro on it and closed/saved/backed up.
I then used that as a basis for multiple VMs with different setups for those windows-only apps. Everything was hunky dory.
If windows XP happily installs and runs on a fairly low-spec machine using nothing more than VMWare player, 2k probably will too.
Ten
Ah yes, one thing I should add to this post is that I did locate and install VMware's tools/drivers for the guest OS.
On Fri, Sep 08, 2006 at 10:36:09AM +0100, Ten wrote:
.I *think* I understand what Player is now, it can be used to run 'already created' VM system images but that's all. Thinking about it it's probably not very useful except in an environment where there are a lot of pretty similar machines as, presumably, an image created on one machine will only run satisfactorily on another where the hardware is *reasonably* similar.
As a note on this one, to support a few "windows-only" apps that wine wasn't having (and in light of an abundance of disk space), I've happily taken a VMWare image (It may have been a syllable OS one, and this was purely to make the image creation process instant) with decent hardware and ram from an LXF cover disk, booted into it, then reset it with the XP install disk in the hard drive, installed XP Pro on it and closed/saved/backed up.
I then used that as a basis for multiple VMs with different setups for those windows-only apps. Everything was hunky dory.
If windows XP happily installs and runs on a fairly low-spec machine using nothing more than VMWare player, 2k probably will too.
That's excellent information, thanks. So I can get a VMWare image like you have, run it on a Linux host (using just VM Player) and (if Win2k works like XP) install Windows on it and run it?
On Friday 08 September 2006 12:50, cl@isbd.net wrote:
On Fri, Sep 08, 2006 at 10:36:09AM +0100, Ten wrote:
.I *think* I understand what Player is now, it can be used to run 'already created' VM system images but that's all. Thinking about it it's probably not very useful except in an environment where there are a lot of pretty similar machines as, presumably, an image created on one machine will only run satisfactorily on another where the hardware is *reasonably* similar.
As a note on this one, to support a few "windows-only" apps that wine wasn't having (and in light of an abundance of disk space), I've happily taken a VMWare image (It may have been a syllable OS one, and this was purely to make the image creation process instant) with decent hardware and ram from an LXF cover disk, booted into it, then reset it with the XP install disk in the hard drive, installed XP Pro on it and closed/saved/backed up.
I then used that as a basis for multiple VMs with different setups for those windows-only apps. Everything was hunky dory.
If windows XP happily installs and runs on a fairly low-spec machine using nothing more than VMWare player, 2k probably will too.
That's excellent information, thanks. So I can get a VMWare image like you have, run it on a Linux host (using just VM Player) and (if Win2k works like XP) install Windows on it and run it?
Yep. I was able to install and run it on a very modest machine with fair performance,use USB devices etc.
You'll need to install the VMware bits for the guest OS to get best use out of it. To do this you can wget http://download3.vmware.com/software/wkst/VMware-workstation-5.5.0-18463.tar... and extract the windows.iso from it.
Mount that windows.iso as a cd in your guest windows installation and use the ensuing windows installer.
Have fun.
.I *think* I understand what Player is now, it can be used to run 'already created' VM system images but that's all. Thinking about
it
it's probably not very useful except in an environment where there
are
a lot of pretty similar machines as, presumably, an image created on one machine will only run satisfactorily on another where the
hardware
is *reasonably* similar.
No the whole point of VMware is that the hardware can be nothing like the host the guest was created on. (ok it has to be x86 arch and have enough diskpace to contain the image, but that's it)
On Thu, 2006-09-07 at 11:32 +0100, cl@isbd.net wrote:
Does anyone here have any experience of doing this? In particular how good is the hardware support for Win2k in VMware, I want to be able to use a scanner from Win2k in particular. =
I have never used VMware on BSD but I use the Workstation version pretty extensively on various flavours of Linux.
I have also in the past used the previous Server versions for large scale DRP projects (and in one instance for live DR)
Vmware support for W2K is pretty much perfect. It comes with drivers to assist performance in the virtual machine (although pretty much everything will work without them)
What you do need to be aware of is that the free server product is optimised for network and background services.
For optimum desktop performance you really need the workstation product. (that said there should be nothing stopping you from building an image in the trial workstation or free server products and then running it in the free player)
I am not sure what the support for external hardware is like on the server product (I don't think it supports all the port loop-throughs that the workstation products support)
It is possible to connect a scanner via USB to a virtual machine, however you will only get USB1 and there are some gotcha's (at least on the workstation products I can't remember how it works on the server versions) In that the virtual machine only sees the usb device if it was the active window when the device was plugged in. This is by design to allow you to choose whether the host or one of the guests sees the device you are trying to use.
Parallel port scanners are a no-no and SCSI scanners probably ditto (VMware does support SCSI but AFAIK only for disk/tape access using pass-through drivers)
Hope that helps Wayne
On Thu, Sep 07, 2006 at 09:43:39PM +0100, Wayne Stallwood wrote:
On Thu, 2006-09-07 at 11:32 +0100, cl@isbd.net wrote:
Does anyone here have any experience of doing this? In particular how good is the hardware support for Win2k in VMware, I want to be able to use a scanner from Win2k in particular. =
I have never used VMware on BSD but I use the Workstation version pretty extensively on various flavours of Linux.
I have also in the past used the previous Server versions for large scale DRP projects (and in one instance for live DR)
Vmware support for W2K is pretty much perfect. It comes with drivers to assist performance in the virtual machine (although pretty much everything will work without them)
What you do need to be aware of is that the free server product is optimised for network and background services.
For optimum desktop performance you really need the workstation product. (that said there should be nothing stopping you from building an image in the trial workstation or free server products and then running it in the free player)
I am not sure what the support for external hardware is like on the server product (I don't think it supports all the port loop-throughs that the workstation products support)
It is possible to connect a scanner via USB to a virtual machine, however you will only get USB1 and there are some gotcha's (at least on the workstation products I can't remember how it works on the server versions) In that the virtual machine only sees the usb device if it was the active window when the device was plugged in. This is by design to allow you to choose whether the host or one of the guests sees the device you are trying to use.
Parallel port scanners are a no-no and SCSI scanners probably ditto (VMware does support SCSI but AFAIK only for disk/tape access using pass-through drivers)
Thanks for all the info.
It seems to me that I'll take a "suck it and see" approach after getting the new hardware. If Vmware doesn't work for me then I've lost nothing and can just use the new machine in the way I'm using my present one.
I probably don't need "optimum desktop performance", I do nearly all my Linux work in rxvt terminal windows on an fvwm2 desktop. I use very, very few true GUI applications on Linux. The only major one is Firefox really.
On Thu, 2006-09-07 at 22:49 +0100, cl@isbd.net wrote:
It seems to me that I'll take a "suck it and see" approach after getting the new hardware. If Vmware doesn't work for me then I've lost nothing and can just use the new machine in the way I'm using my present one.
I think you will get on with it quite well. I am running Workstation on a AMD 64 with 1GB of Ram. It runs Windows XP well enough that running fullscreen (and excepting 3D graphics) it is very hard to tell..I can leave XP running and still have heavy stuff running on the host machine with little or no perceptible performance loss.
In fact so much so the XP machine often gets left running and forgotten about on the 4th workspace.
On Thu, Sep 07, 2006 at 11:47:23PM +0100, Wayne Stallwood wrote:
On Thu, 2006-09-07 at 22:49 +0100, cl@isbd.net wrote:
It seems to me that I'll take a "suck it and see" approach after getting the new hardware. If Vmware doesn't work for me then I've lost nothing and can just use the new machine in the way I'm using my present one.
I think you will get on with it quite well. I am running Workstation on a AMD 64 with 1GB of Ram. It runs Windows XP well enough that running fullscreen (and excepting 3D graphics) it is very hard to tell..I can leave XP running and still have heavy stuff running on the host machine with little or no perceptible performance loss.
In fact so much so the XP machine often gets left running and forgotten about on the 4th workspace.
That's almost exactly like what I'll be aiming to do.
Currently I run a virtual desktop on my Win2k machine and have my Linux desktop running in one of the Win2k machine's desktops. Sort of like you but the other way about. However my setup requires two machines at the moment as the Linux desktop is displayed using an X server on the Win2k machine and a 'remote' Linux system. If I can do it all on one machine I'll be a hppy bunny.
It also of course means I can create new Slackware (for example) Vmware images and use them to upgrade slackware and then copy my old Slackware configuration across to the new one. That is a very big plus for me as I'm always wondering whether an upgrade is worth the hassle when it involves actually upgrading an existing install, or moving to a different machine.
I think what I may (ultimately) do is install a supported Linux distribution as my Vmware host and then have both my working Slackware system and my 'desktop' Win2k as virtual Vmare images on the host Linux. The host Linux can then remain totally uncustomised (and thus easy to upgrade when it becomes necessary) and I can duplicate/upgrade the images to my heart's content.
-
Adam Bower -
cl＠isbd.net -
Mark Rogers -
Ten -
Wayne Stallwood