Slashdot Mirror
VMware "Miles Ahead" of Microsoft Virtual Server
sunshineluv7 writes, "IT managers gathered in New York City earlier this week to get advice from experts on when, why, and how to virtualize their server environments. The takeaway from the conference: if you want to run an enterprise-class virtualization platform in production today, stick with VMware." Other wise words from this conference: "Virtualization is a journey, not a project."
VMWare does on-the-demand binary translation (BT) to avoid traps. I could be wrong, but I don't think Microsoft Virtual Server does BT.
Its also awesome that VMWare Server is available free to download. I installed it on my laptop running Ubuntu and can run Windows XP.
http://www.vmware.com/download/server/
I recently tried the free version of VMWare on Windows XP. Their documentation is horrible and it definitely looks like they want people to buy it than use the free version. I tried loading all version of Linux from Red Hat Linux to Ubuntu all of which failed at some point. Frustrated, I've given up...
Help a man when he is in trouble and he will remember you when he is in trouble again.
Help me/us countryfolk understand: So if you get a BSOD in a virtual environemnt, are you dead or not? I imagine that with some of the Windows hardware hooks, you'd probably be dead anyhow, so it wouldn't matter if you were virtually dead or really dead.
stuff |
It's mostly anecdotal, but I work at a Microsoft shop, and several developers still clamor for VMWare even though we have Virtual Server for free, as it seems to be a lot better performance-wise.
I'm still waiting for an update to Virtual PC, there the difference is abysmal.
Also, would it be possible to emulate some other hardware? The current video card emulated by Virtual PC won't support Aero.
There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.
So how long do you wait? I've used VMWare ESX server in production for years and more recently the scaled down VMServer and MS virtual server. ESX is quantum leaps above the current MS offerings, they are not even playing on the same field. In fact, even the free VMServer product from VM is far better then the MS virtual server product IMHO.
I have no doubt MS will improve the product and add functionality as time goes on but they are currently WAY behind and not making great strides at this time.
You can wait but you will be waiting a looong time, at least years. Keep in mind, VMWare products are improving as well.
Bad boys rape our young girls but Violet gives willingly.
I have been researching the feasability of operating a WAN with multiple domains. Each domain to be hosted as a Virtual server in a central location where the client LAN's are connected via VPN. I have researched a bit of Xen, MS Virtual Server, and VMware. Currently vmware server is leading but as slashdotters we are all tinkerers. I am wondering who out there has tried this setup with vmware or Xen and their thoughts.
CS: It is all sink or swim...oh and did I mention there are sharks in that water?
Although VMware appears to be better for now, will it have the same level of support and compatibility that Microsoft provides?
If you are referring to compatibility amongst MS products I suspect the answer would be yes, it will probably work great for running MS products on top of MS products. However, keeping in mind MS' contempt for their customers coupled with the fact that MS has a very very difficult time "playing fair" with any competitors, I would assume that anything other than a MS product that you try to run will fail. It will not fail miserably or refuse to install, it will just be "buggy" and MS will point the finger squarely at whatever "unsupported" OS it is that you are using. Now as far as compatibilty goes, could you elaborate what you mean there? MS is famous for not being compatible with anything (including older MS software itself). You will also want to keep in mind that VMWare has been doing this for a long time. This is Internet2 for MS -- they missed the boat big-time and are now trying to catch up.
The quick and dirty virtualisation is with the Linux-for-Windows Screensaver; screenshot here
Where's the study/chart contrasting VMWare with Xen virtualization? Those are the two to watch - Microsoft will just copy whichever one (or features) serves MS better.
--
make install -not war
We have been looking at which technology to go with and I currently have two production systems up hosting virtual servers (one with VMWare Server, the other with Virtual Server 2003 R2). These are hosted on Windows 2003 Servers, and the guests are also Windows 2003. Although both products have been performing fairly well, we have had a few problems with the VMWare server (pausing/unpausing the server through the command line fails occasionally). Also, when SP1 comes out for VS 2003, it will officially support shadow copy so we can do live backups of the virtual images.
At this point, we have decided to go with MS Virtual Server to consolidate our servers. On the other hand, all of our test, development and demo environments are in VMWare Workstation and VMWare Player. VMWare Workstation is way ahead of Virtual PC.
ÕÕ
I was at this forum, and MS said that it will operate other OS'. They're also going to include the Hypervisor free in all copies of Longhorn. This certainly is better than Novell's first crack at it - their Linux version could only run thier OS.
--- RFC 1149 Compliant.
Wow, you must be the poster child for the effects of Microsoft marketing spin. It's sad that this is what we've come to. VMware is not the only product that does what it does but it does it very well.
And, it's their main product, their bread-and-butter.
That's not the case with Virtual Server so there is no guarantee that Microsoft will continue to support it - and, with the release of Vista on the horizon, they have a lot bigger fish to fry in the short term.
As to whether, or not, Virtual Server will overtake it, who can say? It will probably take a few years and VMware won't stand still
Pain is merely failure leaving the body
i use vmware since version 4.0 and it always worked as expected. the one thing i don't like about it is sealing with any-any patches. we build and deploy our own linux kernels and therefore, we have to recompile the vmware modules.
this wouldn't be the problem, if only vmnet or any other vmware module wouldn't need to be patched to avoid freezes. sometimes we had to alter the build perl scripts because it does not take the gcc from the environment but searches it for itself (and that diesn't have to be the version our kernel was compiled with). a better update system or maybe distribution integration (commercial branch) would be much better.
i know it's another kind of virtualization and maybe a bit off-topc, but since they are availeable, i love solaris 10 zones - if another virtual solaris box is all you need (haven't tried linux in zones yet and wouldn't use it in production systems), it's almost perfect.
I installed VMWare on my Dell laptop, created a 30GB partition (of which 20GB is MP3/M4P), installed the Dell XP Pro OEM version in VMWare, which automatically picked up the system's XP key, and I got iTunes running in VMWare, Office 2003 for historical mail and the odd Word/Powerpoint/Excel documents which OpenOffice 2 has difficulties handling.
I guess the ironic part here is that I had to install an antivirus program on a laptop running Linux, but now that Evolution gets along just fine with the company's Exchange 2003 server (even the calendar entries shows up - I am impressed at how good it actually is!), I am in general a much happier human being running Linux, and I have the best of both worlds (depending on your point of view) being able to run iTunes and Office 2003 on my Linux laptop!
In response to the personal jab: I brought up a possibly overlooked aspect of the software. I didn't say that it made MS or VMware better than the other. I just posed it for people to consider. In other words, I am MS's "poster child" because I actually THINK about things instead of blindly touting one side or the other. From the post: "This is not a criticism of VMware". I post food for thought, and because I am not a fanboy, I am labeled as an overrated flamer who is the "poster child for the effects of Microsoft marketing spin". Remember, I did NOT say that VMware was bad, or even that MS was better than VMware. It was just a simple possibility to consider. Now, for speaking my mind, I will be flamed out of existence. Thank you.
Not only "land of the free" but "land of the lawyers" who love a good old 1st amendment smackdown. Shihar 153932
vmware might very well be better, but ms allows you to run 4 virtual servers with 1 license of MS windows server 2003 R2. i doubt they allow it if you use vmware
feel free to correct me with a link if im wrong
The free one is fine for messing around with, and probably better than the Microsoft version anyway on that platform (plus the other stuff it can do), but the ESX is where its at for more serious work...
Unlike the free version, you don't install it on a server that's already running something like windows server 2003 or ubuntu, you instead install it as the base OS on the box, and then run whatever virtual servers you want on top of that. Its one less layer to worry about, and the performance is superior.
I've run just about every kind of server we have on here via this, even older things like Novell servers. Getting rid of old servers is one of the best reasons to go to vmware... They have a migration tool that essentially virtualizes and existing box, as long as no one's hitting it directly by the IP address the next day they come in most of them won't even know they're hitting a virtual server.
In most cases I find it easier to not tell them, otherwise people somehow get worried if you try to explain to them that they're not using a physical server...
"Waste not one watt!" - CZ
Now, for speaking my mind, I will be flamed out of existence. Thank you.
:-D
You're very welcome.
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
The licence just states that if you are running 2003 R2 as the host OS you can run 4 instances of it as VMs on the same server. It doesn't dictate that you must use the MS virtual server product but it does limit you inthe fact you could not do the same with the FULL ESX product from VMware since it becomes the host. You could however use the free VMware server hosted on a 2003 R2 system, as the licence is worded right now anyway.
EA David Gardner -"... but the consumers have proven that actually what they want is fun."
if this were fark.com .... tag on this would be Obvious. ;)
This seems as good a place as any to ask these quesions... Last weekend I bought a core 2 duo CPU and related hardware for a new home server. I decided to do all my server work within virtual machines, and am using VMWare. Debian and Ubuntu don't support my motherboard yet (Asus P5B-VM) so I'm using a Windows Server 2003 x64 trial as my host OS.
I haven't been following hardware that much in recent years, but I know the conroe chips have hardware-based virtualization. I'm pretty sure Microsoft's Virtual Server supports this, as does Xen, but does VMWare? This seems like it would be a Big Deal. Just for fun I ran super pi on my host OS and on my Windows virtual machine, and actually got a FASTER score in the VM so I'm not disappionted by its performance so far.
Also, I've noticed that VMWare is a 32-bit program, so how is its support for 64-bit virtual machines? I only have 2GB of RAM at the moment, but can I get a 64-bit Windows VM to recognize 6GB of RAM if I load up my host?
www.clarke.ca
Didn`t check with the latest version, but with 4.0 I was unable to install Sarge, anyway I`m using vserver for any virtualization thingie, not so powerfull but more stable than Xen, atm.
I'm no fan of Novell, but their "first crack at it" was a technology preview of Xen, which by its own admission only supported OSes that have been ported to the Xen hypervisor. It's not like the Xen folks could get the Windows XP source and release a version ported to Xen, now, could they? They were not claiming it would work with other OSes without VT.
Your comment about that seems like an attempt to deflect attention away from the GP's implied point, which was... the knowledge, borne out of years of experience, of just about everyone I know in this industry that must administer a heterogeneous computing environment, that MS does not play nice with others. Every admin, when they consider using MS products in such an environment, has to ask himself, "How will Microsoft fsck me over with this decision?"
I'm doing that now, even as I advocate moving our NIS maps into Active Directory, converting from NIS to LDAP and doing SSO with Kerberos using AD as the KDC.
the growth in cynicism and rebellion has not been without cause
I have tested Virtual PC, Virtual Server and VMWare Server and VMWare Workstation for our testing environment, and it seems MS is more flexible in a way: you can easily copy a Virtual Machine from one computer to an other even if they have different hardware. With VMWare workstation, i had strange problems.
I didn't have any of those problems using VMWare Server, but the web interface of MS VServer was really more usefull for our build machines, test environments and portability too.
BUT, MS doesn't support x64 Guest Environment... so even though we have mostly a MS environment (using VirtualServer), we had to use a couple of VMWare Server machines to use WinXP x64...
I wouldn't mind you in my head, if you weren't so clearly mad -Lews Therin Telamon
The fact that VMware Server, Workstation and ESX all can run 64bit guests on top of a 32bit OS/host (when the appropriate 64bit extensions (AMD64, Intel VT) is all that I needed to hear.. :)
sig goes here!
Whoever came up with this has never tried to install DB2 in VMWare. Good luck with that.
Adventure City Tours
Although VMware appears to be better for now, will it have the same level of support and compatibility that Microsoft provides?
God I hope not. If VMWare gave end-users (that paid for the software) the level of support that MS gives end-users (that paid for the software,) I wouldn't even be able to open a ticket without forking over additional large $$$. Nope, I hope VMWare keeps up with the high quality of support it gives paying users and doesn't stoop to the non-support level MS has.
I used VMWare Workstation when it was just "VMWare" and it was sluggish. However, since upgrading to 5.5 it runs great and every VM I've tried to install on it was a snap. I'm using the Linux host version-- running it on a FC5 system and am able to run Windows-only apps, such as SQL Server, in a guest OS.
I also took a look at Parallels VM and it looked like a cheaper knockoff of VMWare Workstation. For the price it seemed fine but they didn't (and still don't-- I believe) support 64-bit host operating systems. VMWare Workstation supports 64-bit perfectly. I run a Windows guest all of the time on my linux system that I only reboot when I upgrade a kernel. I've never had any crashes as a result of running VMWare.
Honestly, we're quite happy with VI3, but we need 3.0.1, due in October. There are a few honestly quite stupid bugs in 3.0 that need to be attended to. The most aggravating part is the license server (based on flexlm, which is usually not so bad). Licensing is the one thing where VMware is going backwards on (although the COST of licensing is quite good now).
There exists no way of exchanging information without making judgments. --Bene Gesserit Axiom
IBM's Virtual Machine (VM) is decades ahead of VMWare. It was first available in 1966. It's reliability, scalability, features, and more; have been enhanced since its beginnings, it is trusted by the most data and reliability sensitive companies and corporations in the world. It isn't just a hypervisor like VMWare or Microsoft's Virtual Suite--it's a full fledged operating system.
It bothers me to watch those whom praise this or that without knowing more about it. Yes, VMWare is good, especially for the PC. However, don't lose sight of superior advancements we've already made in the name of hype and evangelism.
So yeah, if you want an enterprise class virtualization solution you SHOULD be running VMWare. Things should be interesting in a year or two when M$ releases their bare metal virtualization engine. I believe the code name at the moment is viridian.
The virtual copies are tied to the OS, not the VM software. So yes, you can run 4 copies legally on VM.
I wish VMware would provide ANY support for their Workstation product. I started using VMware Workstation with version 4. Didn't have a single problem for a year and a half. Then all of a sudden, it starts locking up. Not just a guest OS lockup. The host system locks up. The host (running RHEL 3) completly disapperas from the network. Nothing written to log files, no kernel panic, not a dam thing. Funny thing, it ONLY happens when running VMware. No other application.
So I put in a support call. What's the response? "Uh, we haven't seen that before. Sorry, don't know what to do. Try reinstalling your host OS. If that doesn't work, try UPGRADING to VMware Workstation 5. Do you want me to close your support ticket or leave it open?" I couldn't make this shit up. This by the way is the response for a user (me) that has PAID for gold support from VMware. I talked to a friend of mine who is experiencing the EXACT same thing, and has gotten the same response from support. I've searched the knowledge base, vmware forums, etc., all with no answer.
I guess sticking you head in the sand and ignoring the problem is the VMware support way to go.
"I brought up a possibly overlooked aspect of the software. I didn't say that it made MS or VMware better than the other."
Your first post read like a MS fanboy reaching for straws as if someone called your baby ugly. Sorry, that's how it read.
In case anyone is not aware, you can play some games (very experimental feature) in VMware 5.5 VMs. It supports DX8.1 games. There is even WIP list on the vmware forums to post working games as well. (if you are really intrested google it. not too hard to find) So even still this is a leg up on Parallels and MS/XEN (MS and XEN are partnered up in case you havent read up on that). With limited success you can run an Aqumark3 benchmark with moderate performance. MS and the others in the virtualization space do not have 3d as far along as VMware does at this point. The fact that they are also actively working on a version for the Mac should also say something for the Mac fans out there about 3d support. VMware tools and the SVGA driver is what eneables the 3d ability as well as code in the VMware. A beta for the Mac is due out soon if you go on the VMware page and sign up. Hopefully once the next version of workstation is out there will be DX9 support meaning alot more games can run on it. Performance aside the fact it can run games is a nice feature.
Actually, that wouldn't be the Vista team working on that. They have already said they are putting it into Longhorn.
If they do that, MS will be the leader in virtualization. It will be there, why not use it? Kind of like msn.com as a homepage.
Grammer Nazis - I mod you "troll" unless you actually add something on-topic. Yes, I know I have mispellings in my sig.
Well, VMware Server comes with a free Frogurt.
We currently have multiple ESX 2.5 machines for our production VMs, and are testing ESX 3.0 on our development box. We also have a couple of Virtual Server 2005 R2 boxes. Right now I can tell you that in an enterprise environment, ESX wins against VS 2005 hands down. Virtual Server 2005 is NOT an enterprise level virtualization environment. However, there are some major changes coming with Longhorn's virtualization, which isn't so far in the future now. A lot of goodies are on the way, and a lot of it is baked right into the OS. Microsoft is making a MAJOR push into virtualization. Don't count them out, especially if you're a Microsoft shop. If your just getting into virtualization, my recommendation is to set up a box for each of the freebies and try them out. If nothing else, knowing both will look good on your resume.
Surely this isn't a fair or even comparison - they're comparing VMWare ESX which runs on bare-metal against Microsoft Virtual Server which runs on top of Windows (XP/2003) so obviously ESX has an advantage as it runs directly on the hardware. If they compared VMWare GSX (now VMWare Server) against Microsoft Virtual Server it'd be a much fairer comparison. We're looking at moving to Virtual Servers at work and at present Microsoft Virtual Server is winning because from the tests we've performed comparing it in terms of performance and ease-of-use against VMWare Server there's no difference, and we're a Microsoft shop so we're going to stick with what we know.
As for me, VMware really is miles ahead - I can install it on my Ubuntu to run Vista. Or... I can install it on Windows to run Ubuntu? (never tried this).
I doubt that I could do that on MS Virtual Server.
Is... virtualization is going to cost you more time/problems/personell so the cost you save by going virtual is going to come at you ten fold Dan sikorsky - Systems Admin RHWI inc.
Microsoft's half-assed clone is of lower quality than the product of a company that basically invented the technology. News at 11.
http://outcampaign.org/
Lunch on Monday was excellent, except that they served spinach. It was cooked, but I still left it on my plate.
>I post food for thought
:-)
I guess people think you post thought for food.
Tomrrow, microsoft will take over the VM market with a marginal product, but will still take over.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
lol
why can't there be a good FOSS alternative to virtualization? I mean, we have Xen, which requires either special hardware or you must be using linux on both, or we have QEMU, an emulator. We can use KQEMU, but that is closed source, and QVM86 hardly works as a replacment. I wish there was a FOSS virtualization program of the same quality as VMWare or Virtual PC.
The Gospel according to lolcat
http://www.microsoft.com/licensing/highlights/virt ualization/faq.mspx
Q. If Windows Server 2003, Enterprise Edition, is used as the host environment, am I granted four virtual licenses? What if VMWare is the host?
A. Licensing does not depend on which virtualization technology is used. With a license for Windows Server 2003 R2, Enterprise Edition, you can run one instance of the software in a physical operating system environment and up to four instances in virtual operating system environments. With VMWare GSX Server, this means you can run one physical instance plus four virtual instances. With VMWare ESX Server, it means you can run four virtual instances because there is no need for a physical instance.
How useless is that statement: "Virtualization is a journey, not a project." For those of use who actually need to work in a business its a project. It has a timeframe, stakeholders, completion, and budget. A journey is a luxury. I really sick of the "but its an ongoing journey" type comments. A perfect way to get me to /delurk and rant, and I consider myself trolled.
Andrew
Actually if you use RAID level 10 you get speed and mirroring. You'll lose 50% capacity (same as a normal mirror) and need 4 drives to implement.
Sometimes my arms bend back.
It seems as though many people here don't know the difference between products. They say "VMWARE" when they mean "VMWARE Workstation." OK People, here's the breakdown.
VMWARE Virtual Infrastructure 3 (formally ESX)
No real compitition
VMWARE Virtual Server (formally GSX)
XEN
Microsoft Virtual Server
VMWARE Workstation
Microsoft Virtual PC
Sigh
The above comments are not guaranteed to make sense to anyone other than the author...
One of the uses for VMware which perhaps was unintended is to enable people to run NT version 4 on up to date hardware. You'd be surprised how many businesses out there have an application on which they depend, but where the developers have disappeared, and they chooses to continue running NT4 rather than update the app.
And even with the layers of abstraction, a VM on current hardware is much faster than running NT4 on 5+ year old metal.
The last scintilla of doubt just rode out of town
Weird, another Dan Sikorsk(i/y) on slashdot?
Not that name collisions are that uncommon, just that they're uncommon within a given group (slashdot) with less common names (Sikorski).
If you've ever wanted to talk to another Dan Sikorski(i/y), email me: me (AT) dan sikorski . com
Check out the bare metal version of our moka5 LivePC Engine. It is pretty much exactly what you are referring to: A tiny, stripped-down version of Linux made for running VMware virtual machines. It includes some neat features like being able to publish and share your virtual machine with others, "subscribe" to a virtual machine and automatically get updates, and demand-page and cache virtual machines so you can run them without having to download the whole thing.
There are already lots of preconfigured Linux environments that you can download and try out with a single click. My favorite is the LiveCD feature, where you can try out a LiveCD without having to burn it or even download the file - the system demand-pages only the blocks that it needs. Pretty slick.