I am using VMware Server 1.0.7 on Windows XP SP3 at the moment to test software in virtual machines.
I have also tried Microsoft Virtual PC (do not remeber the version, could be 2004 or 2007) and VMware was way faster at the time.
I have heard of Parallels and VirtualBox but I did not have the time to try them out. Anybody has some benchmarks how fast is each of them (or some other)?
I searched for benchmarks on the web, but found nothing useful.
I am looking primarily for free software, but if it is really better than free ones I would pay for it.
Also, if you are using (or know of) a good virtualization software but have no benchmarks for it, please let me know.
From my experience of Parallels and VMware (on the PC and more extensively on the Mac) the difference between any 2 competing versions of the software is usually quite small and often 'reversed' in the next releases.
I never found Parallels to be much faster (or slower) than VMware - it often would be a case of the state of the VM I was running, the host machine itself and the app(s) I was running within the VM. If VMWare brought out a new release which did something faster, you could be sure that Parallels would improve their performance in that area in the next release, too.
In the end I settled on VMWare Fusion and the key reason for this was just that it played nicely with VMware Workstation on the PC. I have trouble taking Parallels VMs from the Mac to the PC and back again, and this worked fine on VMware. Finally, though this is less of a concern, I was unhappy that sometimes it felt as if Parallels would release a version without proper regression testing - you'd get the up-to-date version and find that networking was suddenly unexplicably broken until they released another patch a few days later. I doubt this is still the case but VMware always felt a little more 'in control' and professional to me.
I'd go for a solution that you can get running in a stable fashion on your PC, that is compatible with your other requirements (such as your co-workers' platforms and your overall budget). You can waste your lifetime trying to measure which one is faster at any given task!
One other thing - it's worth checking the documentation that comes with the software, and any forums etc, before making judgements about performance. For instance, in my experience throwing huge amounts of ram at your VM (at the expense of free ram in the host system) does NOT automatically make it faster; better to split the ram up evenly, and certainly keep an eye on any recommended figure. In VMware, that recommended figure is a good guide.
You'll get best performance if your hardware supports hardware virtualization, such as AMD's AMD-V or Intel's VT, and you enable this feature on the computer and in your virtualization software.
For Microsoft solutions, you need at least Virtual PC 2007 or Virtual Server 2005 R2 SP1, or Hyper-V on Windows Server 2008 (I don't expect you'll rebuild your system just to run Hyper-V, but I thought I'd mention it).
Subjectively I haven't noticed any difference between Virtual PC and VMware Workstation performance; I'm using VMware now as it supports USB virtualization, which Virtual PC doesn't.
You also generally need to install appropriate custom, virtualization-aware, drivers in the guest OS, as the standard drivers are expecting to talk to real hardware. In Virtual PC and Server these are called Additions, in VMware they are VMware Tools.
Anandtech has some great info on virtualization. Although they are not any benchmarks, it provides a great insight on why it is so difficult to do proper virtualization benchmarks. I cannot suggest you a specific product, because it depends very much on your requirements.
Related
I'm using a program that is calculating things as it receives information and I need it to be running on multiple virtual machines on my PC at the same time.
Now before I was going to set this up, I was wondering which operating system would be ideal to be running on the virtual machines to run as many of them as possible on restricted ressources? The only requirement is that my program is not able to run on Linux.
I was thinking of going back to Windows XP on each virtual machine, assuming the newer operating systems are taking too much ressources for themselves, but that's just a guess.
Hope someone has more knowledge than me about this and can help me out.
Thank you!
If you are NEVER going to take these VMs online XP is a better choice. Windows 8.1 (as well as 10) is a recent design and hence is designed for high powered modern hardware, XP was designed long ago for old slower hardware. Running an older OS on newer hardware will allow it to compartively quick, certainly much faster than a new OS on old hardware. Another matter is what programs you will run, if it is old programs they will be compatible with XP, if it is new ones there is a chance XP will not be able to run them. If you are going to take these VMs online then XP is a bad idea, wonderful an operating system as it was it is now becoming insecure due microsoft stopping producing updates to patch holes in it, And do not forget also that Microsoft wouldn't support XP anymore (http://windows.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/end-support-help), so you should go back to the drawing table and fix your priorities and needs and then decide , cheers !
If you cannot run *NIX / BSD Systems you can use WFL windows xp for legacy computers it works on 128 mb RAM
Update: i386 old systems.
If I install a bare-metal hypervisor (say, ESXi), would it allow me to run Windows 7 concurrently with Linux?
Would it allow me to run multiple instances of Windows 7?
When I'm sitting at the PC that's running Win7 and Linux on a hypervisor, which OS do I see when I look at the screen? (I'm suspecting that the only way to access either OS is to do a remote login.)
Assuming the answer to #2 is yes, how do you manage multiple installs of Win7 on the same hard drive?
Thanks in advance!
If you simply want to run Linux and Windows in parallel you may of course do this on e.g. ESXi. Still, the OSes would run with virtualized (or emulated) hardware available to them, i.e. you would not be able to easily access all the hardware directly and the hypervisor itself not only introduces an overhead but this overhead is not deterministic.
If you want to run an RTOS (like Real-Time Linux) or any other RTOS, then you need a "real-time hypervisor".
You can google for such hypervisors - there are a few out there.
(I dont want to recommend one here as we are a vendor of such a solution our selves)
Regards
GFL
I am looking into playing around with virtualization and I was wondering if there is any software that acts as the host OS but operates much like virtual box or parallels? What I mean by this is basically is there an "OS" that more or less acts as a window manager for other virtualized desktops?
Thanks!!
Yes, Citrix XenClient does exactly what you're looking for (and they've got a free version, XenClient Express)
Unfortunately due to the nature of virtualization on "bare metal" (without an OS) the Hypervisor (the OS bit that hosts the VMs) needs to be compatible with your exact hardware.
For more information, checkout the XenClient Hardware Compatibility List. The best value machine you can get is probably the Dell Optiplex 780.
I'm reading an article about Xen, a virtual machine monitor. They say that an operating system requires some modification in order to be able to act as a guest OS on top of Xen. Now, for an OS like Linux, I can understand what a "modification" might mean but in the case of an OS like say, Windows XP, what does it mean? I mean, XP is closed source proprietary OS right?
It means exactly the same thing. It's just harder because the source is not widely available. Note that the modifications are no longer required when Xen is used in conjunction with hardware virtualization.
Xen was originally a university project. As a researcher (or as a government agency tasked with infrastructure security), you can get the Windows sourcecode from Microsoft. You're just not allowed to distribute your own version of Windows.
This is exactly what they did: they had the sourcecode of Windows XP and then they ported XP to Xen, just to show that if Microsoft were ever to officially support Xen, it would be doable.
On the other hand, although para-virtualization cannot provide an end-to-end virtualization solution, it can improve performance.
Where can virtualization techniques be applied by an application developer? How can virtualization be applied on a day-to-day basis?
I would like to understand from veteran developers making use of it. I am interested in the following things:
How it helps in development.
How it could be used for testing purposes.
What are the recommended practices.
The main benefit, in my view, is that in a single machine, you can test an application in:
Different OSs, in case your app is multiplatform
Different configurations, like testing a client in one machine and a server in the other, or trying different parameters
Diffferent performance characteristics, like with minimal CPU and RAM, and with multicore and high amounts of RAM
Additionally, you can provide VM images to distribute applications preconfigured, be it for testing or for running applications in virtualized environments, where it makes sense (for apps which do not demand much power)
Can't say I'm a veteran developer, but I've used virtualization extensively when environments need to be controlled. That goes for:
Development: not only is it really useful to have VMs about for different deployment environments (e.g. browser versions, Windows XP / Vista / 7) but especially for maintenance it's handy to have a VM with the right development tools configured for a particular job.
Testing: this is where VMs really shine: it's great to have different deployment environments that can be set back to a known good configuration and multiple server instances running in parallel to test load balancing.
I've also found it useful to have a standard test image available that I can run locally to verify that a fix works. If it doesn't then I can roll back to the previous snapshot with no problems.
I've been using Virtual PC running Windows XP to test products I'm developing. I have clients who still need XP support while my primary dev environment is Vista (haven't had time to jump to Win7 yet), so having a virtual setup for XP is a big time saver.
Before each client drop, I build and test on my Vista dev machine then fire up VPC with XP, drag the binaries to the XP guest OS (enabled by installing Virtual PC additions on the guest OS) and run my tests there. I use the Undo disk feature of Virtual PC so I can always start with a clean XP image. This process would have been really cumbersome without virtualization.
I can now dump my old PCs at the local PC Recycle with no regrets :)
Some sort of test environment: if you are debugging malware (either writing it or developing a pill against it) it is not clever to use the real OS. The only possible disadvantage is that the viruses can detect that they are being run in the virtualization. :( One of the possibilities to do it is because the VM engines can emulate a finite set of hardware.