Vmware workstation hosted servers what do you think?

Soldato
Joined
17 Jul 2008
Posts
7,391
I have several customers Where an old server needs to be kept running and performance is not an issue.

Now I know there is a free version of esx but I like the idea of it being so easy to copy the servers for backups and an OS / file system I know everything about.

The hardware would be a mirrored disk / micro server setup.

Anyone see any flaws / down sides in using vmware player/workstation for this s?
 
only as far as you want to run server class operating systems on workstation class software. odds on it will end in tears somewhere down the line. But then I am a beliver in the fact they make server/enterprise class software for a reason.
 
Just use ESX - much less chance of problems.

It's a bit of a heavyweight solution for what seems like a fairly simple requirement though.

OP - VMWare Workstation isn't free, and neither is VMWare Player in a commercial environment, also it won't let you do snapshots. Oracle Virtual Box is free for commercial use and allows you to create snapshots, so might work better for you.
 
Heh it's cool to see pretty much every hypervisor recommended. It means people are actually using all these different things, and not everyone is on VMware -- competition is good!
 
It's a bit of a heavyweight solution for what seems like a fairly simple requirement though.

OP - VMWare Workstation isn't free, and neither is VMWare Player in a commercial environment, also it won't let you do snapshots. Oracle Virtual Box is free for commercial use and allows you to create snapshots, so might work better for you.

How is ESXi a heavyweight solution?

It's much more lightweight than Workstation / Virtual Box and much more reliable as you're running the hypervisor only rather than an OS running a hypervisor running an OS.

ESXi / HyperV IMHO.

I wouldn't mind using HyperV for this kind of use (licencing makes fantastic sense in fact) but in a bigger, more corporate, environment vCenter is much better than the convoluted System Center modules that Microsoft have - they really need to get it under one hood rather than assuming people are going to use SCCM / SCOM / SCVMM / etc.



M.
 
I wouldn't mind using HyperV for this kind of use (licencing makes fantastic sense in fact) but in a bigger, more corporate, environment vCenter is much better than the convoluted System Center modules that Microsoft have - they really need to get it under one hood rather than assuming people are going to use SCCM / SCOM / SCVMM / etc.

M.

I hear ya on this one! Go and take the MS Private Cloud 2012! its the whole ****ing SC 2012 Suite in a single course with no overall direction apart from rolling out VM's left right and centre because erm well erm you can.

how you can cram in SCOM and SCCM in a 10 day course plus SCVMM is a joke. not to mention Orchestrator and all the other ****** as well. I didn't sleep for 2 weeks straight lol.
 
How is ESXi a heavyweight solution?

It's much more lightweight than Workstation / Virtual Box and much more reliable as you're running the hypervisor only rather than an OS running a hypervisor running an OS.

I didn't mean heavyweight in terms of system resources, more that it's a lot to take on in terms of management if you have no prior experience. The OP was clearly looking for a relatively simple desktop app that can be deployed with the minimum of fuss, or at least so it appeared to me - pity he's abandoned the thread without a resolution.
 
I'd still say ESXi was simple - when you add vCenter, whilst it being simpler than the System Center suite which Ploppy2k3 mentions above (which I agree whole heartedly with by the way - SCCM itself should really be a massive course) it becomes more difficult.

ESXi itself is pretty basic for a single host. If you can get workstation going then you can pretty much get ESXi going.



M.
 
Back
Top Bottom