Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×

VMware Releases Server 1.0 292

epit writes "VMware has released v1.0 of their VMware Server product for free (as in beer) as planned. Up until now, it had been a beta download. You can download your copy via the VMware website. Release notes are also available."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

VMware Releases Server 1.0

Comments Filter:
  • by Gr33nNight ( 679837 ) on Wednesday July 12, 2006 @05:08PM (#15708415)
    Our corporation has been using VMWare Server ESX for the past 2 years and it is great. Instead of having 5 servers in a rack, you can buy 1 beefy server and just have everything in a VM. But lets say your servers are mission critical and you are worried about a hardware failure on that 1 server. If you use VMotion you can have redundant servers, so if your main VMWare server box fails, the 2nd backup VMWare server automatically picks up where the other left off, you dont even notice that the virtual machine switched servers - it works that good. Seriously, VMWare is awesome.
  • by leeum ( 156395 ) on Wednesday July 12, 2006 @05:13PM (#15708468) Homepage Journal
    Check out Virtual Appliances [vmware.com]. Basically, there are people who've already fully configured environments in a virtual machine so you can just pick up the free (as in beer) VMWare Player product and run them.

    Why would you want to do that? I use a virtual machine to browse the Web - that way, my computer doesn't get bogged down by spyware (only the virtual machine does) and it's much more painless to simply purge a spyware-ridden virtual machine and start afresh than it is for your main computer.
  • by hsmith ( 818216 ) on Wednesday July 12, 2006 @05:15PM (#15708484)
    As someone that develops, it is an amazing tool. Right now I want to test load balancing for my web application to ensure everything works correctly. I can setup a load balancing cluster, install it all, then throw requests at it all on my PC. It allows me to purchase no new hardware, no new software, and ensure that I am getting the results I desire.

    While it doesn't allow me to stress test, it does allow me to test other aspects.

    Plus i can install every OS/Browser combination I need and I only need to worry about diskspace. Plus, once you create the images, you never have to reinstall the OS, you just clone it. Awesome piece of software.
  • Re:Virtual PC (Score:5, Informative)

    by xilet ( 741528 ) on Wednesday July 12, 2006 @05:17PM (#15708507)
    If you are not aware of it (I wasn't until earlier today) Microsoft is now putting Virtual PC 04 and 07 [still in beta] out for free. Virtual PC Website [microsoft.com]
  • by mchawi ( 468120 ) on Wednesday July 12, 2006 @05:19PM (#15708525)
    If you have an application that is not memory or cpu intensive, but it doesn't work well with others - this works very well. Even if it does work well with others, it helps you to really put it by itself. This is partly useful for troubleshooting, but it means when you call a company for support they can't really point their fingers at anyone else because their product is the only thing installed.

    It is also useful for things like clustered file servers. They don't take up much cpu/memory, but if you put two (or more) of them out there on a VM box you can roll them back and forth for patches, updates, adding drives, etc.

    It also helps for disaster recovery. You can do the equivalent of a bare metal restore in a few minutes versus loading a machine from scratch, loading drivers, loading your backup software and then restoring.

    So multiple answers - and I'm sure there are many more that I haven't listed.
  • Ah, but... (Score:4, Informative)

    by jd ( 1658 ) <imipak@yahoGINSBERGo.com minus poet> on Wednesday July 12, 2006 @05:20PM (#15708531) Homepage Journal
    With VMWare, you can have more than one overlord in the same body at the same time!
  • by Gr33nNight ( 679837 ) on Wednesday July 12, 2006 @05:26PM (#15708566)
    Well, this is what I have at home currently: A Windows XP box, with VMWare player loaded with Kubuntu. I am not a Linux geek, so I have the VMWare player to learn linux without screwing with my host OS. And since Windows is the host OS I can still play all the games I want.

    Now you can do it the opposite. Have linux be your host OS and install Windows in a VM session. As for apps, your VM sessions can see any cds that you put in your CD drive, so installing applications is a snap.

    Hoped that helped.
  • by mchawi ( 468120 ) on Wednesday July 12, 2006 @05:28PM (#15708582)
    Very true. If you have anything that is cluster aware though this will work. This isn't really a function of VM of course, but what is cool about doing this on VM machines is you have multiple levels of redundancy. You can VMotion the inactive server, swap the cluster and then vmotion the active server - and doing it this way you can move machines from one piece of hardware to another with no downtime.

    Again this isn't really a VM thing but if you have a whole VM farm on a SAN - you can swap out whole servers without impacting running processes. We mainly use this for file servers / DNS / AD / print servers , but if your servers are beefy I don't see why you couldn't do this with any cluster aware application.
  • by Lord Ender ( 156273 ) on Wednesday July 12, 2006 @05:31PM (#15708607) Homepage
    I love this software, but the Linux client really is neglected. The documentation for Linux is not really there. There is no decent configuration tool for Linux. There are many bugs. For example, if you do any port forwarding, you must edit some nat.conf file. And if you reconfigure anything after that with vmware-config.pl, it completely wipes out all your changes to nat.conf without warning. I spent so much time dealing with these types of bugs while testing the beta, I should have simply purchased another solution.
  • by spazimodo ( 97579 ) on Wednesday July 12, 2006 @05:32PM (#15708614)
    I recently left a position where we were using ESX server to host mail (Lotus Notes under Linux) for around 10k users along with Notes application servers, and other Linux and Windows utility servers.

    ESX was great because it allows for much more efficient use of Server hardware. In a lot of cases we had applications running on seperate servers because the apps were unstable. Without VMWare that means seperate hardware (usually racks filled with shelves and desktop PCs if the company is cheap, or 1U servers if they're not) and all the administrative overhead of dealing with those servers. We had 30-40 VMs running inside 12 physical servers including heavily used primary and failover mail servers.

    Running inside a VM gives you advantages if you're running a lights out data center, or if your servers are at a remote location. Many has been the time where a server hung and I needed someone on-site to power cycle it - with VMWare you can power cycle the VMs from anywhere, and I've never seen ESX take a dive (supposedly there's a purple screen of death, but I've never seen it)

    Another advantage is backup/disaster recover planning. With a VM, your whole server is just a couple files. You can copy those files to a remote location via a variety of means, and boom, you have an off-site clone of your server. More importantly the VMs are hardware independent - you can have a datacenter filled with Dell 6850s burn to the ground and when you power up your VMs in a colo facility running HPs, the VMs don't care about there being different RAID cards, or NICs with the wrong MAC addresses.

    This post was made on a Dell D620 running ubuntu with VMWare workstation on top hosting a windows VM for when I need to do windows stuff :)
  • by xilet ( 741528 ) on Wednesday July 12, 2006 @05:33PM (#15708618)
    Those are seperate systems. There are virtualization applications (VMware, VirtualPC) which run as applications and will emulate an entire computer as the program so you can install a fresh OS on top of it and run it in its own little happy sandbox. There are also programs such as wine, crossover, etc, which emulate windows from inside *nix, so they give you the nessecery dll files and hooks to be able to run Windows binaries on unix-based systems. So if you wanted to play Everquest/Wow/Civ4 from your Linux box you would use Wine. If you wanted to run a Linux server for testing from your Windows box you would use VMware.
  • by UNIX_Meister ( 461634 ) on Wednesday July 12, 2006 @05:34PM (#15708630)
    Oh and how does the sever product compare to Workstation... is it the same?
    VMware seems to put all the "good stuff" in Workstation and then it filters down into the GSX, ESX and now VMware Server products. So workstation is at 5.5.x and has features that are not available yet, but most importantly, the format of the virtual machines is backwards compatible with VMware Server. That is, you must create a legacy vm in workstation if you want to use it elsewhere. However, they are all upwards compatable so that anything will run on workstation. Just a gotcha to keep an eye out for.
  • by hackus ( 159037 ) on Wednesday July 12, 2006 @05:34PM (#15708633) Homepage
    In case you haven't been following Xen, the reason why you cannot run Windows is because we are waiting for intel's VM processor instructions to be implemented in the next VT release of thier processors.

    Well, that appearently is no longer a problem and you should be able to use a standard Linux Fedora Core, or whatever installation to load windows on by next year.

    VMware knows this, and is trying to prevent existing customers from leaving or looking elsewhere by giving away its products.

    Interesting thoughts I have was:

    1) I can install Windows workstations and servers remotely.
    2) How long will it take for Microsoft to add a Service Pack update that detects windows running on a Linux box and have it start not working properly so that people use thier VM product instead, or don't have a choice.
    3) Whats the performance going to be like.

    VMWare is a nice product but A it is too expensive, and be it is too expensive because it turns any VM machine into a basket case performance wise.

    So XeN's approach hopefully won't be any worse, maybe better since they are not trying to emulate an entire machine. :-)

    -Hack
  • Re:Virtual PC (Score:5, Informative)

    by Martin Blank ( 154261 ) on Wednesday July 12, 2006 @05:37PM (#15708643) Homepage Journal
    There is some correlation in an overall strategy, and there may be something more than coincidence to the timing of the releases. Microsoft is eager to make its presence known, especially in selling Virtual Server. Virtualization addiction on the desktop leads to virtualization addiction on the server (not that this is a bad thing). Microsoft is more interested in selling Virtual Server, so they make Virtual PC available for free to get their foot in a door on which VMWare Workstation is leaning heavily.

    On a similar vein, knowing that Microsoft has a strong incentive and ability to get Virtual Server known and used, VMWare decided a few months ago to differentiate VMWare GSX from ESX (their enterprise server product), and to make it free as an enticement to play with server-level virtualization so they could upsell to enterprise-level virtualization.

    Both companies made certain products free in an attempt to upsell to their respective primary product lines. Microsoft loses little for giving away Virtual PC because they have so little of the market as it stands. VMWare loses little for giving away Server because it made up a small portion of its own sales. Microsoft possibly gains sales of Virtual Server, while VMWare possibly gains sales of ESX.
  • by jharv13 ( 836258 ) on Wednesday July 12, 2006 @05:40PM (#15708677)
    You install Linux first. Then you install VMware (Server). Then you create virtual machines with reckless abandon, and install Windows into one of them. From there, you can install any Windows application on the Windows virtual machine.

    Be aware that you need a legitimate license/key to install/activate Windows XP; after a P2V (physical-to-virtual) conversion of a WinXP box, I had to make the obligatory call to Microsoft and promise that I didn't have -that-version- of XP installed on any other system.

    Otherwise, I'd suggest just downloading VMware Server, and playing with it for a while. The first time you see the POST (power-on self test) and BIOS screens of the VM it's like you've stepped into another dimension; your mind reels at the possibilities. Tiny servers for all sorts of DNS/LDAP/SAMBA bits. Honeypots. Network IDS. Cookieless web browsing. Knoppix instances for whatever you can think of. It's endless.

    Nuggets: The virtual machine shares (by default) the CD drive of the host; but you can point to an .ISO file instead. You can point the drive to a REMOTE drive, of someone who's connected in through the virtual console, so they (the remote end) can have the CD they need to install from in their hands, instead of in the host's CD drive. Same with floppies. The network bits are similar; a private net, a NAT'ed net, or a bridged net. Whatever you need.

    Just install it. Let the possibilities wash over you.

    \harv
    --
    How does this sig thing work?

  • by ChronoReverse ( 858838 ) on Wednesday July 12, 2006 @05:42PM (#15708691)
    If you're running the ESX-class virtual machines, there's a number of things you can do besides isolation.


    For example, Vmotion allows you to move a virtual machine from one physical machine to another while it's still running without interruption. The newest versions will even automagically load balance virtual machines.


    It's all really amazing technology that makes you think that it should've been done this way in the first place.
  • by Afrosheen ( 42464 ) on Wednesday July 12, 2006 @05:44PM (#15708700)
    Well, correct me if I'm wrong, but they're releasing what was known as GSX for free. ESX, which is the super deluxe product, still costs plenty of money. GSX has limitations compared to ESX which are detailed here http://www.vmware.com/products/server/server_comp. html [vmware.com] . At it's most basic, ESX is a linux 'underhost' which runs on the bare metal and has a web interface where you configure virtual servers and run them on top of this layer. The linux layer is completely hidden from the hosts and the actual hardware is abstracted. On the other hand, GSX requires a host OS to run on and therefore inherits the limitations of whatever OS it's installed on top of. There are other limitations as well but some light reading at vmware's site will clue you in.
  • by TheRealFixer ( 552803 ) on Wednesday July 12, 2006 @05:46PM (#15708713)
    I've got the Vista beta running on VMware Workstation. They actually have a guest OS option for Vista, but there's a big "experimental" warning on it. However, it seems to work fine. Slow, of course, because the Vista beta is a HUGE resource hog. But it runs...
  • by tashanna ( 409911 ) on Wednesday July 12, 2006 @05:50PM (#15708734)
    2 GB USB Drive - $40
    VMWare Player [vmware.com] for Linux & Windows - $0
    A good Linux distro [vmware.com] - $0 (yes, you may flame away)
    Google Browser Sync [google.com] - $0
    Blowing away anything that somehow made it onto your system - $priceless

    -Tash
    Vrooommm... [tashcorp.net]
  • by Dalroth ( 85450 ) on Wednesday July 12, 2006 @05:54PM (#15708755) Homepage Journal
    Honestly, I think you missed the most important use:

    6) Lock your significant other/children into a sand box. When they inevitably screw windows up, roll back to a previous working version.

    Bryan
  • by Pedersen ( 46721 ) on Wednesday July 12, 2006 @06:00PM (#15708790) Homepage

    I got the licence terms that said no commercial use under any

    I just re-read the license. That is not a restriction in the use of VMWare Server that I could find at all.

  • by nurb432 ( 527695 ) on Wednesday July 12, 2006 @06:01PM (#15708796) Homepage Journal
    I never saw any restrictions in the final EULA.

    Never read the betas, didnt really care since it was 'testing' anyway.

    The stated upgrade path for GSX is the free 'vmware server' so it would be really hard to restrict its use and get away with it.
  • by SirTalon42 ( 751509 ) on Wednesday July 12, 2006 @06:01PM (#15708797)
    Xen doesn't split "1 OS into several running 'instances'" (which is what Solaris's containers or Linux's VServer or FreeBSD's jails do). Xen vitalizes all OSes that are run (except the Dom0 OS is allowed to tell the hypervisor what to do) which is very similar to how VMware ESX server works. Xen also provides many of the same features that the VMware product family provides (like live migration).
  • by Tiger22 ( 650018 ) on Wednesday July 12, 2006 @06:02PM (#15708805)
    VMWare Server is a server so the VMs running on it are accessible from other machines by running a client tool. With Workstation and Player you can only access and use the VMs from the machine they are running on - no remote connectivity (unless you run a client connectivity tool like VNC fom within the VM). Workstation is more sophisticated (mutiple snapshot capablitities, VM Teams, etc) with the exception that the VMs cannot be accessed remotely.
  • by Cato ( 8296 ) on Wednesday July 12, 2006 @06:02PM (#15708808)
    Exactly - the TWiki project, which I'm involved in, has created a VM that enables a Windows user to download a complete, working TWiki system to evaluate for use as an enterprise Wiki for group collaboration. This radically simplifies installation for people who used to take many hours to install on Windows (primarily the issue was getting Cygwin, Apache, Perl and RCS installed properly) - the VM is actually a Debian GNU/Linux system but that's pretty much invisible to the person installing the VM. The result is that after a hefty download you can have a working Wiki within 5 to 10 minutes, most of which is waiting for Linux to boot in the VM.

    See this page [twiki.org] for more information and download links.

  • by neurovish ( 315867 ) on Wednesday July 12, 2006 @06:05PM (#15708823)
    ...and if you're still interested in the difference between Server/GSX and Workstation here are a few:
    VM runs in the background, and you connect to it using a client. In workstation, you loaded up VMWare Workstation, ran your VM, shut down your VM, then closed workstation. With VMWare server you run the VMWare client and connect to the server running on localhost or another system and then manage it as you would in workstation. When you close the server client, the VM keeps running in the background. It is also more powerful as far as automation and creating of virtual machine groups.
  • by illumin8 ( 148082 ) on Wednesday July 12, 2006 @06:14PM (#15708884) Journal
    I went to download server beta a few days ago to try it, and AFTER filling in my contact details I got the licence terms that said no commercial use under any circumstances.

    This is total BS. Their license agreement has never said that, and as a matter of fact, their FAQ [vmware.com] makes it pretty clear:

    Q: Who can use VMware Server?

    A: The benefits of server virtualization can be realized by a company of any size -- even small companies with just a few servers.
  • by OpenSourceOfAllEvil ( 716426 ) on Wednesday July 12, 2006 @06:33PM (#15709009)
    MS announced it today. Must be pure coincidence.
    http://www.microsoft.com/windows/virtualpc/default .mspx [microsoft.com]

    I've heard it doesn't totally suck anymore.
    http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=95 [zdnet.com]
  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 12, 2006 @06:41PM (#15709059)
    Xen 3.x has both live migration (equivalent to VMotion, but Xen is far faster) and xm save / xm resume seem to work just fine for snapshots. Please do your research before posting.
  • Re:Virtual PC (Score:1, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 12, 2006 @06:59PM (#15709152)
    Uhm, both Virtual PC 2004 and Virtual Server 2005 R2 are available for free:

    http://www.microsoft.com/windows/virtualpc/default .mspx [microsoft.com]
    http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserversystem/virtu alserver/default.mspx [microsoft.com]

    Unlike the free versions of VM Player and VMWare Server, you can not only run existing Virtual Machines, but also create them. Of course, the M$ stuff only supports M$ guest and host OS's.

    Interesting to note though is that you VM Player can import a M$ Virtual PC or Server created VM.
  • by chill ( 34294 ) on Wednesday July 12, 2006 @07:06PM (#15709177) Journal
    The GP was unclear. A 2 Gb USB drive implies a memory stick, not a USB-connected hard drive. Cases and firewire and not an option here as he's really talking about somehing the size of your thumb -- not your whole hand. Also, USB/firewire drives usually require separate power -- limiting their portability.
  • by tweek ( 18111 ) on Wednesday July 12, 2006 @07:08PM (#15709183) Homepage Journal
    I think this only applies to the Beta and is really just to cover thier asses. The betas actually expired after x number of months so you were forced to stay current if you...oh I don't know....platformed a new environment on vmware server and were waiting to turn it live when the real version came out?
  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 12, 2006 @07:09PM (#15709190)
    Linux doesn't suffer the 1-app/1-server mentality problem that Windows does. And, even without using virtualization software like Xen, QEMU, VMware, etc, it was still possible to create "virtual" environments with chroot. A Linux box could use a single NIC card and host multiple applications and services, each in a private chrooted environment, all using a dedicated IP address (assuming the software could be properly configured to bind only to a single interface and port).

    Virtualization software takes that to the next level.
  • by statusbar ( 314703 ) <jeffk@statusbar.com> on Wednesday July 12, 2006 @07:30PM (#15709298) Homepage Journal
    The problem comes with multiple apps that have different dependencies. For instance take installations of php4, php5, apache1, apache2, phpBB, mediawiki, coppermine, subversion and trac, all using mysql and postgresql. Each one has plugins. Each one has potential security vulnerabilities.

    I've been in the situation where one of the above required updating to fix a security hole, effectively breaking the rest. For instance, one needed to be using mysql5 but the others didn't support it.

    Now they can all live on their own separate Vmware machines and can be updated separately.

    --jeffk++
  • by timeOday ( 582209 ) on Wednesday July 12, 2006 @07:44PM (#15709359)
    it's much more painless to simply purge a spyware-ridden virtual machine and start afresh than it is for your main computer.
    In fact, VMWare Workstation lets you create checkpoints, and quickly revert back by clicking a button. But I don't think the free versions do that.
  • by brennz ( 715237 ) on Wednesday July 12, 2006 @07:49PM (#15709382)
    Linux & UNIX based virtualization has always been far superior to that of Windows. Superior is probably an understatement though, more like exponentially better.

    Just check into

    OpenVZ http://openvz.org/ [openvz.org]
    FreeBSD Jails http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FreeBSD_Jail [wikipedia.org]
    Solaris zones http://www.opensolaris.org/os/community/zones/faq/ [opensolaris.org]
    Xen http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/Research/SRG/netos/xen/ [cam.ac.uk]

    and the list goes on. So much better on *nix. Of course, I think that is somehow related to the fact you can run a *nix box via CLI, bare minimum of functionality, the likes of which it even the best Windows gurus [sysinternals.com] cannot get close to (though Mark Russinovich and Bryce Cogswell do rox)

    What is funny, is so many of us are ignorant of virtualization's roots in IBM mainframes. Big Blue was so far ahead of the times, it is like omg. BTW, I love Wikipedia. I've been preparing a presentation on virtualization the last few days, and Wikipedia makes it so easy!

  • by NormalVisual ( 565491 ) on Wednesday July 12, 2006 @07:59PM (#15709428)
    Xen is a nice hypervisor, but nothing else. They have nothing like VMotion, or even snapshots.

    Are you sure about that? [cam.ac.uk]
  • Re:Virtual PC (Score:1, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 12, 2006 @08:17PM (#15709519)
    Uh, you can create VMs in the free VMWare Server, just not Player.
  • by Hyperx_Man ( 936387 ) on Wednesday July 12, 2006 @10:20PM (#15710029) Homepage
    We consolidated 180 physical servers onto 10 physical servers, each running 10-20 VM sessions of Windows 2000 and 2003 server (Linux being the host OS). Amazing performance, and its really easy to restore things. No more outages, down times, etc. It's also easy to put up a new server, should we need to. No more requests for hardware allowances - and since we have extra Windows Server licenses, we just do it. Productivity is through the roof. Using V-motion, we can move sessions between servers - something that takes no time and no down time.
  • by rachit ( 163465 ) on Wednesday July 12, 2006 @10:54PM (#15710181)
    Primary visible difference:

    You can run VMware Server VMs headless and can connect to the console remotely.

    Workstation, you cannot.
  • by suckmysav ( 763172 ) <suckmysav AT gmail DOT com> on Wednesday July 12, 2006 @11:17PM (#15710271) Journal
    "Why would you need more than one server on a big beefy server instead of running everything on one server?"

    Good grief, where do I start?

    Putting everything on one big server is a recipe for disaster. What if one app goes down and you need to take it down, reboot, rebuild, whatever? You have to take your whole bloody network down. Lots of angry users.

    What if you upgrade your apache server which inadvertantly causes your mysql server to die? What do you do. Restore the whole shooting match from backups? Spend an hour or two trying to roll everything back? All while your users are looking over your shoulder asking "how long before it's fixed?"

    Doing it that way is just shitfight city.

    On the other hand, if you run all your servers virtually you open up a whole world of possibilities.

    For example, a few years back I worked at a place that ran their whole operation on a bunch of NT4 servers made up of a pair of Compaq Proliant ML530's (which supported SMP but only had single 1Ghz P3s fitted). These servers also had 1Gb RAM each plus 3 x 18Gb SCSI in raid 5 configuration. On top of that they had a hodge podge of whitebox servers, all with SMP mobos but only single CPUs. It was a nightmare.

    One day the backup tape drive died and the bosses were not keen to spend 3 grand for a new one. Also, I already had the shits with the whole shitfight so I built a few tempory boxes, moved the stuff onto them and pulled the 2 compaqs offline. I cannibalised one of them and made a monster (well it was back then) server with dual P3's, 2Gb RAM, 6 disk hardware raid and redundant PSU's. I kept the remaining chassis as a spare in case the main box died.

    I stuck redhat 9 on the "monster" and GSX server on that. Then I built 8 virtual servers, 2 x Win2K AS and 6 x redhat 9 and ran all of the main apps (apache, sendmail, PDC, BDC, FIle+print, MySQl and a CRM package all on seperate virtual servers. Once this was done I switched off all the other boxes and after running like that for a few weeks to make sure all was OK I also scrapped those boxes. Again I cannibalised them and came up with a lesser monster whitebox which I also put vmware GSX on, stuck 1gbit lan cards in both and hooked the two up with a link cable, wrote some scripts to backup the servers across that link nightly.

    So, I had rationalised the entire server room down to two boxes, considerably improved reliability and all for the price of a vmware license and on top of that I had a spare chassis available in case of a catastrophic failure.

    About a year later one of the SCSI discs died. The whole thing kept working but it was sloooow. So, all I did was manually copy over the server images from the nightly backup, shutdown the main server and turn on the primary lan interface of the backup box. The whole shebang was back up and running within an hour with no loss of data. Neato.

    Other advantages for vmware are;

    If you want to do major upgrade to a server, you can just copy the server image to your development box, fire it up, do the upgrade and then test it all out. All perfectly safely. If you fuck it up then you just do it again and try to figure out what went wrong, document your steps and when it is time to do the live upgrade you simply do a manual backup and then do the upgrade. It should work OK because you have already tested and documented your process and even if it doesn't it is a simple job to just restart the old server from the backup you made and start again.

    If you want to do something like a major overhaul of something like a webserver with a mysql backend then you will love vmware. You just leave your old server running and build up the new one over how many days/weeks/months you like. You can fully test it in a sandbox network (another great feature of vmware, "host only" networks) and once you are satisfied that all is well you just copy it over to the main box, shutdown the old virtual server, start up the new one and you're done. If there is a problem down the track you ju
  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 12, 2006 @11:45PM (#15710389)
    A lot of the '1 app 1 server' is not the capability of the OS but the support offered by the vendor. When you are working with enterprise level applications on any OS - Linux, Windows, AIX, etc - many vendors will point fingers at other applications as being the 'root cause'. So if the cost of the OS is not an issue (enterprise licensing / open source / etc) - why wouldn't you?

    If it makes troubleshooting easier, the ability to take things down and update them, clustering applications, moving applications / servers to different hardware, management, reporting, being able to move a CPU from one box to another, adding/removing drives on the fly, NIC teaming, centralized SAN backup, faster disaster recovery - why wouldn't you look at it? We probably save more in our DR costs alone than we spend for ESX licenses.

    One of the things I do like with our virtualized Linux boxes is that I don't worry at all about drivers. As long as VMWare can access the hardware - so can the Linux box (usually only use SuSE and Redhat). I update one driver - and all 60+ of my virtual machines now use the abilities of that updated driver. Another benefit.

    I also see the '1 app 1 server' much more for *nix than I do for Windows. Firewalls, routers, switches, IDS/IPS, databases, proxy servers, SSLVPN, web servers - the list can go on forever. Not saying that Windows even offers these capabilities in some cases, just that the 1 app / 1 server = more stability didn't start with the Windows camp.

    There are also very valid reasons where you don't want other things on your box. Think about things like CA servers for your PKI infrastructure. If you want to run everything else on that box and consider it 'secure' - welcome to audit hell.

    I've also never worked in an enterprise environment where your public web servers had anything on them except your public website. We usually don't put our dev site out on a box that the public can get to even if it has a separate IP.

    If Linux couldn't benefit from virtualization just as much as all the other operating systems, I don't see why IBM, Dell, Xen, Microsoft, Softricity and Citrix all work on differing types of virtualization technologies.

    The final endpoint will be a separation of the OS and the hardware. If you think this is about trying to get around 'shortcomings' in any particular OS, you are missing the big picture about where virtualization technology is going in the next few years.

    Microsoft won't have to worry about backwards compatability. Their next OS can have no backwards compatability as long as it runs a virtual machine that can run their old software.

    Linux can worry less about drivers as long as they can talk to any type of hypervisor for the hardware.

    SCO can....oh...well....they probably won't be around then. Nevermind ;)

  • by Spliffster ( 755587 ) on Thursday July 13, 2006 @06:28AM (#15711437) Homepage Journal
    "Also, VMWare's support -- I'm told -- for FireWire is limited and/or not present, and USB 2.0..."

    Doesn't matter. only the host os is supposed to support it, then you "mount" the partitions to your guest oses from the host os.

    However, if you need, you can always try to mount it in the guest, my usb 2 pendrive on linux was sucessfully detected by the winxp guest os (vmware server beta which is now at 1.0).

    Cheers,
    -S

With your bare hands?!?

Working...