• 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.

VMs under VMware workstation

S

SpeedyVV

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Sep 14, 2007
Messages
4,210
I have a workstation, with enough horsepower to run a few web servers and MySQL server.

Any downsides of running this under VW Workstation?
 
No.

Be aware that bottleneck will likely be storage, but it'll be awhile before you get there (depending on workload).
 
SpeedyVV said:
I have a workstation, with enough horsepower to run a few web servers and MySQL server.

Any downsides of running this under VW Workstation?
Click to expand...

Only downside I know of is the dependency on the underlying operating system.
(Think unexpected reboots/system hangs)
 
SpeedyVV said:
I have a workstation, with enough horsepower to run a few web servers and MySQL server.

Any downsides of running this under VW Workstation?
Click to expand...


Okay, "enough horsepower" isn't a valid measurement.

What're the specs on your machine. You can't simply divvy up the resources of the host across X machines (plus a remainder for the host) and expect the setup to be stable/performant.
 
CPU: 2x e5 2699 v3
Ram: 64gb (might double if required)
Storage: 4x250gb evo 850 (more as required)

I thought that assigning resources of the host to vms was exactly how it worked.

Could you expand please?

My initial strategy was to assign resources so that they run below peak of 80% resources.

If they reach that threshold I would add a core, or memory, etc.
 
Last edited:
Netwerkz101 said:
Only downside I know of is the dependency on the underlying operating system.
(Think unexpected reboots/system hangs)
Click to expand...

Genuine question. Is it a fact that a hypervisor is more reliable?

If so, any downside of hyper v?

Please be patient with my questions.

I have actually deployed lots of production environments in my career, but in a set it (as specked) and forget it scenarios.

For the first time I'm actually trying to figure out how to speck one properly.

I do have a second box running as backup, and none of my sites, are high volume traffic, so I do have breathing room to deal with situations and learn from my mistakes.
 
Last edited:
First, why do you want to use virtualization?
Second, you'd need to more clearly define your needs for each intended VM.
Before that, you should likely look at the whole architecture and what fits your needs from that. What problem are you trying to solve? What services / applications are you trying to provide, to what audience, with what consumption?

Will Workstation technically work? Sure. Is it the best solution? Doubtful.
 
SpeedyVV said:
Genuine question. Is it a fact that a hypervisor is more reliable?

If so, any downside of hyper v?

Please be patient with my questions.

I have actually deployed lots of production environments in my career, but in a set it (as specked) and forget it scenarios.

For the first time I'm actually trying to figure out how to speck one properly.

I do have a second box running as backup, and none of my sites, are high volume traffic, so I do have breathing room to deal with situations and learn from my mistakes.
Click to expand...


Type 1 hypervisors like ESXi and XenServer run on bare metal have proven to be
extremely reliable when run on hardware found on their respective HCLs.

I don't have the knowledge of Hyper-V to say one way or another - i simply loaded it for a few test and to see what it was like and went back to using XenServer/ESXi.

I think whats more important here is that you identify
what your intentions are as honest and complete as possbile.

Your base question was answered but in some of your replies it almost
seems as if you wish to run this setup 24/7.

If that is the case, I would recommend type 1 hypervisors.
My laptop with Win7 Pro x64 was stable with VMware Workstation 8-10; however,
I never viewed that setup for 24/7 operation. Even with a desktop, I'd still use
an available type 1 hypervisor just to eliminate the OS layer dealing with type 2s.

You will get max performance with a type 1 hypervisor too (vs type 2).

TBH ...(i'd try your own method) . if you can tolerate failures/downtime as you say .. I see nothing wrong with
trying to get some baseline numbers on what you have now and try to improve any performance bottlenecks as you find them.
 
I want to use virtualization because that is how I sold them ;-)

Basically, if my customer wants to, I can shut them down put it on a drive a give it to them and they or I can run it somewhere else.

Most of the vms are running a web site. Some WordPress, some just html, CSS, PHP MySQL.

Nothing complex at all. Nothing high volume.

So if workstation is not the best solution, will hyper-v be?
 
Well, reliable as in do you want to run these services for public people to access and use, or just run them to testing anf having fun..

The reliability as noted will come with your day to day use of the system and if you need to reboot it and such.

I have had VM's running in workstation for weeks on end with out issues

The issue isn't the vm workstation or which hyper visor really, it is using your every day computer to host things that you may want to have the best reliability.
 
My question would be, what the hell are you doing with a workstation that has dual 18 core $4k CPUs in it?
 
SpeedyVV said:
I want to use virtualization because that is how I sold them ;-)
Click to expand...

Dude, what were you thinking?

Selling people on running production VMs on Workstation is unconscionable. Using a hypervisor will be a better solution, but that still doesn't protect your client from host outages. Given the money that went into this setup it would have been better to buy two hosts to spread the load and create resiliency and redundancy.

Hyper-V will be the less expensive choice and may suffice for your needs, depending on how you plan to license the VM OSes.

This looks like an all around bad idea and it's mindboggling that there are people out there who pay for this stuff without getting a second opinion. ;(
 
MrGuvernment said:
The reliability as noted will come with your day to day use of the system and if you need to reboot it and such.

The issue isn't the vm workstation or which hyper visor really, it is using your every day computer to host things that you may want to have the best reliability.
Click to expand...

Thank you very much for pointing this out.

That is really where my original thought process started.

Btw, just because I considered vw workstation as an option, was not because I will be using this as day to day machine.

I know workstation well, and it has never "failed" me in over ten years of using it in professional environment, buy only in simulated environments as opposed to production environments.

So the reason for considering workstation is a combination of familiarity and positive experience.
 
Last edited:
Thuleman said:
Dude, what were you thinking?

Selling people on running production VMs on Workstation is unconscionable. Using a hypervisor will be a better solution, but that still doesn't protect your client from host outages. Given the money that went into this setup it would have been better to buy two hosts to spread the load and create resiliency and redundancy.

Hyper-V will be the less expensive choice and may suffice for your needs, depending on how you plan to license the VM OSes.

This looks like an all around bad idea and it's mindboggling that there are people out there who pay for this stuff without getting a second opinion. ;(
Click to expand...

Dudes, you guys really need to chill out.

I never said I sold anything based on workstation. I said virtualization. Even then, that is only part of the picture. Virtualization in this case, is a means to an end.

Please see the OP.

I did not ask about, architecture, fault tolerance, disaster recovery, server sizing, etc...

Simply the downsides our running a few small websites under workstation as opposed to a type-1 hypervisor.

I have provided a few more details, as people requested to kindly help answer my question. And I really appreciate that.

But to give you peace of mind, I have a quite robust failover setup with quite a bit more than just a second server.

Trust me when I say my customers are a lot wiser and careful than you and I with their money.
 
KapsZ28 said:
My question would be, what the hell are you doing with a workstation that has dual 18 core $4k CPUs in it?
Click to expand...

Customer: Put something together for £10,000.00 or less, that we can easily relocate, and has readily available spare parts.

Not exactly a quote, but you get the idea.
 
Sure, but doesnt mean you need to spend 10k :d although hard not to really..
I guess the worry was you spend all this money on hardware and are talking about installing windows on it, then vmware workstation and then your VM's, which is not the proper way to set up a production environment.

Use a proper hyper-visor like Hyper-V or ESXi / vsphere and be done with it and get the proper usage of that 10k in hardware :)

Then with that you can use Veeam Free Edition for backups with ESXi free even.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top