<table cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" border="0" ><tr><td valign="top" style="font: inherit;">well, Gordon, you can't sell me on vmware, because you already sold me on openvz. Which I am using in production and have great success with. Your talk on openvz blew me away. It's much better than full virtulisation. <br><br>for monitoring it's not pretty but /proc/user_beancounters gives a good indication on what the machine memory is actually doing. It's perhaps not as flexible with to disk paging than vmware and xen are....however, do you really want to disk paging in a vm environment. Paging is bad, you don't want other vm's being affected, due to one machine paging constantly. <br><br>it's lightweight, and it's fast, and easy to administer .. I'm with openvz...<br><br>I'd only consider vmware if I had to use a windows environment as the host, but then<br>again I'm having good success with virtualbox on windows and
linux.<br><br>Cheers,<br>Lee<br>'your reality is my virtual machine'<br><br><br><br><br>--- On <b>Tue, 30/9/08, gordon dunlop <i><astrozubenel@googlemail.com></i></b> wrote:<br><blockquote style="border-left: 2px solid rgb(16, 16, 255); margin-left: 5px; padding-left: 5px;">From: gordon dunlop <astrozubenel@googlemail.com><br>Subject: [dundee] VMWare Server 2.0<br>To: "Tayside Linux User Group" <dundee@mailman.lug.org.uk><br>Date: Tuesday, 30 September, 2008, 10:39 PM<br><br><pre>I downloaded the new VMWare Server 2.0 and road tested it. The<br>download is approx. 500MB compared to the old 1.06 Server approx 100MB<br>(5 times as large). They had a 64-bit Linux version which I installed<br>on my Fedora machine (use the tar version and not the rpm version).<br>The interface is through a web browser (https) rather than through a<br>desktop interface, initially you can only log on as root, but then you<br>can set your VM permissions to
user or group if required. My initial<br>feedback is that it is awesome (virtualisation competition really<br>hotting up as companies try to improve their product). One of the best<br>things was that it monitored actual virtual CPU and virtual memory<br>used, most recommendations for setting of virtual memory has been<br>minimum of 128MB for virtual box and 256MB for VMWare and Xen. I know<br>these settings has been a load of crap in getting OS's to run<br>reasonably under normal operational and application load, where my<br>rule of thumb has been 512MB for normal distros and 256MB for<br>lightweight distros (up-to-date distros) for them to run reasonably.<br>The virtual memory usage has proved this with Fedora 9 (350MB) &<br>Windows XP (450MB) at normal running. Yes I do have an old laptop that<br>dual boots with WinXP & Linux with 256MB of memory but it is slow,<br>certainly with the Win XP partition. Anyway just my personal thoughts,<br>I
would like to hear from others who have been using VMWare Server 2.0<br>to find out what their views are.<br><br>Gordon<br><br>_______________________________________________<br>dundee GNU/Linux Users Group mailing list<br>dundee@lists.lug.org.uk http://dundee.lug.org.uk<br>https://mailman.lug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/dundee<br>Chat on IRC, #tlug on dundee.lug.org.uk<br></pre></blockquote></td></tr></table><br>