VMware or Virtuoso?

[Cmd.exe]

I am looking to buy a new server and then run virtual servers for things like Exchange, VLE, print server, etc.

I have talked to a couple of suppliers buy i can't decide between VMware or Virtuoso.

I know nobody even got fired for buying IBM, but Virtuoso seems to have some benefits over VMware, like being able to swap images between severs of differring hardware specs.

 

Having looked at several threads i know some people are using VMware here, but is anyone using Virtuoso or can help me get off the fence... i'm getting splinters.

[Jona]

but Virtuoso seems to have some benefits over VMware, like being able to swap images between severs of differring hardware specs.

 

I thought this was the whole point of Virtual Machines, so unless I'm mis-understanding you I'm pretty sure VMware can do this too.....

[dan400007]

VMWare Server 1.0 is a non enlightened virtualation setup and will create a set of virtualised hardware which will be the same on any server.

 

If you have a look at the VMWare Server manual it will list the hardware that it emulates and the limitation on HW specifications within the virtual machines. ie a max of 3.6Gb of RAM.

[Cmd.exe]

Well thats what i hoped to do, but i've been led to believe (probably by people with a vested interest) that VMware requires identical server hardware on 2 or more servers to move images between servers.

 

I am unlikely to ever have 2 servers exactly the same so that would be an issue for me.

 

however, I have posted with the aim of being corrected, so thanks!

[Cmd.exe]

I had been looking at VMware ESX I think, if that helps?

[Sirbendy]

Nah, VMWare itself doesn't give a fig what it installs on. We have it on a Xeon, a P4, A Sempron64, and several Core2's...the VMWare emulated PC remains the same, and they all run the images fine.

 

I personally use Virtualbox, because I find VMWare a tad bulky.

[nah]

I agree too - VMware guest machines don't care what the host operating system is. I've moved machines between Linux and Windows quite happily.

 

I believe also you can have a 64bit host operting system and run 32bit guests although I've yet to try this - I need to do it now as ePortal needs more than 1GB to run well and I have two VMs on a 32bit windows machine.

 

Also the VMWare converter works well - this allows you to convert a real machine into a VM.

 

N

[FN-GM]

Abit of unrelated info but if you have Windows Server 2003 Enterprise you can run 4 virtual machines for free.

 

Also I have been told that Microsoft are interested in buying vmware.

 

Z

[DMcCoy]

There are some limitations to hot migration if you are moving the running machine between different chip architectures, I believe there is some vmware documentation somewhere explaining what can be moved around. Moving from 64 bit to 32 bit could be an issue, but this will apply to any VM solution that doesn't emulate the CPU.

[Cmd.exe]

Thanks for your help guys, i'm starting to realise how little i know about the whole area.

 

There are some limitations to hot migration if you are moving the running machine between different chip architectures, I believe there is some vmware documentation somewhere explaining what can be moved around. Moving from 64 bit to 32 bit could be an issue, but this will apply to any VM solution that doesn't emulate the CPU.

 

This is what i thought could be a problem. i want to be able to down a machine, and move the image to another server of a different spec and age and then boot the image again.

I know you can hot migrate these things also, but thats not the most important thing for me.

 

does anyone here actually run virtuoso?

[DMcCoy]

Thanks for your help guys, i'm starting to realise how little i know about the whole area.

 

 

 

This is what i thought could be a problem. i want to be able to down a machine, and move the image to another server of a different spec and age and then boot the image again.

I know you can hot migrate these things also, but thats not the most important thing for me.

 

does anyone here actually run virtuoso?

 

Powering off and moving shouldn't be an issue with either solution, but as I said, if you have installed the x64 version of windows then you aren't going to be able to start it up if you have moved it to a 32 bit VM host. This again will apply to both solutions. I've only used ESX, not Virtuoso.

[CyberNerd]

Xen also supports live migration

http://xen.xensource.com/

[DMcCoy]

Xen also supports live migration

http://xen.xensource.com/

 

But only with the enterprise version

 

However VMWare Vmotion is also an additional cost (to standard, included in enterprise I believe, but that one's a bit expensive)

[CyberNerd]

But only with the enterprise version

 

Are you sure? Redhat certainly claims live migration and I'm sure I've seen a debian howto somewhere. I had the impression Citrix just cripples xenexpress.

[DMcCoy]

Are you sure? Redhat certainly claims live migration and I'm sure I've seen a debian howto somewhere. I had the impression Citrix just cripples xenexpress.

 

Ok, I could be wrong

 

The website isn't really clear about what is xen, xensource, express or the tarballs. I was only going by the comparison between the citrix xen versions.

[CyberNerd]

I've been in the same muddle myself. Citrix enterprise looks good though

[yosemite]

I have 2 servers running virtuoso in a cluster. The biggest drawback of Virtuoso is the VM's have to be the same OS as the host. I started out with 2003 64 bit so we can use all 16 gigs of memory in each server, however many of the vendors would not support their product on a 64 bit platform. So I bought 2003 32bit Enterprise. The physical to virtual would still not work even from a 32bit enterprise server. Other issues that I've had have been the backups. You can back up the VM, however multiple times it has froze. When this happens you can't migrate the remaining VM's to the other server. The only way around this was to reboot the entire host system.

 

I do not recommend Virtuoso for anything more then interface servers or any other server does not require you to disrupt alot of people if it goes down (exchange or terminal servers would be a nightmare)

[Cmd.exe]

Well we went for VMWare ESX in the end and 2 months later upgraded to a second server and VMWare Enterprise (VMotion, etc)

 

Very pleased and would recommend it, have 8 production servers, 2 testing servers, 1 XP and 1 Vista client, all running accross 2 physical servers.

 

Obviously having spent the cash, i now don't want to hear anything positive about Virtuoso, Xen, MS Server 2008 virtualisation or open source solutions!

[Netman]

Having been playing with different virtualisation products for the last 8 months (although not Virtuoso - sorry OP) I can only recommend VMWare.

It is head and shoulders above the rest for usability and most importantly, stability.

My experience, testing VM against both Citrix and OSS Xen and even a quick look at hyper-v is that there is absolutely no competition at the moment. VMWare ESX is a mature and very stable product and it doesn't let you down. It also has all the functionality you need. I recommend starting with the free ESXi and giving it a try.

Its only downside really is the price, but hopefully that will improve now they're getting a bit of competition.

I thought I could go 'cheap' and bought a Citrix Xenserver licence, but that has now been replaced by the free ESXi as it just didn't live up to expectations.

There is a reason nearly everybody in the commercial sector uses VMWare - it really is that good!