What is VM ware? [Archive]

demonic

05-Jul-2006, 12:36

Hi, I know I could probably google for this info, but what is VM ware? Does it allow you to run various sessions of say Windows 2003 in a window, as its on virtual machine?

Can you run this on Windows XP and do you need 2 cores or can just 1 processor/core be sufficent?

What I want to do, is study for my MCSE exams, plus go for the SQL Server, Exchange and ISA Server. Since I know a litte about them to be efficent in the work place.

I cant afford to get another box, no matter how cheap you guys think it is. But can VMware help me?

All answers appricated :)

davepermen

05-Jul-2006, 13:32

download and try on www.vmware.com ... :D

but yes, in vmware, you can create your own virtual pc's with harddisks, network and stuff, boot them up, and install what ever you want. be it linux, be it windows. you just have to have the cd to install from (or install over a network if you have a RIS server around, or what ever you want :D).

it's a great program. work changed dramatically once we started using it.

BlackAngus

05-Jul-2006, 13:40

You are correct, VMWare will help you do what you need. The Workstation software product and the free Server software (both run on top of windows or linux) will both fit the bill for what you are wanting to do. Workstation has more robust snapshotting features which would be helpful for study and practice. Server is free =) Nuff said. MS Virtual Server will also perform these functions, and using it maybe a bonus for your studying..but VMWare's products are used in most shops, as VMWares ESX product is in a class by its self atm. That being said, you will need a machine that is fairly fast and has as much ram as possible.
Have Fun!

demonic

05-Jul-2006, 14:55

Guys, thanks so much for the responses.

Without getting into the arguments of whos best. For someone who usually only goes for microsoft products. Is MS Virtual Server better? Does it do exactly the same things as VMware?

Also, how much ram should I be looking at? My box is a P4 2.8, with 768 Mb of Ram. Is this sufficent?

Cheers

Tim Murray

05-Jul-2006, 15:18

Also, how much ram should I be looking at? My box is a P4 2.8, with 768 Mb of Ram. Is this sufficent?
If you could upgrade to two gigs, do it immediately. VMWare is (understandably) a pig, and trying to run a few different VMs on a single machine simultaneously with 768 megs of RAM will be an exercise in frustration.

Snyder

05-Jul-2006, 15:48

If you could upgrade to two gigs, do it immediately. VMWare is (understandably) a pig, and trying to run a few different VMs on a single machine simultaneously with 768 megs of RAM will be an exercise in frustration.

Well, to be specific, VMWare itself doesn't use that much of RAM, but if you want a VM which simulates a PC with 512MB RAM, those 512 will have to be allocated. It's not really bad if the RAM of the VM isn't fully used (the unneeded RAM is simply swapped out), but if you intend to run SQL Server, Exchange Server etc. simultaneously, 768MB just won't suffice, regardless of using VMWare or not.

demonic

05-Jul-2006, 17:13

Great, will have a think on that.

So could anyone explain the difference between MS Virtual Server 2005 and VM Ware?

Albuquerque

05-Jul-2006, 19:55

Great, will have a think on that.

So could anyone explain the difference between MS Virtual Server 2005 and VM Ware?
I'm at a nearly-all-Microsoft shop, but our internal server virtualization project decided on VMWare as our standard -- this was back when they were still charging for the ESX platform even. VMWare seems to have more robust support and faster updates for new features, such as virtualized SMP, client-OS 3D acceleration, 802.11p virtual LANs, support for more client OSes, etc.

Funnily enough, MS's VPC doesn't even allow Vista to work right, but VMWare does. Ha!

chavvdarrr

06-Jul-2006, 12:39

Great, will have a think on that.

So could anyone explain the difference between MS Virtual Server 2005 and VM Ware?
VMware has better support for "exotic" hardware & software and, indeed, faster updates/fixes
I bet in your case VirtualPC will do the job too, but you better try both products for a day or two, for me ability to make snapshots is priceless :)

demonic

13-Jul-2006, 02:03

BlackAngus

13-Jul-2006, 02:45

Do I really need VM Server for running Windows 2003 server? Or can I just use the VM Workstation on my Windows XP box?

I'll be buying an extra stick of 1GB ram, so I can load up a server with sql and exchange on it.

Last question also.

Can I run a virtual session of Windows 2003, with sql and exchange. Have a network with 192.168.0

The Real XP box is 192.168.0.100
The Virtual Win2003 is 192.168.0.101
Lets add a Virtual Vista at 192.168.0.102
and a XP laptop at 192.168.0.103

Are all able to ping each other? I.e are actual entities on a Lan?

In your situation I would say use VMWare workstation as the snapsshots will be great, however you cant beat free for VMWare server that was relaased today if you are low on cash.

And yes in both versions of VMWare you can configure your network like you have described.

demonic

13-Jul-2006, 03:01

Cool thanks..

Well VM Ware is where I am going. So if price wasnt an issue. Which one to go for VM Server or Workstation?

I wont be going the MS route on this, as it isnt as good apparently.

chavvdarrr

13-Jul-2006, 13:19

Cool thanks..

Well VM Ware is where I am going. So if price wasnt an issue. Which one to go for VM Server or Workstation?

I wont be going the MS route on this, as it isnt as good apparently.
http://www.vmware.com/products/server/ ;)
In your case you need to set VM network in "bridged mode"

Zaphod

13-Jul-2006, 13:44

In related news:
Virtual PC Is Now Free!

Whether Microsoft virtualization technology is an important component of your existing infrastructure or you're just a Virtual PC enthusiast, you can now download Virtual PC 2004 Service Pack 1 absolutely free. Microsoft is also offering the free download of Virtual PC 2007, with support for Windows Vista in 2007.
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/virtualpc/downloads/sp1.mspx

N00b

13-Jul-2006, 22:27

http://www.vmware.com/products/server/ ;)
Keep in mind that VMWare Server will only run on a server host os, i.e. Windows Server 2000, Windows Server 2003 or Windows Server 2003 R2.

chavvdarrr

14-Jul-2006, 09:08

Keep in mind that VMWare Server will only run on a server host os, i.e. Windows Server 2000, Windows Server 2003 or Windows Server 2003 R2.
that is NOT TRUE.
Right now I have a VMServer running a VM on my desktop PC, under XP :P

In related news:
Quote:Virtual PC Is Now Free!

Whether Microsoft virtualization technology is an important component of your existing infrastructure or you're just a Virtual PC enthusiast, you can now download Virtual PC 2004 Service Pack 1 absolutely free. Microsoft is also offering the free download of Virtual PC 2007, with support for Windows Vista in 2007.

MS WILL offer VPC2007... sometime in the future. Such product cannot be downloaded from MS site, not even if one has MSDN Universal access :P

N00b

14-Jul-2006, 09:15

that is NOT TRUE.
Right now I have a VMServer running a VM on my desktop PC, under XP :P
Thanks for letting me know. I checked the data sheet (http://www.vmware.com/pdf/server_datasheet.pdf) and it only mentions windows server.

BTW, I heard that you cannot do snapshots with VMWare Server. Can anyone confirm this?

chavvdarrr

14-Jul-2006, 09:41

Thanks for letting me know. I checked the data sheet (http://www.vmware.com/pdf/server_datasheet.pdf) and it only mentions windows server.

BTW, I heard that you cannot do snapshots with VMWare Server. Can anyone confirm this?yes, you can take snapshots.
http://img220.imageshack.us/img220/1368/vmserver8hf.th.jpg (http://img220.imageshack.us/my.php?image=vmserver8hf.jpg)

Zaphod

14-Jul-2006, 09:42

MS WILL offer VPC2007... sometime in the future. Such product cannot be downloaded from MS site, not even if one has MSDN Universal access :PCrappy wording, isn't it? They might as well have said: "MS "is also offering the free download of Virtual PC 2007, when hell freezes over". Or: "Don't try VMWare today, wait for VirtualPC 2007, perhaps in ... err ... 2007!" :lol:

Anyway, 2004SP1 (i.e. the full version of VirtualPC 2004 with SP1) is available today, and more options for no money doesn't hurt.

N00b

14-Jul-2006, 10:13

yes, you can take snapshots.
Thanks!

demonic

14-Jul-2006, 13:48

chavvdarrr

14-Jul-2006, 15:01

Yeah running on WinXP here with the server edition and no problems at all.

One question tho, what are the problems with using the physical disk of the local machine in the virtual machine?

i.e Local Machine Drive E: > Virtual Machine Drive F:

Are there problems with more than 1 Virtual Machine using a Local Machines Drive?

Cheers

I must say, using VM Ware has solved my problem. Now I can understand why you need 4x Cores on 1 CPU :razz:

Also, is it supposed to be sluggish when you are using the virtual envirnoment? Do I put this down to memory resources not being there or my CPU maxing out?
I never use physical drive in VM, usually 8GB statically alocated are more than enough for testing purposes... and for production servers there is SAN...
Starting more than 1 VM at same time and doing something with them WILL be sluggish. Basicly you need enough system RAM - by enough I assume 512MB for host (if it is Windows) + enough for all VMs you'll start at same time , + a bit more (overhead is 54MB for 512, and 8 more MB per every other 512 Mb "virtual" memory). So 2 2003 Servers under XP/2003 you need 2GB ... and also to set in VMware settings that VMs should have access to 1GB RAM, mark it as "Fit all virtual machine memory into reserved host RAM".

And make sure your HDD is fast enough to handle all requests :D

demonic

14-Jul-2006, 15:13

Thanks for the reply...

Lets just say that Im at home. LOL, theres no SAN or anything else and this is being done on a budget. Im not that fussed when it comes to performance, but if I can make it better than I will.

Now if I want to run a physical drive in VM, what are the foreseen problems?

Before, I shared drives in the local machine and then network mapped them in the virtual drive. But if the wireless network crapped out, the connection would be lost and so would any data that was trying to be written.

Its no big deal if there is a big problem, as the drive being used is just for the VM servers.

chavvdarrr

14-Jul-2006, 15:55

of course you can use HDD only for VMs
main HDD with host, and second dedicated to VMs will be just fine.
Problems... well, if you start at same time 2 VMs, both with exclusive "direct" access to same HDD... but you can create 2 partitions and use 1 partition from VM.
and say share a folder for data exchange

demonic

14-Jul-2006, 17:12

Wait LOL.... Just noticed the new VM network adapters in my Networking Area.

I will revert back to Networking the Shares from the Local Machine, by the Virtual Machines. This way, its using the "Internal" Network and they wont ever disconnect and thus have any writing problems.

Also, I can have a drive that everyone is safe to use, its the actual directories that will be used by the VM.

Is that safe to assume? Hope so, looks like VM has done all that pretty much wanted :)

demonic

15-Jul-2006, 04:09

Is there anyway of knowing how much bandwidth (internet downstream/upstream) is being taken from the collection of VMs?

I would have thought I could install NetLimiter on the XP machine, but its not reading anything.

My router is pretty much next to useless. Anyone have any idea?

Thanks

demonic

15-Jul-2006, 19:06

Well, my 1GB ram stick still isnt here. Damn ebay!

Anyway, I went ahead in installing VM Server as I wanted to how it was. I installed the RC 2 on this machine.

Pentium 2.8 Northwood
Asus IT7
768MB Ram
1x 10GB
1x 40GB
1x 60GB
1x 200GB
1x DVD-RW
ATI 9800PRO

Windows XP is the base, with LooknStop for the firewall, Nod32 for the AV, Uptodate with all Service Packs, Critical Updates and everything else.

The Virtual Image is just Windows 2003 Server EE. Service Pack 1 and Critical Updates. Latest Java VM, Azureus and Emule. As the main purpose is to leech of the Internet :lol:. Secondary was to have another Image of W2K3 EE to run when I wanted to study (when I get around to creating and using that Image).

The VM would only have access to 256MB of Ram and 6GB HD for its virtual Drive.

Ok, so how did it run? Very very slow. Even before starting into Windows 2003, the HD would be thrasing around. Trying to move the mouse was like going through sludge. When Emule and Azureus were running, things were even worse.

When starting up another VM machine of the exact same spec. Things just got slower, although still workable.

One curious point to make. Was that Emule on Virtual Machine 1 would get 80 to 120k in download. Emule VM2, would never go above 15k in download.

So in order to fix things, I did this.

- Tell my AV to exclude emule temp and incoming dirs, azureus folder and VM's folders.
- To add in the config file for each VM.. (.vmx)
- MemTrimRate=0
- sched.mem.pshare.enable=FALSE option

Can find why here : http://www.virtualization.info/2005/11/how-to-improve-disk-io-performances.html

But still the performance was bad. The thrashing of HD's did die down abit. But still noticable.

Stopped everything. Uninstalled VM Server and then Installed VM Workstation 5.5.1.

Difference here, is like night and DAY!

Firstly, with VM Server on the XP Host. My memory usage would be around 427MB. Now its not even over 300MB.

I can have 2 VM machines of Windows EE with no problems at all. The mouse pointer glides across the screen like its a real session. I have also replaced Azureus with uTorrent. Just to save a bit of memory.

Finally, both emules are downloading as the speeds they are supposed too. I.e both were doing around the 90k when I last saw them.

At this point, only adding another 1GB will allow me to run another 2x Windows 2003 EE servers hopefully this time at 384MB to make the experience better.

So yeah, VM Server 2003 is free and its a good entry point to start off from. But I recommend whole-heartedly the Workstation variant. Well worth the money :)