want to learn all about virtualization

A

AMD_Gamer

Fully [H]
Joined
Jan 20, 2002
Messages
18,287
i want to start learning about virtualization and virtual servers, like vmware and all that good stuff since it is starting to become big i understand fully what it is but i have never played around or done any projects with virtual pc, vmware and all that so i want to learn how to use all of it and what the standard software is people use and deploy for vitualization, like what is the difference between vmware workstation, vmware server etc,

im running vista64 with 4gb ram and q6600 so i should be able to run virtualization pretty good.
 
Well, if you want to start learning about server virtualization, downloading some software and trying it out for yourself is a good start. Try VMWare server; it's free and it's much better than Microsoft Virtual PC (which is also free for use).

There are also many other virtualization products out there; some of which are free to download and use. The ones above are the only two I tried so far; however VMWare is generally considered a leader in server virtualization.
 
Sorry to thread jack......but does VMWare Server run on Vista x64 yet? I was pretty sure that workstation runs, but I'm not sure about Server.
 
http://www.virtualbox.org/

Free and stable, I've used it before when I was playing around at school last year. Its not commercial grade like VM ESX or anything but it's a good start. Can do both 32 and 64 bit.
 
bealzz said:
http://www.virtualbox.org/
Click to expand...

I like Vbox. It's a good way to get one's feet wet with virtualization, and great for trying out oddball and vintage OS's. I got to play with OS/2 for the first time in over a decade, and I also got to try out other blasts from the past like OpenStep and BeOS (tho that doesn't run very well). I also tried Plan9 briefly, tho I couldn't get the GUI to work and maybe that's for the better since that OS makes NO sense. Of course Vbox also runs more recent stuff like Vista and Ubuntu and whatnot. Only supports 32-bit guests but that's fine with me.

It doesn't hook too much into the host OS so it doesn't have the ever-present components like VMWare which tends to hang around in memory even when it's not in use. It does have a rough feel to it (much of the better customizations are only available at the command line) but it's definitely a more viable solution than Virtual PC 2007. Win2K8's virtual server implementation looks insane but I haven't seen a real supported guest OS list yet.
 
SockMan! said:
Well, if you want to start learning about server virtualization, downloading some software and trying it out for yourself is a good start. Try VMWare server; it's free and it's much better than Microsoft Virtual PC (which is also free for use).

There are also many other virtualization products out there; some of which are free to download and use. The ones above are the only two I tried so far; however VMWare is generally considered a leader in server virtualization.
Click to expand...

what is the difference between the workstation and server, i assume server is if you want to run multiple virtual machines on the same physical computer and workstation would be for a regular desktop and 1 virtual machine?
 
AMD_Gamer said:
what is the difference between the workstation and server, i assume server is if you want to run multiple virtual machines on the same physical computer and workstation would be for a regular desktop and 1 virtual machine?
Click to expand...

The VMware Products page has tons of easy to decipher info on the differences.

Most of the differences I'm aware of between the 2 relate to host OS support, features, and stability.
 
The 2 biggest differences are, IIRC from my playing with a couple of years ago.
1) The server version will only run on a server OS, like Windows Server 2003.
And
2) The workstation version will only run one virtual computer at a time.

Things could have changed, but the free workstation version was great for doing un-traceable surfing, for the pr0n0s and keep it hidden from the wife crowd, because you could set it to never save to the OS image. You started in the same place every time, with no history or viruses or any other changes.
 
VMWare Server doesn't need a server OS for a host. It works just fine in Windows XP. I don't know about Vista though.
 
SockMan! said:
VMWare Server doesn't need a server OS for a host. It works just fine in Windows XP. I don't know about Vista though.
Click to expand...

Then that's been changed....
I was in the frist batch of free key-codes before the image contest, and at first the server would work on XP but after a bit it wouldn't even install unless it found Server 2000 or Server 2003. When they did that I quit playing with it.

I might just have to look it up again.
 
Both server and workstation (VMWare) run on regular windows. Both allow multiple VMs to be run.

Server can be connected to with VMWare Server Client, so you can control the VM instances (like snapshotting) from another machine than the one VMWare Server is installed on. VMWare Workstation allows multiple snapshots, and typically gets newer or improved functionality before VMWare Server does.
 
now to run the virtual machine i will need the OS i want to run, like if i want to run xp inside vista i need to build an xp machine, install windows xp and create a virtual machine from it? im not sure how that work?
 
AMD_Gamer said:
now to run the virtual machine i will need the OS i want to run, like if i want to run xp inside vista i need to build an xp machine, install windows xp and create a virtual machine from it? im not sure how that work?
Click to expand...

No you don't need to create a vm out of an already existing pc. Vmware server makes a virtual pc on your operating system. You install windows xp on your pc inside this virtual pc.
 
munkle said:
No you don't need to create a vm out of an already existing pc. Vmware server makes a virtual pc on your operating system. You install windows xp on your pc inside this virtual pc.
Click to expand...


Right - and I was wrong about Workstation - I was playing with VMware PLAYER and Server. Workstation is only free for a trial period. Server and Player are free for evaluation use. Just register and request the number of serial numbers that you want for Server and the latest version of Player doesn't require anything but registering your name and email to access the download. But you have to use prebuilt VM's on Player.

I accessed my VMWare account last night - It's been since Feb 2006 since I played with this.

Server lets you build what ever you want. The only trick is getting used to shifting from inside of the VM back to your desktop and the help has the hot-key combo for that - I just had problems remembering it - old age and CRS (Can't Remember Shit). ;)
 
the biggest differences between Server and Workstation (for both vmware and MS)...

is that the server version runs your VM's as services. they are all started in the background when your server starts, and you attach to them via some client software (or web interface).

the workstation version, you run the VM as an application on your desktop. btw, i wasnt aware that vmware workstation could only run one at a time... MS Virtual PC can start VMs until your computer chokes. (so... are you sure thats right about vmware workstation... i just cant see that from MS's biggest commercial competitor).

i ran vmware server on XP workstation for a while, no real troubles at all. i also ran it from a linux server, and it ran just as fine. i also ram virtual server on XP, and it ran acceptable, but wasnt that great. opensource VMs run much better on vmware than virtual server, was my experience. on virtual server, once i got 3 FreeBSD servers running, the dual xeon 2.66 HTs(3GB ram) just pegged. vmware ran 5 or more FreeBSD servers with little effort at all.

but, if i were doing MS VM's, i would have no troubles using MV virtual server. their VMextensions (virtual machine drivers) are top notch and make the systems run smooth as glass.
 
now if you want each VM to connect to a network or say have 3 different types of servers lets say a DHCP server in one vm, windows server and domain controller on another vm and just a file server on the other for a total of 3 vm's do you need 3 physical network cards or can all of your VM's share a single nic and assign an IP address inside each virtual machine?

also i got started with virtual PC 2007 last night and it turns out Ubuntu has a big in the kernel where the mouse does not work in in VPC :( but i understand now how you load up of the OS just use a regular cd/dvd or capture the iso image
 
AMD_Gamer said:
now if you want each VM to connect to a network or say have 3 different types of servers lets say a DHCP server in one vm, windows server and domain controller on another vm and just a file server on the other for a total of 3 vm's do you need 3 physical network cards or can all of your VM's share a single nic and assign an IP address inside each virtual machine?

also i got started with virtual PC 2007 last night and it turns out Ubuntu has a big in the kernel where the mouse does not work in in VPC :( but i understand now how you load up of the OS just use a regular cd/dvd or capture the iso image
Click to expand...

If you're going to install Linux as a VM, use VirtualBox or VMWare. Virtual PC has quirks with Linux installs, and officially, I don't think it supports Linux hosts.

Also, you only need one physical NIC card. All the VM instances can bridge networking with the physical host NIC so that they all have unique IP addresses on the network but all using the same interface.

And again, in case some people are still unclear - VMWare Workstation allows multiple VMs to be run simultaneously. I'm doing it right now with 3 instances.
 
Sharaz Jek said:
the workstation version, you run the VM as an application on your desktop. btw, i wasnt aware that vmware workstation could only run one at a time...
Click to expand...

I wasn't using Workstation.... I was using VMWAre Player

and Player can only run one at a time and can't create a VM.
Not sure what Workstation can do.

It's been so long that I mis-remembered. Us old guys get to do that occosionally. :D
 
well my adventures into the world of virtualization i think are off to a great start, tonight i installed Ubuntu on virtualbox, figured out how to bridge the virtual nic to the host nic so it can pull an ip from my dhcp server instead of that nat crap, and got file shares working it was all very easy i am very impressed, are Vmware, Xen and VPC2007 all as easy as virtual box?

does anyone have any ideas for projects i could do, i know i want to make a virtual server with multiple servers each in its own VM box running, like a windows server 2003 running as a dhcp server, then Ubuntu server for a file and backup server, web server etc all on one box

basically now that i got the basics and the feel of it down where should i go? should i look into VMware?
 
AMD_Gamer said:
well my adventures into the world of virtualization i think are off to a great start, tonight i installed Ubuntu on virtualbox, figured out how to bridge the virtual nic to the host nic so it can pull an ip from my dhcp server instead of that nat crap, and got file shares working it was all very easy i am very impressed, are Vmware, Xen and VPC2007 all as easy as virtual box?

does anyone have any ideas for projects i could do, i know i want to make a virtual server with multiple servers each in its own VM box running, like a windows server 2003 running as a dhcp server, then Ubuntu server for a file and backup server, web server etc all on one box

basically now that i got the basics and the feel of it down where should i go? should i look into VMware?
Click to expand...

Concidering that all the VMware server or player only cost a little time registering with VMware's website, and it is one of the industry standards. I'd definately think about it.
 
Can I save my current vista config which is not vmed? I want to reinstall xp but I need to be able to load media center every now and then. Is the performance of VM good enough that I could run transcode 360 inside a VM?
 
Not sure what Transcode 360 is but it looks like some kind of video-related thing. Video support in Virtualbox at least is passable for casual video, but you aren't going to watch hi-def multi-channel audio stuff with it. Typical virtualization software emulates a circa mid-90's VESA type video card and very basic audio. Virtual PC 2007 for example emulates an awesome Creative Labs Soundblaster 16 PnP *ISA* card.

Virtualbox supports booting an existing hard drive partition as a guest, but there are consequences to consider, as it's basically like yanking the hard drive out of your new-fangled C2D and sticking it in a 486. That "detecting new hardware" phase would be messy to say the least, though there are procedures on their website for softening the blow. Supposedly with Linux it's not so bad, which makes some sense.
 
SuperSubZero said:
Not sure what Transcode 360 is but it looks like some kind of video-related thing. Video support in Virtualbox at least is passable for casual video, but you aren't going to watch hi-def multi-channel audio stuff with it. Typical virtualization software emulates a circa mid-90's VESA type video card and very basic audio. Virtual PC 2007 for example emulates an awesome Creative Labs Soundblaster 16 PnP *ISA* card.

Virtualbox supports booting an existing hard drive partition as a guest, but there are consequences to consider, as it's basically like yanking the hard drive out of your new-fangled C2D and sticking it in a 486. That "detecting new hardware" phase would be messy to say the least, though there are procedures on their website for softening the blow. Supposedly with Linux it's not so bad, which makes some sense.
Click to expand...

Well transcode 360 is just used for real time encoding. Its for streaming media files from the Media Center to the xbox 360. Its processor intensive. So there is no video output or anything. Is there a way to transfer my current install to a vm.
 
Rampage1329 said:
Can I save my current vista config which is not vmed? I want to reinstall xp but I need to be able to load media center every now and then. Is the performance of VM good enough that I could run transcode 360 inside a VM?
Click to expand...

Why would you want to kill your current install??
Just for running VM's. :confused:

You can get a cheap small harddrive and install XP to it for a dual boot system if that's all you want to do. Or on a seperate partition - I perfer a second harddrive, so that I can still boot if one of them dies or I screw up the OS I'm playing with.

Most VM software will run on top of XP or Vista 32 bit or 64bit. Except for the stuff like Xen or Sun's xVM Ldoms that is pretty much *nix only, no ports.

Hell, you can create VM's in QEMU easily using the QEMU GUI. And the VM can emulate quite a few different processors. I just wish that it could emulate a PA-RISC chip. :(
 
I like vista don't get me wrong. Some of the programs I want to use run much slower in it. The only reason I keep it around is because of the media center. For instance winavi has issues. Its by far the fastest and easiest way of getting movies on to your zune. Its great for converting x.264 to compliant wmv files. It doesn't run well in vista, and the only reason I use vista is because of the media center and how it connects to the 360.

Also I don't want to dual boot it. I want to be able to turn on my 360 and be able to connect directly to media center. I don't want to have to reboot everytime I use it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top