I have in my Win32 application WM-KILLFOCUS hanging procedure. If I try to debug and test them proper function, windows lost focus on each breakpoints. Because focus gets Visual Studio window. Is here some way, how debugging application without focus losing?
(The same problem is with mouse moving, etc.)
Sorry about the late reply - I've been v busy - but here's a brief writeup about how to debug in a VM (as per the comments above).
Download and install suitable VM software on your development machine. I use VMware Player. This is free for non-commercial use, but if you are using it in a commercial setting please buy a copy (it is not expensive).
Create a new Virtual Machine, configured roughly as follows:
memory 6GB or so (hopefully you can spare that much)
disk space 100GB (don't worry if this sounds overly large - the file that backs the virtual disk will grow as needed)
network adapter bridged (important!)
Install Windows in the VM - from an ISO image (you can use Microsoft's Media Creation Tool to do this). This need to be Windows 10, VMware Player doesn't support Windows 11.
Once that is up and running, install the Visual Studio Remote Debuggung Tools in the VM.
Copy your binary/ies (and maybe your .PDB file/s, I don't recall if these are needed) to the VM.
Launch your app in the VM and fire up the remote debugging tools there. Then configure these for 'no security' (this makes it easier to establish a connection, and, since you're presumably in a secure environment, it's safe enough).
Connect to the Remote Debugger running in the VM from VS on the host machine. You will need to know the VM's IP address (you can find out what that is by running ipconfig in the VM).
In VS, select the application to debug.
You should now be up and running and you should have all the awesome features of the VS debugger available to you. Any problems or questions, please feel free to ask (the last few steps are a bit hazy in my mind, but I've done my best and if you can't find your way through it I'll research this a bit more).
Good luck!
I've got a decent PC that I'd like to install xenserver on, but it's also my primary workstation. Wondering if it's possible to access guests directly from the host machine -- meaning, can I use the monitor, input devices, etc that are attached to the host, to interact with the guests.
Currently setup as a dual boot Linux and Windows machine. I need them both running simultaneously while still being able to treat the host like a workstation. Already using Virtualbox, which is great but not what I'm aiming for.
I've searched high and low for an answer to this question. Maybe I wasn't searching with the right terms. I've found a package in the Ubuntu repos that adds an entry in grub along the lines of 'Ubuntu with Xen Hypervisor', but that was on a test machine that couldn't actually run Xen.
Normally, I'd just wipe this puppy and find out for myself, but there are really good reasons why I can't just jump into it this time, so I'm turning to the community.
Thanks for any and all info!
You can use a simple text console on the host to interact with the guests
xe console vm=guest
but I don't know of a way to access a graphical interface from the host.
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.
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 9 years ago.
Improve this question
Curious, how many of you develop under a VMware environment?
Is it popular for employers to setup vmware for everyone?
Seems like a great way to rollout new desktop computers and perform backups etc.
Just worried about the performance though (PC vmwares).
Update
I was just looking at vmware's site, 1.3 BILLION in sales..wow!
I almost exclusively use Virtual Machines for development and am very happy doing so. The flexibility of multiple sand-boxed environments is definitely worth a small trade in performance.
Clearly a VM will never give you the same results as running on a native system, but you should be able to get performance that's easily within 10-15% of the real thing. In my experience many of the performance problems people encounter are due to underspecced or poorly configured systems and VM;s.
I primarily develop with a Vista x64 virtual machine on a 2.4Ghz Core 2 Duo with 4GB of Ram. Of this I assign 2GB of RAM and two virtual core's to my main VM. If I'm running more than one VM I usually change this to 1-1.5GB and one core.
Here's some quick GeekBench test results; (Note than GeekBench results under OSX and Vista don't seem comparable, they're listed here to show the impact of configs on both systems).
Fresh boot, no active applications:
Native OSX - 3115
Native OSX running Vista 64 VM - 3042
Native Vista 64 (2.4GHz x 2, 4GB) - 2596
Vista 64 VM (2 VCore, 3GB) - 2362
Vista 64 VM (1 VCore, 2GB) - 1892
These are the most common reasons for poor VM performance in my experience;
Under-specced machines. Ideally you should be able to dedicate one core and 1GB of memory to each VM you plan to work in. Contrary to what you might read I've found that Vista runs within a few percent of XP with 1GB of memory.
Running too many things on your VM. Keep your email, web browsing and IM's to Mummy on your native OS.
On your VM turn off items such as screensavers, background apps and non-essential services. If your VM's are backed-up you may want to turn off system restore.
If possible have your VM's on a separate hard-drive than your native OS so their disc access is independent if one or the other starts paging.
Defrag your VM drive. It does make a difference.
VMware Workstation 6.5 runs like a champ on my older Athlon X2. I use Visual Studio on my host machine and have many VMs installed with various OS, framework and browser combinations. VMware Workstation adds VM debugging into Visual Studio as well, so I can just hit F6 to start my app in any one of my VMs and debug it under any OS I want. The only catch is that you need at least 4gb RAM to make it practical to use more than 1 VM at a time.
My company uses VMware to test our webapp using different browsers/OS versions. Everyone has at least 1 VM on their machine for this purpose. We all develop on the native machine, however -- even on a quad core machine with 4GB RAM, it takes about 20 minutes to do a clean build of our app! For me, I dislike using VM images because of how much paging they do. A few developers here have started using Linux has the host OS and running Windows VMs inside it and they get much better performance due to reduced paging (Linux is way better at memory and disk cache management, plus is has a better scheduler). The extra VMs for testing that would normally be run inside our Windows instance thus get moved to run side by side on the Linux host, which improves performance.
I switched to developing exclusively in VMs around the time I started doing work with technologies like BizTalk Server, Sharepoint, and betas/CTPs of various things...it just got to be impossible to have all the stuff co-exist on the same box.
Since switching I have enjoyed many other benefits to developing in a VM - snapshots, portability, dynamically marshaling resources, etc.
The ultimate benefit is due to VMWare having a presence on many different hosts operating systems, thus I am free to select the host OS of my choice - XP, Vista, Linux, OSX, etc.
Now I run OSX on a MacBook Pro, which allows me to do Mac and iPhone development as well as Windows development, all on the same box.
That is the long winded backstory that brings me to answering the question - as long as your hardware is decently spec'd you should not run into any performance problems - even doing crazy shit with BizTalk and SQL Server.
We use it where I work. We are even making a dvd with the appliance on it to reduce the time it takes new developers to get up to speed.
Regarding performance, I have seen a performance hit. It seems mostly limited by the hard drive if you have snapshots enabled. Of course after I moved my vm's to a VelociRaptor, even that performance hit is no longer noticable.
Oh, I develop ASP websites and C/C++ applications using Visual Studio 2005 and 2008.
Sadly, it's not yet "popular" in the sense of "common," but it's definitely "popular" in the sense of "enjoyed" by those who try it. As a consultant, I love it, since it allows me to swap tool chains in a matter of minutes and, at the end of an engagement, burn a DVD, throw it in the project file, and be done with it.
Several responders seem to be emphasizing the use of VMs for testing, where I think it is beginning to gain some traction, at least within more sophisticated shops. It's clearly a huge win for deployment and compatibility testing.
Depends on the employer, I suppose. On a machine that is adequately-equipped, VMWare (or any virtualization software) performs perfectly fine. On machines that you are more likely to be forced to use at the majority of programming jobs, not so much.
I personally do not use VMWare at work. My work machine barely has enough power to natively handle the tools I need to use.
Its very popular unless employer is cheap, i used it in a few companies. its great for .NET or any language where you have to check if the thing works on different OS versions/platforms. The most common way is not to use VMWare on your own computer but to remotely join it.
I've started using VMware for almost everything on my personal PC.
I keep my native Windows install for games only and have seperate VMs for everything else:
a general office workstatation (MSOffice, accounting software, general crapware). This one stays on almost all the time.
a WAMP stack dev environment
a MS stack dev environment
a throwaway environment for beta testing and toying around with things that might break the OS install.
Everything is pretty fast. I use a streamlined WinXP base install that takes up very little space/memory.
Disk I/O seems to be the bottleneck for me, but I feel we are only one generation (6 months?) away from quite affordable SSDs.
I couldnt go back to physical computing.
Once you start using VM's you'll never go back. I use VMware on a MacBook Pro for Windows and Linux development and I'm very happy with the result.
Observations:
get plenty of RAM. 4GB is quite usable, but 8 is better. You're a developer, you have a lot of apps and web pages open, right?
allocate 1 core to the VM - it's faster than 2.
follow VMware's recommendations for allocating RAM to the guests
use a virtual hard drive for the guest OS. It's much faster than running the guest from a BootCamp partition.
VMware doesn't have the WDDM driver needed to enable Aero.
when I did an eval, the VMware Linux host video drivers didn't seem nearly as fast as for Windows or OSX hosts. Video for Windows guests is noticeably slower on a Linux host vs the other two OS's. This was the main reason I chose Mac over a Linux machine.
In my development environment I use a couple of VM's. Usually one (linux) server per role (such as subversion, MySQL databases, web server, trac server, etc.. ). This way my primary machine remains clean and can't affect my work by running amok, and the data remains secure on the VM-host.
VmWare is quite high-level, for production I'd recommend using a more low-level, bare-metal solution, like Xen.
VMWare as a windows development environment runs terrible on my dual core with 2GB ram (XP guest, XP host). Even with nothing running on the host except for VMware, constant paging that takes about a minute to settle every time I switch applications. Heck, native VS2008 doesn't even run that great during intellisense-heavy use (occasional noticible lag). While using a fixed VM image as my day-to-day working environment has a ton of benefits, the second-to-second performance lag is just too frustrating.
My employer is buying me a nice 64bit system with a ton of ram so I'll revisit the subject in a month. For now I just reimage my machine every couple months.
...console development is obviously performs just fine. for server applications (deployment) where high memory applications aren't launching and closing vmware is lovely and performs fine.
I am doing some SharePoint development and I really love the flexibility that comes from using the VMPlayer on my laptop. I have an image with WSS and the VS2005 tool chain and another image with MOSS and VS2008/SQL server 2008 when I need to it to the max.
When the 2008 image became corrupt (to many beta version I guess) I could just delete it and create a new one from a prior backup.
Being able to develop in a server environment while on the train speakes for it self.
PS: It only takes 4 GB to run the VMWare and it performing really nice, even with a slow 5600 rpm disk drive
Personally I would love to use a virtualization solution for my day to day development because of the ability to test and develop on multiple operating systems simultaneously. However, since my day-to-day development involves quite a bit of opengl this currently isn't a workable solution because most of the time the OS on the VM will default back to software rendering due to the lack of drivers and hardware acceleration.
I develop under a VMWare version of my entire network, including; AD Server, DB Server, etc, needless to say the performance is terrible even on our VMWare server that is running 4gb of ram. But it does allow me to develop without fear of accidentally destroying my companies live databases or shutting down an important server in the real world. And if something crazy happens, no biggy, I can just roll it back to yesterday. If my entire network wasn't housed inside the VMWare environment the performance would be incredible, but running all those other systems really bogs it down a lot.
We tried going all-in with VMs, but found that SQL Server running multiple times on the same physical box basically bogged it down to uselessness. However, I don't think we've seen any serious issues once the DBs were removed from the VM stacks.
Virtualization on desktop / workstation: Sun Virtualbox or VPC. Easy, light. We share our favorite images, keep it causal, and sometime even sysprep them.
Main QA environments get serious with Manager. It's a beast to get working, but can't live without it. There's no way we could afford our test matrix in real machines, or maintain it without the template management. Without such a resource, there are probably things you should do and don't.
Long lived servers or QA DB: VM Ware ESX. (No short explanation).
We don't have perf problems with DBs and virtualization. Well, I did in Lab Manager - which is part of why DB's live on ESX in our shop. For I/O, our IT guys do magic with SAN, iSCSI, and high quality wire. It is certainly simpler to avoid perf problems on db servers if they are bare metal, and probably possible to squeeze out more perf from a dedicated host.
Which brings up what virtualization is and isn't for: Virtualization isn't for a scenario where you are maxing out your hardware already. For example, I don't use it dev on, because I need everything my dev box can give me. It's to replace dozens of underutilized, hard to provision physical servers, with dozens of easy to provision virtual clones on many fewer hosts. It allows hot swapping more capacity, or allows engineering flexibility.
I also have some late 90s computer games that I run in virtualized Windows 98.
Closed. This question does not meet Stack Overflow guidelines. It is not currently accepting answers.
This question does not appear to be about a specific programming problem, a software algorithm, or software tools primarily used by programmers. If you believe the question would be on-topic on another Stack Exchange site, you can leave a comment to explain where the question may be able to be answered.
Closed 9 years ago.
Improve this question
I'm looking to replace a couple of machines in the office with a more powerful multi-processor machine running either VMware or Microsoft's Hyper-V with a view to hosting a mix of Windows Server 2003, Windows Server 2008 and Linux operating systems. The machines are used mainly for testing ASP.Net or Perl web sites. I don't need advanced features like live migration of running systems but it would be useful to be able to restore a machine to a known state. Performance is not really a big issue either unless one is noticeable faster than the other.
My question is: Should I play safe and go with VMware or is Hyper-V mature enough to be a candidate?
VMware did recently release a free version of ESXi recently.
VMware has a few advantages:
1. VMware virtual machines are portable across different types of hardware. IIRC, Hyper-V uses the drivers from the Host OS.
2. VMware virtual machines are portable across different VMware products (although you may need to use their converter tool to go from some hosted virtual machines to ESX or ESXi).
3. The VMware platforms have been in use much longer, and are quite mature products and generally better-known for troubleshooting.
With VMware, you could develop and test a virtual machine on your local system using VMware Workstation, Fusion, Server, or Player, and then deploy it to a production server later. With Hyper-V, I believe you would have to build the virtual machine on the target box for best results. If performance isn't really that big of an issue, then VMware Server may be the best option, for it can run most .vmx machines directly and is generally a bit easier to manage; if performance becomes critical, you still have the ESX or ESXi upgrade option that you can use those same virtual machines with.
This entry talks about how Virtual Server machines will not run on Hyper-V:
http://blogs.technet.com/jhoward/archive/2008/02/28/are-vhds-compatible-between-hyper-v-and-virtual-server-and-virtual-pc.aspx
Hyper-V works quite well and even supports Linux VM's. The main advantage is that if you are already running Windows server 2008 it comes along for free whereas you have to pay for VMWare separately. I think that VM ware provides better system management tools, but that isn't really a big benefit in this particular case.
I personally have used Hyper-V for development, i.e. running a vista machine for testing on top of a server 2008 box.
My problem with Hyper-V is that it kills performance on some things on the host OS, especially A/V stuff. Whenever I would be playing music on the host OS and do something that hits the disk hard (like compiling), the music would begin skipping. Similarly, playing streaming video, you'd have to wait until it was completely downloaded before it would play without skipping.
I've since switched back to VMware and couldn't be happier.
I like vmware. One nice feature is that it runs on multiple host OS's, so you can move your guest OS onto a linux server or a windows desktop as you like.
A quick note regarding Windows Vista as a host for VMware Server, it doesn't work as well with Vista as the host OS compared to Windows XP as the host. The system pretty much locks up while VMware server 'boots' a virtual machine. After that has taken place, it isn't too bad to use. VMware Server 2.0 should fix these issues with Vista as the host OS. (I was using Vista Business RTM)
Also of note: VMware forbids any type of benchmarking to be posted on the internet unless if they authorize the data (i.e. you will not see any benchmarks that show VMware as slower than Tech X) The rumor mill states that you can see better performance with Hyper-V, xVM (Sun's enterprise version of VirtualBox) and Xen. However these things you would have to look into yourself as you won't really find anything via Google.
Necros the thread Just wanted to add my 2c since the last post has been a while.
I have been using VMWare Server since version 1.6 all the way up to 2.0.
Just out of curiosity, I tried out Hyper-V, and there's a real definitive performance gain. Hyper-V is plain faster.
Switched over 2 months ago and never looked back.