• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

Are 8 core virtual machines possible?

N

newxperiment

Limp Gawd
Joined
Aug 10, 2009
Messages
143
I was wondering if there are any products available that would allow a virtual machine to use 8 V-Cores; or if there are any 64-bit solutions that would allow me to enable paravirtualization on a 4-core virtual machine.

I attempted to fool around with VMWare's ESX via the free trial, however my Marvell Yukon onboard NICs are not supported, and I don't feel like purchasing a certified NIC solution unless anyone knows of a cheap compatible one...I've also read that there are workarounds for getting SATA HDs to work as I don't plan on purchasing a SAS HD.

Also, if anyone has any knowledge about how or if products like VMWare ESX allow you to take advantage of high end video cards, that would be great :)

Any input would be appreciated, thank you very much in advance!

Current hardware:
-i7 920@ ~4Ghz
-Asus P6T Deluxe V2
-6GB Mushkin Ram
-SATA HDs
-2 EVGA GTX 260s
 
8 cores won't buy you what you think it might in ESX. :)

As for a cheap nic - Intel e1000. ESX4 is compatible with SATA, IIRC, on a supported controller, but will be slow

And no way to use the video card - ESX isn't real time emulation anyway, so it wouldn't do you any good. If you want to use a video card in the VM, you want something like workstation, but even that has limitations.
 
get a $30 36gb sas hard drive. get a dell sas5/iR. Get cables. Under $100 to get a supported storage system to install ESX on.

ESX was never meant to use the video card for acceleration. It's a data center product. We don't put high end graphics into a server (most just use an 8MB onboard chip) because there's no point. I would second the recommendation for Workstation, for you. On top of that, you can run (and it's now officially supported) ESX(i) inside of Workstation 7. That should be a good start for you. 60day trials on both
 
Thank you both for your input...I only wanted to familiarize myself with ESX, if I can install it onto a Virtual machine, that will do just fine :)
 
ESXi 4.0 will allow you to use up to 8 vcpus, that is if you have the hardware to support it and license to support it after the trial expires, from the link below it looks like vSphere enterprise plus is the only version to support upto 8vcpus. In your case why not use VMware workstation 7.0 and you wont need to buy any additional hardware, workstation supports desktop rigs with integrated raid controllers and sata drives.

http://www.vmware.com/products/vsphere/buy/editions_comparison.html
 
crazyfinx said:
ESXi 4.0 will allow you to use up to 8 vcpus, that is if you have the hardware to support it and license to support it after the trial expires, from the link below it looks like vSphere enterprise plus is the only version to support upto 8vcpus. In your case why not use VMware workstation 7.0 and you wont need to buy any additional hardware, workstation supports desktop rigs with integrated raid controllers and sata drives.

http://www.vmware.com/products/vsphere/buy/editions_comparison.html
Click to expand...

correct, although it still won't buy you what you expect ;)
 
sabregen,

Can you point me to the $30 36GB SAS drives? I have looked at Newegg, ZZF, etc and don't see anything for <$100.
 
Sorry for the Threadjack, but are 16 core VMs possible using the new VMware Workstation/Player?
 
lol, I think, in that case, the acronym would stand for "f$%&ed at home" yikes almighty. I have yet to find an application that I would virtualize that requires more than 2vCPUs.

Maybe I'm just not looking at it right, but I can't think of an application load, which would require that much CPU power, that I'd want to virtualize. Hrmm...that sounds like a new thread, to me...off i go.
 
lopoetve said:
won't gain you anything, would cost you performance. F@H wants to run at ring 0. Run it natively.
Click to expand...

Well running 4x 2core VMs vs 1x 8 core VM the performance is nearly identical.
The upside is with less VMs I have less memory tied up, and I can process larger Units in the alloted time.
If I could for example just run 1x 16 core VM vs 2x 8 core VMs I would have my memory usage, and can process the largest units available.
 
nitrobass24 said:
Well running 4x 2core VMs vs 1x 8 core VM the performance is nearly identical.
The upside is with less VMs I have less memory tied up, and I can process larger Units in the alloted time.
If I could for example just run 1x 16 core VM vs 2x 8 core VMs I would have my memory usage, and can process the largest units available.
Click to expand...

sure, until you start to get contention then the 8core has to wait while all the 1 cores run. and the 2 cores. And the 4. Etc.

Just run it natively. :)
 
im not disagreeing that running it natively is ideal.
If I do that my performance is much better.

However this is the only task that requires a linux install, and all of my other apps use windows.
Hence the virtualization.
 
nitrobass24 said:
im not disagreeing that running it natively is ideal.
If I do that my performance is much better.

However this is the only task that requires a linux install, and all of my other apps use windows.
Hence the virtualization.
Click to expand...

:confused: there's a windows client for F@H
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top