I also have better I/O performance as well. not running the VM's (no swap increase either). I have had three 384MB VM's running at the same time, and because of memory management under Linux I only saw an increase of approximately 600MB vs. Under Linux, I get better performance when running multiple VM's at the same time. Under Windows, all of the above "just works". Also, under FC5 with SELinux enabled, I had to manually change the context of one of the VMware files after install before SELinux would even allow VMware to run. Every time I upgrade kernels, I must then rebuild the modules to get VMware working again. I run my personal VMware on an FC5 Linux host, and had to download an unsupported "patch" (from one of the VMware developers - not even hosted on the VMware web site) to allow the script to build the necessary modules for my specific kernel. Under Linux, there are only a few supported Linux distros (and specific versions at that) that have pre-built modules installed as part of VMware. VMware needs kernel hooks to provide its virtualization services. Having run VMware (I'm assuming workstation) on both Windows and Linux hosts, I have seen plusses on both. ) Down the road when 4GB+ is standard on laptops, VMWare's 圆4 support will probably be a lot better. Determining whether your CPU supports it is so difficult, VMWare made a tool to do it for you called the processor check utility. With hardware that supports 64-bit virtualization (many new Pentiums and Opterons), 64-bit guests can be run on both 32- and 64-bit hosts. VMWare now claims official support for 圆4 host operating systems, but in practice these are more trouble to get working than they are worth (MUI, authentication, and even stability can be problematic IMO). If your system is AMD64/EM64T, you may be tempted to load a 64-bit OS. For right now, Google University has more help for VMWare on Red Hat^W^WCentos than Ubuntu. As Ubuntu gains popularity, the choice may be clearer. I am running it on two servers for testing and it is performing very well. VMWare server claims experimental support for Ubuntu Dapper. It's a little easier to setup XFS and VMWare on Ubuntu. Centos isn't supported by VMWare but Red Hat is. For less critical servers, I prefer Centos 4 with the Centosplus kernel (see the Readme ). XFS support is a little tricky to find in VMWare supported distros. Ext3 does not cut it (regardless of writeback option used). The best performance by far was Linux with XFS. I've run Workstation and GSX (Server) on Windows and Linux. The difference between a functional package and a usable -and- functional package often isn't a lot but it's a small difference that a lot of people are more than happy to pay for. You can burn up $199 in wages in half a day. There's a lot more "messing around" with other solutions. It's $199 USD (for workstation) and the cost of the purchase is long forgotten after the ease of use has saved you many times more. It's a dead simple system to use even with an unsupported distro like Slackware linux. It's one thing to not want to purchase software, fair enough - but let's not try and stone people.įact is, vmware out of the "box" runs and runs very well. have more time on their hands than pending tasks What is it with people and their desire to try and disseminate your reason for having or wanting to, God forbid, purchased a software package. >Why do you want to run VMWare? I have used both VMWare and qemu (as well as Xen, but I don't think that will work if you are interested in running Windows)
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |