Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Windows 64bit > Best OS to run VM ?

Reply
Thread Tools

Best OS to run VM ?

 
 
Mark Natto
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-16-2008
I am planning to built a new PC purely for the purpose of running VM, both
Virtual-PC and VMware, the hardware consist of the following :
Intel QX6700 with 4x2GB on a Asus P5N-E SLI, bunch of drives on RAID6
Hardware wise I have no problem, just wondering the best OS to use for the
tasks, the host OS wont do anything else other than running VM, it wont be
for production, more to do with swinging.

The choice is not great as I am no Linux expert, so all are Win based.
XP64
VistaBusiness64
Server2003 as they can all address above 4GB

Could you guys recommend the best one to use and any reasons to why, I am
gearing towards XP64 as the footprint is smaller.
thanks


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Bobby Johnson
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-16-2008
Currently the major question would be whether you need USB
support in the VM?

VMware has USB 2.0 support. VMware allows 64-bit hosts.
Workstation can build VMs but is not free, Player is.

VPC has no USB support. I don't think VPC allows 64-bit
hosts. VPC is free.

Otherwise there probably isn't a significant difference.


Mark Natto wrote:
> I am planning to built a new PC purely for the purpose of running VM, both
> Virtual-PC and VMware, the hardware consist of the following :
> Intel QX6700 with 4x2GB on a Asus P5N-E SLI, bunch of drives on RAID6
> Hardware wise I have no problem, just wondering the best OS to use for the
> tasks, the host OS wont do anything else other than running VM, it wont be
> for production, more to do with swinging.
>
> The choice is not great as I am no Linux expert, so all are Win based.
> XP64
> VistaBusiness64
> Server2003 as they can all address above 4GB
>
> Could you guys recommend the best one to use and any reasons to why, I am
> gearing towards XP64 as the footprint is smaller.
> thanks
>
>

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Mark Natto
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-16-2008
Hi Bobby
No need for USB2, as its purely for creating test servers and swing servers
across new hardware
I am sure I saw VPC has both 32 and 64bits but cant be 100%
Buying VMware is no big deal if it can saves me space and time.
Thanks

"Bobby Johnson" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:O8YRXS$(E-Mail Removed)...
> Currently the major question would be whether you need USB support in the
> VM?
>
> VMware has USB 2.0 support. VMware allows 64-bit hosts. Workstation can
> build VMs but is not free, Player is.
>
> VPC has no USB support. I don't think VPC allows 64-bit hosts. VPC is
> free.
>
> Otherwise there probably isn't a significant difference.
>
>
> Mark Natto wrote:
>> I am planning to built a new PC purely for the purpose of running VM,
>> both Virtual-PC and VMware, the hardware consist of the following :
>> Intel QX6700 with 4x2GB on a Asus P5N-E SLI, bunch of drives on RAID6
>> Hardware wise I have no problem, just wondering the best OS to use for
>> the tasks, the host OS wont do anything else other than running VM, it
>> wont be for production, more to do with swinging.
>>
>> The choice is not great as I am no Linux expert, so all are Win based.
>> XP64
>> VistaBusiness64
>> Server2003 as they can all address above 4GB
>>
>> Could you guys recommend the best one to use and any reasons to why, I am
>> gearing towards XP64 as the footprint is smaller.
>> thanks

>



 
Reply With Quote
 
Colin Barnhorst
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-16-2008
I use Vista Ultimate x64 but Business x64 should do just fine. There is a
lot more device driver support for Vista x64 than for XP Pro x64 so I would
stick with Vista.

"Mark Natto" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:uU7xqz%(E-Mail Removed)...
>I am planning to built a new PC purely for the purpose of running VM, both
>Virtual-PC and VMware, the hardware consist of the following :
> Intel QX6700 with 4x2GB on a Asus P5N-E SLI, bunch of drives on RAID6
> Hardware wise I have no problem, just wondering the best OS to use for the
> tasks, the host OS wont do anything else other than running VM, it wont be
> for production, more to do with swinging.
>
> The choice is not great as I am no Linux expert, so all are Win based.
> XP64
> VistaBusiness64
> Server2003 as they can all address above 4GB
>
> Could you guys recommend the best one to use and any reasons to why, I am
> gearing towards XP64 as the footprint is smaller.
> thanks
>


 
Reply With Quote
 
Charlie Russel - MVP
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-17-2008
Server 2k8 running as Server Core, with Hyper-V as your virtualization
solution. The overhead from Server Core is trivial, and it provides a very
small attack surface, though that will be less of an issue for this
scenario. You'll load the actual Hyper-V management applications onto a
Vista box somewhere on the network so you can manage and create VMs.

Virtual PC will NOT support 64-bit guests. 64-bit hosts only. VMWare will do
64-bit guests, as will Hyper-V. Of the OS's listed, IF you have the drivers,
XP x64 is lower overhead by a substantial amount compared to Vista 64.

--
Charlie.
http://msmvps.com/blogs/xperts64
http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/charlie.russel


"Mark Natto" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:uU7xqz%(E-Mail Removed)...
>I am planning to built a new PC purely for the purpose of running VM, both
>Virtual-PC and VMware, the hardware consist of the following :
> Intel QX6700 with 4x2GB on a Asus P5N-E SLI, bunch of drives on RAID6
> Hardware wise I have no problem, just wondering the best OS to use for the
> tasks, the host OS wont do anything else other than running VM, it wont be
> for production, more to do with swinging.
>
> The choice is not great as I am no Linux expert, so all are Win based.
> XP64
> VistaBusiness64
> Server2003 as they can all address above 4GB
>
> Could you guys recommend the best one to use and any reasons to why, I am
> gearing towards XP64 as the footprint is smaller.
> thanks
>


 
Reply With Quote
 
DevilsPGD
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-17-2008
In message <uU7xqz#(E-Mail Removed)> "Mark Natto"
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>I am planning to built a new PC purely for the purpose of running VM, both
>Virtual-PC and VMware, the hardware consist of the following :
>Intel QX6700 with 4x2GB on a Asus P5N-E SLI, bunch of drives on RAID6
>Hardware wise I have no problem, just wondering the best OS to use for the
>tasks, the host OS wont do anything else other than running VM, it wont be
>for production, more to do with swinging.
>
>The choice is not great as I am no Linux expert, so all are Win based.
>XP64
>VistaBusiness64
>Server2003 as they can all address above 4GB
>
>Could you guys recommend the best one to use and any reasons to why, I am
>gearing towards XP64 as the footprint is smaller.


I'd definitely look at 2008 Core x64 w/Hyper-V, if you're willing to
live with the RC-1 status, or can wait for the release.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Steve Foster [SBS MVP]
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-17-2008
Bobby Johnson wrote:

>Currently the major question would be whether you need USB support in the
>VM?
>
>VMware has USB 2.0 support. VMware allows 64-bit hosts. Workstation can
>build VMs but is not free, Player is.


VMWare Server is also free. The VMWare lineup also supports x64 *guests*
(on compatible x64 h/w - not all x64 h/w is!).


>VPC has no USB support. I don't think VPC allows 64-bit hosts. VPC is
>free.


Yes, it does support x64 on the host. As does Virtual Server. But you need
to go to Hyper-V (currently a beta product) to get x64 guest support from
MS.

--
Steve Foster [SBS MVP]
---------------------------------------
MVPs do not work for Microsoft. Please reply only to the newsgroups.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Steve Foster [SBS MVP]
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-17-2008
Charlie Russel - MVP wrote:

>Server 2k8 running as Server Core, with Hyper-V as your virtualization
>solution. The overhead from Server Core is trivial, and it provides a very
>small attack surface, though that will be less of an issue for this
>scenario. You'll load the actual Hyper-V management applications onto a
>Vista box somewhere on the network so you can manage and create VMs.


Charlie,

If I wanted to reduce my box count, and merge my VM machine (with 64-bit
guests) with my ISA firewall, how would you do it? What's the safest way
to make that combo happen?

Or am I pipe-dreaming (again)?

--
Steve Foster [SBS MVP]
---------------------------------------
MVPs do not work for Microsoft. Please reply only to the newsgroups.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Bobby Johnson
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-17-2008
Thanks for the corrections. I certainly intended 64-bit
guests and not hosts. Must have been one of those brain farts!



Steve Foster [SBS MVP] wrote:
> Bobby Johnson wrote:
>
>> Currently the major question would be whether you need USB support in
>> the VM?
>>
>> VMware has USB 2.0 support. VMware allows 64-bit GUESTs. Workstation
>> can build VMs but is not free, Player is.

>
> VMWare Server is also free. The VMWare lineup also supports x64 *guests*
> (on compatible x64 h/w - not all x64 h/w is!).
>
>
>> VPC has no USB support. I don't think VPC allows 64-bit GUESTs. VPC
>> is free.

>
> Yes, it does support x64 on the host. As does Virtual Server. But you
> need to go to Hyper-V (currently a beta product) to get x64 guest
> support from MS.
>

 
Reply With Quote
 
Charlie Russel - MVP
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-17-2008
Hmmmm. Safest? Or most useful? (and this discussion probably belongs over on
ms.pub.virtualserver, but who cares.)

Safest all virtual solution (though probably not supported because of
virtualizing ISA):
1.) Parent partition: Core. Only server Role: Hyper-V. not domain joined.
2.) Child: 32-bit Windows Server w/ ISA. Two NICs (probably have to be
legacy, at least the internal one). NIC #1 connects to the outside world.
NIC #2 is a "Private" NIC - no connection even to the host.
3.) Additional children as required. Single NIC, connected to Private
network. Default gateway the ISA box.

More useful / convenient:
1.) Parent partition: Core. Only server Role: Hyper-V. not domain joined.
2.) Child: 32-bit Windows Server w/ ISA. Two NICs (probably have to be
legacy, at least the internal one). NIC #1 connects to the outside world.
NIC #2 is a "Internal" NIC - connection to the host and other VMs local to
the host.
3.) Additional children as required. Single NIC, connected to Internal
network. Default gateway the ISA box.

More useful / convenient still:
1.) Parent partition: Core or not, as you're comfortable. Only server Role:
Hyper-V. not domain joined. I'd probably add secondary DNS server roles and
possibly DHCP.
2.) Child: 32-bit Windows Server w/ ISA. Two NICs (probably have to be
legacy, at least the internal one). NIC #1 connects to the outside world.
NIC #2 is a "Public" NIC - connection through a second physical NIC on the
host, essentially acting as a bridge, allowing direct connections to the
outside world, or at least the rest of your network.
3.) Additional children as required. Single NIC, connected to Public
network. Default gateway the ISA box.

Better all-round solution:
1.) Physical ISA box. Dual NIC. The outside connection should be the ONLY
thing on that outside segment, except possibly a public wireless if you have
reason to provide such.
2.) Physical VM server: Parent partition: Core or Full, as your comfort
level allows. Same issues wrt roles as above. At least two NICs.
3.) Child partitions: as above. Here you have the same sorts of tradeoffs
wrt security v. convenience - do you want to have direct access to the VMs
from the rest of your internal network? Or is everything going on there
something that can be done internally, with a limited interface to the rest
of the network.

Personally, I'm going with #4 currently, with my SBS 2k3 R2 Premium server
as the physical ISA box. Once I migrate fully to SBS 2k8, chances are I'll
repurpose that box as a pure ISA server, since it's a 32-bit only box anyway
and thus of limited usefulness.



--
Charlie.
http://msmvps.com/blogs/xperts64
http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/charlie.russel


"Steve Foster [SBS MVP]" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news(E-Mail Removed)...
> Charlie Russel - MVP wrote:
>
>>Server 2k8 running as Server Core, with Hyper-V as your virtualization
>>solution. The overhead from Server Core is trivial, and it provides a very
>>small attack surface, though that will be less of an issue for this
>>scenario. You'll load the actual Hyper-V management applications onto a
>>Vista box somewhere on the network so you can manage and create VMs.

>
> Charlie,
>
> If I wanted to reduce my box count, and merge my VM machine (with 64-bit
> guests) with my ISA firewall, how would you do it? What's the safest way
> to make that combo happen?
>
> Or am I pipe-dreaming (again)?
>
> --
> Steve Foster [SBS MVP]
> ---------------------------------------
> MVPs do not work for Microsoft. Please reply only to the newsgroups.


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Exception in GUI Run but not in Simple RUN Andrea9 Java 1 10-20-2006 12:54 PM
What is the difference of modelsim command run -continue and run -all rxjwg98@gmail.com VHDL 2 09-05-2006 02:14 PM
Can't Run 'RUN' Windows XP Home Luke O'Malley Computer Support 2 09-01-2005 11:38 PM
can run javascript can't run vbscript - WHY duncan ASP .Net 2 10-27-2004 09:31 AM
Anybody remember, Run Buddy Run and Second Hundred Years? Tom McCafferty DVD Video 5 10-02-2004 09:15 PM



Advertisments