absolute newbie questions

[zollen]

I am new to vmware but I want to learn more about vmware and unix virtualization.

1. What are the differences between vmplayer and vmware?
2. Is it possible for multiple virtual machines share the same unix filesystem? But each virtual machine may have slightly different runtime configurations?
3. Considering many multi-cores CPU's that power the virtual machines today. Are there any benefits of having multiple virtual machines where each vm hosts multiple instances of the same type of application, as oppose to one big virtual machine alone hosts all enterprise applications?
4. Are there any links that explain vmware and virtualization?

 

[Sp33dFr33k]

vmware is the company, vmware player is a basic virtualization platform that will allow you to run virtual machines inside of another operating system

VMware information
http://www.vmware.com/virtualization/
http://www.vmware.com/support/pubs/

Microsoft Guide to Virtualization:
http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/...tualization-virtualisation-for-beginners.aspx

Guide to Virtualization:
http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2008/08/virtualization-guide-1/

Video Guide:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zLJbP6vBk2M

 

[Netwerkz101]

<snipped>
3. Considering many multi-cores CPU's that power the virtual machines today. Are there any benefits of having multiple virtual machines where each vm hosts multiple instances of the same type of application, as oppose to one big virtual machine alone hosts all enterprise applications?
<snipped>

If you are limited to the number of OS licenses you have, you are stuck with fewer VMs.
If you are running a free OS or something like Data Center Edition of Windows Server,
then by all means silo your different apps/services on different VMs.

This will allow you to have at least a single VM down and others available to your users -
think downtime due to maintenance or a soft crash/failure. You don't want one bad apple blowing up the whole pie.

Keeping multiple apps on a single server, be it physical or virtual, is an accident ...is a failure ...is a headache waiting to happen!

pseudo scenario from past experience working with Terminal Services/RDS environments:
- App A is legacy and requires version X of Java and Internet Explorer 6
- App B is a new app and requires version X of .NET and Internet Explorer 9

I use the above as the simplest example as multiple versions of IE on the same system is not going to work.

You can virtualize/silo applications - but then you are back to purchasing more licenses.

 

[zollen]

If you are limited to the number of OS licenses you have, you are stuck with fewer VMs.
If you are running a free OS or something like Data Center Edition of Windows Server,
then by all means silo your different apps/services on different VMs.

This will allow you to have at least a single VM down and others available to your users -
think downtime due to maintenance or a soft crash/failure. You don't want one bad apple blowing up the whole pie.

Keeping multiple apps on a single server, be it physical or virtual, is an accident ...is a failure ...is a headache waiting to happen!

pseudo scenario from past experience working with Terminal Services/RDS environments:
- App A is legacy and requires version X of Java and Internet Explorer 6
- App B is a new app and requires version X of .NET and Internet Explorer 9

I use the above as the simplest example as multiple versions of IE on the same system is not going to work.

You can virtualize/silo applications - but then you are back to purchasing more licenses.

I am investigating unix virtualization. The possibilities of unix crash is pretty rare and one unix virtual machine could be operated by multiple hardwares.

Here is the question, could the failure of one of multiple hardwares lead to a unix virtual machine crash?
Does a unix vritual machine smart enough to automatically ignore the failure hardware and relocate all works to the remaining working hardwares?

 

[Netwerkz101]

I am investigating unix virtualization. The possibilities of unix crash is pretty rare and one unix virtual machine could be operated by multiple hardwares.

Here is the question, could the failure of one of multiple hardwares lead to a unix virtual machine crash?
Does a unix vritual machine smart enough to automatically ignore the failure hardware and relocate all works to the remaining working hardwares?

I think we may be getting VM guest vs. host confused.

If you have a single, physical, server running a hypervisor (aka "host")
and something happens to that single physical server - it will likely
impact all the virtual machines (aka "guests") running on it.

Example: If you have only one host (regardless of how powerful or how many VMs you can run on it),
the first time you need to do maintenance on that host, you have to take down all the VMs.

Now.. if you have multiple hosts that run multiple VMs,
you can migrate via vMotion and configure VMs to be restarted on an available host with resources to support the VMs.

If you want high uptime/availability, you want multiple host and multiple guests.

Edit: I just realized: "Multiple hardwares" = multiple hosts.

If you plan to run multiple hosts ..with multiple VMs ..then I misread question #3 and you should ignore my replies (and I apologize for confusing the issue).
Also .. since you are talking Unix VMs, you probably aren't as likely to run into the contention issues like in a Windows world.

Regardless .. putting all eggs in one big basket does _not_ make for good high availability.