Virtual Machine running 24/7

T

tgabe213

2[H]4U
Joined
Aug 27, 2007
Messages
3,684
I am planning on setting up WS2008 in a virtual machine (not sure which) to familiarize myself, but also use it as a personal web server (asp.net), possibly print server, file server (with ftp), etc. Is it a bad thing to have it running nearly 24/7? It would be a lot easier and cheaper than to have it on a separate box.

Running with rig in sig (jump to 8gb of ram?)
 
Get the extra RAM and run whatever you want. Running 2K8 in a VM 24/7 is more efficient than running two physical PCs, that's the primary benefit of virtualization.
 
One of the big things would to just run the virtual server on its own hard drive or at least on the second drive. Running both operating systems on the same drive will give you extra slowdown.
 
swatbat said:
One of the big things would to just run the virtual server on its own hard drive or at least on the second drive. Running both operating systems on the same drive will give you extra slowdown.
Click to expand...

The 640 in the sig is the main OS/Data drive, and the 320 is about to be wiped just for this instance. :)
 
There are data centers across the world filled with virtual servers that run 24/7. If you want to leave your hardware running, and your happy with the performance hit that running a VM will give to your host OS, then you shouldn't have any problems.

I have at least a dozen VM boxes that run 24/7 and the only time they are down is when they're doing a maintenance reboot.
 
Demon10000 said:
There are data centers across the world filled with virtual servers that run 24/7. If you want to leave your hardware running, and your happy with the performance hit that running a VM will give to your host OS, then you shouldn't have any problems.

I have at least a dozen VM boxes that run 24/7 and the only time they are down is when they're doing a maintenance reboot.
Click to expand...

Thus the post. I'm curious what kind of hit it would be taking. I could be set on the RAM, but what about CPU?

Also, what virtual software is recommended for my use?
 
You should have plenty of machine to run a vm. The hit would really depend on what you were going to be doing, and it could change depending on the load on the virtuals.

I've used both VMWare and MS Virtaul PC. All my servers run VMWare as it seems to be much more of an enterprise solution, but for my day-to-day testing on my workstation I use virtual pc. For me, it's just ease of use. I'd say start out with vmware, and that will probably do just what you're looking for.
 
The only logical choices for virtual machine software - given the machine in the OP's sig - have to be VirtualBox or VMWare. I say this because VirtualPC 2007 doesn't offer VT-x support, and VirtualBox and VMWare do. By using the VT-x capabilities of that E8400 CPU and one of the apps I just mentioned, the VMs you create (as long as you enable the VT-x support in the virtual machines, of course) will run at nearly native speeds and give you the best possible performance you can get.

VT-x support and usage really makes a HUGE difference when it comes to running VMs, something you can note almost immediately when it's enabled/disabled for testing.

My personal preference for VMs is VirtualBox. It's lighter on resources, it's incredibly fast, and does everything that I need done by virtual machine software. VMWare is obviously the king of the hill, but it comes with a price of far more resource usage, more services running, basically a heavier load on the host. It's still very quick as long as VT-x is enabled in the VMs themselves, but in a side by side comparison I believe VirtualBox might have the speed edge, even if it's only a few percentage points.

Best solution: try both since both are free (VMWare Server is, and I know they put up ESXi or whatever it's called for free a few days ago as well, and VMWare Player too but that won't create VMs, it only "plays" ones you've already created). I stand by my VirtualBox recommendation, however.

If you're just getting into VMs and need something quick and easy, it's VirtualBox all the way. If you have long term intentions towards VM usage and learning, then perhaps - just perhaps - it might be a good idea to jump on the VMWare bandwagon and ride it for all its worth.
 
Joe Average said:
The only logical choices for virtual machine software - given the machine in the OP's sig - have to be VirtualBox or VMWare. I say this because VirtualPC 2007 doesn't offer VT-x support, and VirtualBox and VMWare do. By using the VT-x capabilities of that E8400 CPU and one of the apps I just mentioned, the VMs you create (as long as you enable the VT-x support in the virtual machines, of course) will run at nearly native speeds and give you the best possible performance you can get.

VT-x support and usage really makes a HUGE difference when it comes to running VMs, something you can note almost immediately when it's enabled/disabled for testing.

My personal preference for VMs is VirtualBox. It's lighter on resources, it's incredibly fast, and does everything that I need done by virtual machine software. VMWare is obviously the king of the hill, but it comes with a price of far more resource usage, more services running, basically a heavier load on the host. It's still very quick as long as VT-x is enabled in the VMs themselves, but in a side by side comparison I believe VirtualBox might have the speed edge, even if it's only a few percentage points.

Best solution: try both since both are free (VMWare Server is, and I know they put up ESXi or whatever it's called for free a few days ago as well, and VMWare Player too but that won't create VMs, it only "plays" ones you've already created). I stand by my VirtualBox recommendation, however.

If you're just getting into VMs and need something quick and easy, it's VirtualBox all the way. If you have long term intentions towards VM usage and learning, then perhaps - just perhaps - it might be a good idea to jump on the VMWare bandwagon and ride it for all its worth.
Click to expand...

Thanks A LOT for the reply! Quite information. Thanks to your suggestion, I'm going to try VirtualBox.

Formatting that 2nd drive as we speak.
 
Is there a 64-bit version for windows? I noticed one that says WindowsAMD64, which I assume is for AMD processors or something?
 
AMD is actually the company that deserves the credit for the current 64 bit wave now finally taking serious grip on the computing industry. Intel created a 64 bit processor, the Itanium, but it was absolutely incompatible with everything that has fallen under the x86 architecture for decades now so it died a quick death. It's still out there in high end servers in some situations, but the performance and the absolutely ridiculous cost associated with Itanium processors and machines killed it before it really got off the ground.

AMD created a technology that kept the x86 architecture compatibility but allowed for 64 bit extensions that would allow machines to support far greater amounts of memory and addressable space. Intel then licensed the technology and modified it to a small degree and called it Extended Memory 64 Technology, or EM64T.

When you see software in 64 bit form, it'll probably still show as AMD64 since that's technically what it actually is: AMD 64 bit capable, which of course means it works with Intel's 64 bit side of things (EM64T) as well.
 
Gotcha! Downloaded it and trying to install WS2008...As soon as I input the disc, I get an error that the winload.exe file cannot be found and it won't boot off of this. I had this issue a few nights ago after cloning a Vista hard drive.

edit/
Just noticed that it is telling me that I am trying to install a 64-bit application (which WS2008 is), but my CPU is not 64-bit compatible, which obviously is not true.

Running e8400 with Vista Ultimate x64...
 
Yah, it can matter to some degree not being able to run 64 bit guests, but as most people will be setting up VMs to use 1-2GB of RAM from the host, that's typically not an issue. If you had 32GB of RAM and were assigning 8GB to a VM for some reason, then 64 bit guests would actually matter. ;)
 
Going to take a little bit getting everything all setup (network, etc), but I've got it installed and running. Loads nice and quickly too.

Now I need to figure out the best way to get this thing connected to the internet (will be a small webserver).
 
Back to this:

I've been a bit busy lately, so I'm just getting around to this. I'm able to get my server connected to the Internet using the NAT networking setting, and bridging the connection with my host PC.

Issues:

  • I'm trying to figure out how to access a shared folder I setup. On my data partition in the host OS, I created a folder named VirtualboxShare, then with the menu in Virtualbox I created a new shared folder that goes to that path, name the same. Typing in "net use x:\\vboxsvr\VirtualboxShare" gives System error 67 has occured".
  • Also, I can't see anything else in my network (mainly the host os) from the networking window in server2008.
  • How can I get my USB printer connected to the host to show in the guest? I'd like to be able to print over the network with the print server service installed

Edit: Seamless is awesome! I've just got a task bar per monitor (dual 22's). One my regular desktop, the 2nd has the task bar for the virtual machine. Doing things run MUCH faster seamless like this :)
 
Joe Average said:
The only logical choices for virtual machine software - given the machine in the OP's sig - have to be VirtualBox or VMWare. I say this because VirtualPC 2007 doesn't offer VT-x support, and VirtualBox and VMWare do. By using the VT-x capabilities of that E8400 CPU and one of the apps I just mentioned, the VMs you create (as long as you enable the VT-x support in the virtual machines, of course) will run at nearly native speeds and give you the best possible performance you can get.

VT-x support and usage really makes a HUGE difference when it comes to running VMs, something you can note almost immediately when it's enabled/disabled for testing.

My personal preference for VMs is VirtualBox. It's lighter on resources, it's incredibly fast, and does everything that I need done by virtual machine software. VMWare is obviously the king of the hill, but it comes with a price of far more resource usage, more services running, basically a heavier load on the host. It's still very quick as long as VT-x is enabled in the VMs themselves, but in a side by side comparison I believe VirtualBox might have the speed edge, even if it's only a few percentage points.

Best solution: try both since both are free (VMWare Server is, and I know they put up ESXi or whatever it's called for free a few days ago as well, and VMWare Player too but that won't create VMs, it only "plays" ones you've already created). I stand by my VirtualBox recommendation, however.

If you're just getting into VMs and need something quick and easy, it's VirtualBox all the way. If you have long term intentions towards VM usage and learning, then perhaps - just perhaps - it might be a good idea to jump on the VMWare bandwagon and ride it for all its worth.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the suggestion on Virtualbox, I may just have to give this a go.

However, I'm somewhat afraid to as it may make me shell out the money for a nice Quardcore, heh.
 
tgabe213 said:
Found my answer. VirtualBox does not support a 64-bit guest.

http://forums.virtualbox.org/viewtopic.php?p=17298

No big deal :)
Click to expand...

yes it does!

Virtualbox 2.0.0 has been released and comes with 32bit and 64bit binaries
Code: 
VirtualBox 2.0.0 (released 2008-09-04)

This version is a major update. The following major new features were added:

64 bits guest support (64 bits host only)
New native Leopard user interface on Mac OS X hosts
The GUI was converted from Qt3 to Qt4 with many visual improvements
New-version notifier
Guest property information interface
Host Interface Networking on Mac OS X hosts
New Host Interface Networking on Solaris hosts
Support for Nested Paging on modern AMD CPUs (major performance gain)
Framework for collecting performance and resource usage data (metrics)
Added SATA asynchronous IO (NCQ: Native Command Queuing) when accessing raw disks/partitions (major performance gain)
Clipboard integration for OS/2 Guests
Created separate SDK component featuring a new Python programming interface on Linux and Solaris hosts
Support for VHD disk images
In addition, the following items were fixed and/or added:

VMM: VT-x fixes
AHCI/SATA: improved performance
GUI: keyboard fixes
Linux installer: properly uninstall the package even if unregistering the DKMS module fails
Linux additions: the guest screen resolution is properly restored

You will need a 64bit OS to run a 64bit Guest OS
 
tgabe213 said:
Back to this:

I've been a bit busy lately, so I'm just getting around to this. I'm able to get my server connected to the Internet using the NAT networking setting, and bridging the connection with my host PC.

Issues:

  • I'm trying to figure out how to access a shared folder I setup. On my data partition in the host OS, I created a folder named VirtualboxShare, then with the menu in Virtualbox I created a new shared folder that goes to that path, name the same. Typing in "net use x:\\vboxsvr\VirtualboxShare" gives System error 67 has occured".
  • Also, I can't see anything else in my network (mainly the host os) from the networking window in server2008.
  • How can I get my USB printer connected to the host to show in the guest? I'd like to be able to print over the network with the print server service installed

Edit: Seamless is awesome! I've just got a task bar per monitor (dual 22's). One my regular desktop, the 2nd has the task bar for the virtual machine. Doing things run MUCH faster seamless like this :)
Click to expand...

No offense, but I really need these questions answered :p
 
tgabe213 said:
Issues:
  • I'm trying to figure out how to access a shared folder I setup. On my data partition in the host OS, I created a folder named VirtualboxShare, then with the menu in Virtualbox I created a new shared folder that goes to that path, name the same. Typing in "net use x:\\vboxsvr\VirtualboxShare" gives System error 67 has occured".
  • Also, I can't see anything else in my network (mainly the host os) from the networking window in server2008.
Click to expand...

Here's what's left so far. I got the USB printer and USB flash drive to work fine. Any ideas? :confused:
 
Needed to install the Guest Additions in the host as well...It didn't specifically say that, and I just thought of giving it a shot.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top