I couldn´t find any information on the documentation of VMware about this topic. Any advise on where to find information on this is very appreciated.
VMware workstation, fusion and player are desktop productions that run on top of other operating systems like windows, linux and mac os. VMware ESX, ESXi run on bare metal directly. Since VMware Infrastructure 3 is built upon ESX and ESXi 3.X, it is ok for you to run workstation on top of VI3. But it should be pointed out that workstation running on VI3 won't support hardware virtualization even if your physical cpu ships with hardware virtualization solution. However, latest ESXi and even workstation support so called "nested virtualization" in non-production environment. Actually, I have a virtual ESXi 5 server that runs within my fusion 5.
Assuming that you mean that you want to run a virtualization solution (VMware Workstation) on top of another virtualization solution (VMware Infrastructure), although I'm not sure why you would want to do that instead of simply using a single virtualization solution (either Infrastructure or Workstation, depending on what your needs/goals are), I don't believe that it's blocked. To VMware Infrastructure, the guest OS that you're running Workstation on should just look like any other guest OS, albeit one that's probably using a lot of resources.
You might find someone else who is trying to accomplish the same thing in the Workstation community.
Related
I am planning to use VMWare workstation for installing linux. But my use case is to have multiple kernel versions as part of development requirement.
Does VMWare allow use of this?
I mean will GRUB or loader prompt me for loading of kernel of my choice the way which it will do on actual system ?
Thanks, kedar
Yes, it will allow this. Linux does not care if it is running in a VM or on real hardware. As far as Linux knows (except for the VMWare tools, of course), it is running on real hardware.
The VM "disk" is just a file on the host file system so can be set up independently of that host file system, including boot loaders and such.
Vmware workstation mimics a true hardware installation very well, almost everything you can do in a physical box you can do in a virtual machine. It's not perfect but it is pretty close to it. I use a 2 physical machine setup to mimic a 10 machine domain lab. The ability to save snapshots or to pause a machine makes it better than a physical machine in some respects.
It is a great tool and one that I recommend for anyone learning IT
I'm going to develop mostly Django sites on a MacBook Pro and would like to use Ubuntu VMs for testing purposes.
Which product is better suited for this purpose?
Can I connect to the VM via TCP/IP (so I can have apache running on the VM and access it from Safari on my MBP)?
Thanks!
It should be possible using VMWARE FUSION. It has a good network management, and you should be able to access easily your vm via network.
I've successfully used both VirtualBox and VMWare Fusion for this. On both systems, you can set the guest up so that it has its own IP address, and connect to it via HTTP, SSH and even native file sharing, so you can mount the guest's drive as a network drive from the Mac, and vice versa. This makes it possible to do the editing on the Mac in eg Textmate, but run the server on the VM.
I can only tell you about my experiences with a Core2Quad Q6600 on VMWare Fusion 3.0. I have three boot partitions on this system (ahem yes it is a hackintosh running with the E-Fix USB).
So i can do performance measurements. I use it for sometimes very large compiler sessions. And the amazing fact was that Linux as a Guest runs without any measureable time difference on virtualised and native Linux. Windows7 on the other hand only runs with 40% on my machine and GUI is allmost non useable while the GNOME Desktop from latest Ubuntu still works fine.
Check this out. Virtual Box is free so there is nothing to loose.
we are setting up new QE testing server. I guess host OS will be win2008
Which vmware server to choose - 1.x or 2.x ?
A year ago I tried vmware 1 server with Win2008 and it did not work at all.
However, Vmware server 2 did not seem to have the handy vmware console
VMware Server Console\vmware.exe
(is the new vmware server2 still just web based?)
we have a lot of vmware 1 images, are these ok for v2?
Or is it just better to go with HyperV?
Hyper-V Server or ESXi would probably be the best performing and most trouble free options - ie virtualisation not really dependant on the host operating system (but still free).
You can use tools like Vmdk2Vhd to convert image files. Be aware that you should boot the image in its old format first and uninstall vmware tools and some drivers like specific disk controller drivers (as per the instructions of the tool) before you convert it.
Going the enterprise route the System Center Virtual Machine Manager can do this mostly automatically, but then it's not a free solution anymore :) This platform can of course also do physical to virtual migrations for you...
...but alas, you can prepare a physical machine the same way as before converting a vmware image and then use normal imaging tools to clone it into a virtual machine. Or you can use Vmware's free converter tool and then convert the resulting vmdk image to vhd :)
Vmware Server v2 can use v1 images. Windows Server 2008 is supported only in v2. v2 also includes the Virtual Infrastructure Client which you can use instead of the web access ( the client replaces the old console from v1). This is the same client that is used with ESX.
vmware 2.0 crashed regularly on one server I have - however, hasn't crashed since the recent 2.0.1 update (but its only been a week).
I have w2K8 running under vmware 1.0.9 - by selecting Vista (experimental) as the OS setting. However, it's not under any load yet.
I'd recommend ESXi over VMware Server (you can migrate the images) purely for performance reasons. Server 2008 and Vista both run abysmally under VMware Server from my experience. With ESXi and a decent hardware RAID setup, things can be a bit more bearable.
We have 3 identical HP DL380 G5 server here, one of them is running vmware-server with one VM running on it.
I've begun the process to migrate these systems to be running ESXi (the $0, "embedded" system); two of the physical machines will have %99.99 of the time exactly 1 VM, the other will have 2.
For this, the major advantage I get Disaster Recovery ability. Our tape backup system doesn't have a "bare metal" ability. I can manually copy VM images to a different server, however. Even if they are months old, they provide pretty-close-to-instant up, further recovery they would be from tape.
Being the free version, I don't get the VMWare "consolidated backup" or VMotion. And I need to do per-physical machine management. But the ESXi takes 32MB of disk, and it specifically supports the server.
With that in mind, is there any reason not to always use ESXi, if the hardware supports it? Even if you only are planning on running 1 VM on that hardware?
Well, in your case ESXi is the better choice. There are cases where you want to use VMware Server but not really for this case. This is what ESXi is for. For instance, I use VMware Server on top of my development OS so I could do testing and use different distro's etc. I wouldn't do VMware Server for a production server like you are describing, but ESXi would be the best choice.
Is it an excellent idea to virtualize the whole OS to get the ability to make backups? NO! its not... Damn hype to virtualize without the real need for it.
There are free alternatives to make backups of pretty much any OS, image or archive of your choice.
To be more precise, XSIBackup will allow you to hot backup any ESXi edition from version 5.1 and up, it backs up the guest OS while it is running, and can even transfer it to a secondary ESXi box via IP and leave it ready to be switched on:
https://33hops.com/xsibackup-vmware-esxi-backup.html
I'm using VMware Workstation 6.0 for simulation of tight clusters of "blades" in a "chassis". Both the host and target OSs are Linux. Each "chassis" uses a vmnet switch as a virtual backplane, to which the virtual blades connect. Other vmnet switches are used to mediate point-to-point connections between mutiple virtual ethernet adapters on each blade VM. The chassis, and thus the VMs, are brought up and shutdown rather frequently. My scripts (python) make heavy use of the VIX api, and also manipulate the .vmx config file.
What do I gain and/or lose going from VMware Workstation to ESX? Do my scripts that use the VIX api still work? Do my rather complicated virtual network topologies, with lots of vmnet switches defined as "custom", still work the same way? Is the syntax and semantics of the .vmx config file the same between Workstation and ESX?Thanks in advance for your help.
The first thing you'll gain by switching will be a substantially more powerful platform that's running directly on the bare-metal of your server.
From my experience, moving up the VMware application stack has never been problematic (Server to Workstation to ESX). However, I would verify this by exporting all of your VMs from the workstation install to an ESX install to make sure you're not seeing any 'weird' issues related to running the high-end tool from VMware.
From my [limited] experience, scripts also carry-over cleanly: each offering moving up their product line doesn't break lower-level tools, but do add substantial improvements.
You get scalability and performance.
ESX scales much better and run much faster than any of VMware desktop products like Workstation or Player.
You should not lose anything. ESXi performs all the functions that Workstation does, plus a lot more. I use ESXi at home and Workstation on my laptop.
You will gain more fine-grained control over the virtual networks, over storage, snapshots, cloning, quiescing guest OSes, and many more advanced options in ESXi configuration.
One thing to note is the considerable expense of the ESX line compared to Workstation. If you're working for a successful company, though, the cost can easily be justified as ESX is (imho) da bomb. Also, FYI, the old free VMware Server options definitely had a whole different interface.