I need to create a small VM to run a Linux server on a Windows PC. The server will be headless and provide a web interface so its own memory requirements should be fairly low, so I'm looking for something to run the virtual server with the least resources I can get away with. Ideally I need the host PC (Win7 32-bit 1GB RAM) to still be functional as a PC with the virtual machine running....
On 14 December 2010 13:34, Mark Rogers mark@quarella.co.uk wrote:
I need to create a small VM to run a Linux server on a Windows PC. The server will be headless and provide a web interface so its own memory requirements should be fairly low, so I'm looking for something to run the virtual server with the least resources I can get away with. Ideally I need the host PC (Win7 32-bit 1GB RAM) to still be functional as a PC with the virtual machine running....
VMware Server?
http://www.vmware.com/products/server/
Regards,
Martyn
On 14/12/10 13:40, Martyn Drake wrote:
VMware Server?
It's a definite possibility!
However I can't find any good comparisons. VMWare Player would also suffice, for example (I can create the VM with something else, that's not a problem). I have VirtualBox running on several of my PCs (mostly Linux boxes though) and quite like that, and of-course I could even look at Microsoft's VirtualPC (no idea what it's like, never tried it). And of-course there are other alternatives.
In theory, I would imagine that VMWare Player *should* be the best one, as it is just a "player", but I don't know if there's any good facts to back up the common sense.
On 14 December 2010 13:40, Martyn Drake martyn@drake.org.uk wrote:
On 14 December 2010 13:34, Mark Rogers mark@quarella.co.uk wrote:
I need to create a small VM to run a Linux server on a Windows PC. The server will be headless and provide a web interface so its own memory requirements should be fairly low, so I'm looking for something to run the virtual server with the least resources I can get away with. Ideally I need the host PC (Win7 32-bit 1GB RAM) to still be functional as a PC with the virtual machine running....
VMware Server?
I prefer the interface to Sun/Oracle VirtualBox.
Tim.
Tim Green wrote:
On 14 December 2010 13:40, Martyn Drake martyn@drake.org.uk wrote:
On 14 December 2010 13:34, Mark Rogers mark@quarella.co.uk wrote:
I need to create a small VM to run a Linux server on a Windows PC. The server will be headless and provide a web interface so its own memory requirements should be fairly low, so I'm looking for something to run the virtual server with the least resources I can get away with. Ideally I need the host PC (Win7 32-bit 1GB RAM) to still be functional as a PC with the virtual machine running....
VMware Server?
I prefer the interface to Sun/Oracle VirtualBox.
I'll second that. Also, look at turnkey linux for lots of ready-rolled images:
Cheers, Laurie.
On 14/12/10 13:58, Laurie Brown wrote:
Also, look at turnkey linux for lots of ready-rolled images: http://www.turnkeylinux.org/
Interesting site, thanks!
(For this app the image is pretty much ready to run, but there's some interesting things in there for future use!)
+1 for Virtual Box.
I'm sure others are great, it was one of the first I tired. It works and is easy to use so stuck with.
I just thought of another "nice-to-have": I will need to be able to make this virtual machine start with Windows (preferably as a service without needing the user to login), and to have it shut down (paused is fine) when Windows shuts down.
I would guess all packages will offer this in some form or other, but vmware-server might just have the edge?
USB support may turn out to be necessary (it isn't yet, but it's a useful get-out-of-jail-free card to have on hand if I need it).
On 14/12/10 13:40, Martyn Drake wrote:
On 14 December 2010 13:34, Mark Rogersmark@quarella.co.uk wrote
Ideally I need the host PC (Win7 32-bit 1GB RAM) to still be functional as a PC with the virtual machine running....
VMware Server?
I just checked the specs for VMWare Server, and Windows hosts must be server grade, so Win7 is out as a host (or to put it another way, VMWare Server is out!)
On 14 December 2010 14:07, Mark Rogers mark@quarella.co.uk wrote:
I just checked the specs for VMWare Server, and Windows hosts must be server grade, so Win7 is out as a host (or to put it another way, VMWare Server is out!)
Odd, as I'm sure I've ran VMWare Server on Windows 7 just fine.
Regards,
Martyn
On 14/12/10 14:12, Martyn Drake wrote:
Odd, as I'm sure I've ran VMWare Server on Windows 7 just fine.
It's common that I get confused between "unsupported" meaning "you don't have our blessing to do this but it might work" vs "it won't work". But on page 25 of the current readme [1] it says:
Windows Host Operating Systems You must use a Windows server operating system.
.. which is pretty clear cut!
[1] http://www.vmware.com/pdf/vmserver2.pdf
On 14/12/10 14:18, Mark Rogers wrote:
Windows Host Operating Systems You must use a Windows server operating system.
Mind you, whilst on the following page (p26) it says that unsupported Linux hosts may or may not work, it points out that new kernels are not supported until they're tested by VMWare, and after saying "VMware makes every effort to add support for new kernels and distributions in a timely manner" it lists the supported host versions of Ubuntu as all versions 6.06 through 8.04, so their "timely manner" has got them as up to date as April 2008 so far.....
Maybe I can't trust the docs? It doesn't give me huge confidence I have to say! It looks like VMWare Server has stagnated given that the current version (2.0.2) was released over a year ago, which is obviously a shame.
I'd go with the other recommendations and use Virtualbox I think
Or you could rig up something really lightweight with qemu, I have a pocket vm I used to carry around that was entirely portable (i.e would launch on any windows host where I had admin access from the USB stick where it lived)
The only thing I would say is for a Win 7 machine you are really very short on RAM as it is. If you try and dedicate more than 128MB of Ram to that VM things are going to get very sticky for both the host and the guest machines.
On 14/12/10 20:37, Wayne Stallwood wrote:
I'd go with the other recommendations and use Virtualbox I think
That suits me, it was my default choice anyway!
The only thing I would say is for a Win 7 machine you are really very short on RAM as it is. If you try and dedicate more than 128MB of Ram to that VM things are going to get very sticky for both the host and the guest machines.
That's what I thought too. (Basically, how I arrived at where I am now is that I knew the PC, which is already on site, had plenty of RAM, and built the VM in Virtualbox, stuck all the stuff on a DVD to ship to site (I can install it remotely but transferring the files would have taken ages otherwise!) only to discover that the "plenty of RAM" is only 1GB when I go to install.)
That said, I dropped the memory of my VM down to 256MB (it was going to be 512MB), and tried it, and it seems to be working fine with another memory hungry app also running, which the VM will ultimately replace so that will give me some breathing space when I get that far. Mind you, I haven't let it running so I can't draw any serious conclusions just yet.
-
James Bensley -
Laurie Brown -
Mark Rogers -
Martyn Drake -
Tim Green -
Wayne Stallwood