[windows2000] Re: OT - Virtualization
- From: "Tim Mangan" <tmangan@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <windows2000@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2006 09:39:38 -0400
VMWare ESX (the one you pay for that has better performance) is really it's
own OS that runs as the base OS, from what I am told. The console part is
what runs on linux. The installer confuses most people on that. You
install linux as the base OS on a system, then install ESX. Ultimately, the
private ESX ends up as the base OS and you end up with original base linux
with the ESX console being the first virtual guest OS. Kind-of funky, but
it does provide for better performance than virtualizing on top of a general
purpose OS.
This is different than for VMWare Workstation or the new free Server
product, which run on top of the base OS, like the MS VPC/VS products.
The Xen approach allows for even better performance due to it's
para-virtualization technique - which basically means making changes inside
the guest OS to streamline down to the hardware with less overhead. It's
just that you need to make source changes to the guest OS, it isn't a matter
of dropping in an additional device driver. Unfortunately, I make my living
by fixing problems with MS Oss so there is no draw to me for Xen.
tim
From: windows2000-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:windows2000-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Sorin Srbu
Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2006 2:44 AM
To: windows2000@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [windows2000] Re: OT - Virtualization
Xen only runs in *nix then? I'll google for it. 8-)
I'm getting intolinux, so a good VM-interface would be nice. VMware runs on
linux too, or so I hear.
_____
From: windows2000-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:windows2000-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Tim Mangan
Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2006 8:24 PM
To: windows2000@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [windows2000] Re: OT - Virtualization
I have done linux and free bsd on MS VS. Also 2k on VMWare. Although it
has been reported as been done, my understanding is that Xen doesn't to MS
OSs (for most of us) as you need source kernel changes. I am very hot on
both MSVS and VMWare for my test lab, where no more than one machine is
really loaded at a time. A multi-user production environment is something I
would not consider without a good pilot first.
Tim
From: windows2000-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:windows2000-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Sorin Srbu
Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2006 8:26 AM
To: windows2000@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [windows2000] Re: OT - Virtualization
Dual-cores and dual-cpus are great for virtualisation! I have a amd x2/4400.
It's awesome when running the virtual machines. I also have 2GB ram
installed, would need another 2... Runs fine/ok now though with about 3-4
VMs. Bigger experimental setups would need more ram.
In my environment and my opinions:
Xen: Demon on speed in a rush. Runs all OSes I know of. Never tried this
though, but hear it's good.
MS VS: Speed demon. Runs all windows-versions. Doesn't do anything *nix
AFAIK.
VMWare VS: Slightly slower than MS's VS. Better interface though (tabbed).
Doesn't run Win2k (at least mine doesn't, refuses install for some reason).
Does everything *nix.
I have both MS and VMW VMs installed.
HTH.
_____
From: windows2000-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:windows2000-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Daniel Ensor
Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2006 1:39 PM
To: windows2000@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [windows2000] Re: OT - Virtualization
I have an old citrix server which has a couple of gbs of RAM but only a few
p3 1.8's in. I was thinking of using that, would that do? When talking
software which is the best I know MS do virtual server and then there's
VMWARE. Any recommendations?
_____
From: windows2000-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:windows2000-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Angus Macdonald
Sent: 22 August 2006 12:31
To: windows2000@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [windows2000] Re: OT - Virtualization
If you can rake together the hardware (it doesn't have to be high spec for
testing but lots of memory is a good idea) it's worth doing, especially now
that decent virtualisation software is available for free.
-----Original Message-----
From: Daniel Ensor [mailto:densor@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: 22 August 2006 12:11
To: windows2000@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [windows2000] Re: OT - Virtualization
The way I see it is that it's kind of going back to how it was when hardware
was really expensive, so you had to have one server running multiple
apps/roles. Then when hardware got cheaper, esp discs and memory, all the
roles were split up to single machines, at least in my experience.
I guess I still have a slight fear about running a lot on one machine, (I
know the machines are hardly comparable with then and have redundant
discs/power/nics etc), but I really could do with getting one running as I
said for a lab machine with a citrix box and a few other bits and bobs like
WSUS etc.
Thanks for the info.
_____
From: windows2000-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:windows2000-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Angus Macdonald
Sent: 22 August 2006 11:58
To: windows2000@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [windows2000] Re: OT - Virtualization
We run a couple of low-use Citrix servers (<5 users but a very fussy app), a
PDC and BDC for a legacy NT4 domain, pairs of servers (on different physical
hosts) supporting various in-house developed systems and a variety of
similar machines. I would be happy to run mission-critical servers on VMWare
now that I have more experience and confidence in it but all of our critcal
systems are heavy-use.
On the desktop I use VirtualPC to run all sorts of legacy machines for
software testing and development.
-----Original Message-----
From: Daniel Ensor [mailto:densor@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: 22 August 2006 11:39
To: windows2000@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [windows2000] Re: OT - Virtualization
So you're running non mission critical servers, I like the idea of virtual
servers but most of ours have mission critical apps on. I like the idea for
lab machines though!
Cool.
_____
From: windows2000-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:windows2000-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Angus Macdonald
Sent: 22 August 2006 11:30
To: windows2000@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [windows2000] Re: OT - Virtualization
The physical servers have lots of built-in redundancy and I wouldn't class
any of thevirtual servers as enterprise-critical. In the event of a physical
failure I can copy the important ones back from tape (each server is only a
handful of files) to another server (I have a lower-spec server for
development) and bring them back within a few minutes.
-----Original Message-----
From: Daniel Ensor [mailto:densor@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: 21 August 2006 15:00
To: windows2000@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [windows2000] Re: OT - Virtualization
What happens though if a server fails? Haven't you put all your eggs in a
few baskets?
_____
From: windows2000-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:windows2000-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Angus Macdonald
Sent: 21 August 2006 12:42
To: windows2000@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [windows2000] Re: OT - Virtualization
I've got a couple of beefy Quad-Xeon, 12GB RAM machines running about 30
servers in total.
The main benefits are I can provision low-use servers without wasting
hardware and I can provision them quickly, typically less than 10 minutes
from deciding it's needed to having it available on the domain for use. They
are also easy to backup and move to another host in the event of a hardware
failure, although I've yet to have one.
Running VMWare GSX 3.
-----Original Message-----
From: Ron Leach [mailto:rleach@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: 18 August 2006 21:27
To: windows2000@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [windows2000] OT - Virtualization
Just curious...
How many of you are now using either server virtualization or storage
virtualization (or both)?
If you are using it, what benefits have you seen?
If not, do you plan to use it anytime soon?
Again, just curious.
TIA
Ron
Visit the new FDL web - site designed to serve you better-
http://www.fdl.co.uk This message has been sent from Fuerst Day Lawson Ltd
and confirms that the email has been scanned and to the best of our
knowledge is free from virus infection. The unauthorised use, disclosure,
forwarding or copying of this message and any attachments is strictly
prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please email
moderator@xxxxxxxxx This message and any attachments, which are confidential
and may be privileged, are for the use of the addressee(s) only. The views
and opinions expressed in this email message are the author's own and may
not reflect the views and opinions of Fuerst Day Lawson Ltd.
Other related posts:
