Hi,
1. I am NOT asking when it will be out. It will be when it's ready, very soon. 2. Is there a good tutorial on how to use Xen with Windows? I have googled and have not found some nice clear such as step 1,2,3... and why use this configuration.
On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 8:39 PM, centos@911networks.com wrote:
Hi,
- I am NOT asking when it will be out. It will be when it's ready, very
soon.
Yep, completly correct :-)
- Is there a good tutorial on how to use Xen with Windows? I have googled
and have not found some nice clear such as step 1,2,3... and why use this configuration.
It is actually pretty simple. Only hardware requirement, your CPU needs to support the hadware virtualization extensions (recent Intel and AMD cpu's have that). If you have that you start the virtualization manager point it to a .iso image of a Windows install CD and you are ready. The rest works the same as virtualizing Linux.
Regards, Tim
It is actually pretty simple. Only hardware requirement, your CPU needs to support the hadware virtualization extensions (recent Intel and AMD cpu's have that). If you have that you start the virtualization manager point it to a .iso image of a Windows install CD and you are ready. The rest works the same as virtualizing Linux.
Regards, Tim
Tim
When you talk about recent processors in the Intel or AMD realm, do you, or does anyone else on this list, have practical experience with the virtualization extentions on HP or Dell or other Quad Xeon or Multi-CPU AMD boxes ?
I don't know exactly what to ask in terms of best bang for the buck for processor(s) speed or memory installed, yet I would be interested in hearing what others are using and how well you are enjoying virtualization on the boxes
Using XEN or Vmware or Both?
Thanks!
- rh
On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 9:05 PM, Robert - elists lists07@abbacomm.net wrote:
When you talk about recent processors in the Intel or AMD realm, do you, or does anyone else on this list, have practical experience with the virtualization extentions on HP or Dell or other Quad Xeon or Multi-CPU AMD boxes ?
I don't know exactly what to ask in terms of best bang for the buck for processor(s) speed or memory installed, yet I would be interested in hearing what others are using and how well you are enjoying virtualization on the boxes
Using XEN or Vmware or Both?
My experience is with dual and quad core Intle CPU's and I don't have any issues with them since CentOS 5.1. I'm only using Xen and it's been fine for me.
Regards, Tim
Robert - elists wrote:
Tim
When you talk about recent processors in the Intel or AMD realm, do you, or does anyone else on this list, have practical experience with the virtualization extentions on HP or Dell or other Quad Xeon or Multi-CPU AMD boxes ?
I don't know exactly what to ask in terms of best bang for the buck for processor(s) speed or memory installed, yet I would be interested in hearing what others are using and how well you are enjoying virtualization on the boxes
Using XEN or Vmware or Both?
Thanks!
- rh
CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
With Dell, your best bang for the buck will probably be Inspiron 530/Vostro 400 with the Q6600 2.4Ghz Quad Core CPU. With the latest BIOS these support up to 8GB of RAM. (Of course get the ram elsewhere, not from Dell).
Russ
Robert - elists wrote:
Using XEN or Vmware or Both?
Thanks!
- rh
I've run VMware Server (free, as in cost, not as in open source) on CentOS to host WinXP VMs since it was in beta and have no complaints. There is an RPM package available on VMware's site:
$ rpm -q VMware-server VMware-server-1.0.6-91891.i386
It's only available in i386 package but installs fine on x86_64 and supports 64-bit VMs provided the underlying hardware supports it. I believe VMs are limited to a max of 2 processors each.
I've used VMware Server on systems varying from old AthlonXP, 512MB RAM through to Intel Quad Core Q6600 with 4GB RAM. Note VMware will run on older processors without hardware virtualization. In my experience there's little noticeable difference between software and hardware virtualization (on VMware), and each run at about the perceived speed you would expect if it was on native hardware (I've not conducted any benchmark tests). The main consideration is that you have enough RAM to support the host OS (CentOS) and any VM(s) running on it.
I've not used Xen so can't offer a comparison.
Ned
On 6/11/08, Ned Slider ned@unixmail.co.uk wrote: <snip>
I've run VMware Server (free, as in cost, not as in open source) on CentOS to host WinXP VMs since it was in beta and have no complaints. There is an RPM package available on VMware's site:
$ rpm -q VMware-server VMware-server-1.0.6-91891.i386
It's only available in i386 package but installs fine on x86_64 and supports 64-bit VMs provided the underlying hardware supports it. I believe VMs are limited to a max of 2 processors each.
I've used VMware Server on systems varying from old AthlonXP, 512MB RAM through to Intel Quad Core Q6600 with 4GB RAM. Note VMware will run on older processors without hardware virtualization. In my experience there's little noticeable difference between software and hardware virtualization (on VMware), and each run at about the perceived speed you would expect if it was on native hardware (I've not conducted any benchmark tests). The main consideration is that you have enough RAM to support the host OS (CentOS) and any VM(s) running on it.
I've not used Xen so can't offer a comparison.
Ned: I was very interested to read that you've run VMWare Server on systems with only 512 MB of RAM. I haven't tried it, because the box I can use only has 512 MB of RAM.
My impression is that Xen is much more demanding about HW. Lanny
Lanny Marcus wrote:
Ned: I was very interested to read that you've run VMWare Server on systems with only 512 MB of RAM. I haven't tried it, because the box I can use only has 512 MB of RAM.
Yes, assuming you give 256MB to a single VM guest and allow the CentOS host 256MB, you'll get about the level of performance that you'd expect for systems with that little RAM. They will run, but they won't be lightning quick so you will need to think about running services carefully and minimize memory usage where you can to prevent swapping.
1GB split between the host and gust would probably be a better sensible minimum given the current price of RAM, and for a new dual or quad core system I wouldn't really consider installing less than 4 GB given the current pricing.
On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 3:22 PM, Lanny Marcus lmmailinglists@gmail.com wrote:
Ned: I was very interested to read that you've run VMWare Server on systems with only 512 MB of RAM. I haven't tried it, because the box I can use only has 512 MB of RAM.
My impression is that Xen is much more demanding about HW. Lanny
I was told that for any kind of performance, at least 1G of memory per VM plus 1G for the host was "a good idea." that was why I originally upgraded mine to 2G (well, that and I *really* wanted a better CPU, and this was a great excuse). That might have been for VMWare Workstation (not free, but I had it at work) not VMWare Server (which I use at home).
When I had 2G, I only allowed my VM WXP guest to use 768M, but I upped that to 1G when I replaced my 2G with 4G. I also have a CentOS 5.? guest on the same box, but I've never actually tried running them both at the same time.
HTH.
mhr
If you only have 512mb of ram, there's almost no reason to virtualize. Windows needs a minimum of 128-512MB to run stable. I highly suggest that you get more RAM - its very cheap these days.
If you want to dedicate a box to virtualization, and won't be using more then 4GB of ram for your virtual machines - I highly recommend xenserver express. Its free, but has much better performance then vmware.
Looking at it more closely, it seems to be rhel5, or more likely centos5 under the hood, so you can probably use the host for other things too.
I wonder if it can be combined with other techologies - KVM, openVZ, etc to give more then 4GB of ram for virtualization? I tried installing vmware, but it wouldn't run under.a xen kernel.
RuSs Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry
-----Original Message----- From: "Lanny Marcus" lmmailinglists@gmail.com
Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2008 17:22:12 To:"CentOS mailing list" centos@centos.org Subject: Re: [CentOS] Centos 5.2 and Xen
On 6/11/08, Ned Slider ned@unixmail.co.uk wrote: <snip>
I've run VMware Server (free, as in cost, not as in open source) on CentOS to host WinXP VMs since it was in beta and have no complaints. There is an RPM package available on VMware's site:
$ rpm -q VMware-server VMware-server-1.0.6-91891.i386
It's only available in i386 package but installs fine on x86_64 and supports 64-bit VMs provided the underlying hardware supports it. I believe VMs are limited to a max of 2 processors each.
I've used VMware Server on systems varying from old AthlonXP, 512MB RAM through to Intel Quad Core Q6600 with 4GB RAM. Note VMware will run on older processors without hardware virtualization. In my experience there's little noticeable difference between software and hardware virtualization (on VMware), and each run at about the perceived speed you would expect if it was on native hardware (I've not conducted any benchmark tests). The main consideration is that you have enough RAM to support the host OS (CentOS) and any VM(s) running on it.
I've not used Xen so can't offer a comparison.
Ned: I was very interested to read that you've run VMWare Server on systems with only 512 MB of RAM. I haven't tried it, because the box I can use only has 512 MB of RAM.
My impression is that Xen is much more demanding about HW. Lanny _______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
russ@vshift.com writes:
If you only have 512mb of ram, there's almost no reason to virtualize. Windows needs a minimum of 128-512MB to run stable. I highly suggest that you get more RAM - its very cheap these days.
seconded. my standard server has 8G unbuffered ecc. Newegg sells 2x2Gb packs of unbuffered ECC kingston brand ddr2 for under $100.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820134312
No reason, really, to not fill your motherboard with ram.
If you want to dedicate a box to virtualization, and won't be using more then 4GB of ram for your virtual machines - I highly recommend xenserver express. Its free, but has much better performance then vmware.
the free (closed) xensource product is good... I also wanted to point out the new gpl windows pv drivers:
http://wiki.xensource.com/xenwiki/XenWindowsGplPv/
you could use them with the standard open-source Xen, or even with the Xen support distributed with CentOS 5, and avoid the ram limits all together. (well, there is a limit to the open-source xen, but it's ridiculous; most of us won't hit it for several years, at least.)
still kinda beta, but something to watch.
I wonder if it can be combined with other technologies - KVM, openVZ, etc to give more then 4GB of ram for virtualization? I tried installing vmware, but it wouldn't run under.a xen kernel.
running vmware under a xenU guest wouldn't lift any ram limit imposed by the xen kernel or dom0.
the 4Gb limit is added to the free (closed source) citrix xen product so that people have a reason to pay for the full version... really, if you need more than 4G, pay for full xensource, or use the open-source Xen/open source pv drivers.
I do know some people that run linux vserver guests under a Linux Xen DomU- that seemed to work ok.
and just for fun, I've run a Xen kernel/Dom0 under a Xen HVM DomU. Performance wasn't great; I don't think I'd do it in production, but it worked, and was a neat experiment.
Luke S Crawford wrote:
I wonder if it can be combined with other technologies - KVM, openVZ, etc to give more then 4GB of ram for virtualization? I tried installing vmware, but it wouldn't run under.a xen kernel.
running vmware under a xenU guest wouldn't lift any ram limit imposed by the xen kernel or dom0.
the 4Gb limit is added to the free (closed source) citrix xen product so that people have a reason to pay for the full version... really, if you need more than 4G, pay for full xensource, or use the open-source Xen/open source pv drivers.
The 4GB limit is artificial, and only applies to the vm's started using their closed source XenSource. The host OS is most likely CentOS 5, and sees the whole 8GB (although it's not x64, so I'm guessing they use PAE or something.)
I only need 8GB of ram support, and no other features that are offered in XenStandard, so it seems kind of a waste to pay $1k per server for that.
If another virtualization technology was installed on that OS, you can get the use of the other 4GB, and if not, I can always run my apps on Dom0, although I'd prefer to not install too much stuff on Dom0.
Russ
Ruslan Sivak russ@vshift.com writes:
running vmware under a xenU guest wouldn't lift any ram limit imposed by the xen kernel or dom0.
...
The 4GB limit is artificial, and only applies to the vm's started using their closed source XenSource. The host OS is most likely CentOS 5, and sees the whole 8GB (although it's not x64, so I'm guessing they use PAE or something.)
It is PAE.
I only need 8GB of ram support, and no other features that are offered in XenStandard, so it seems kind of a waste to pay $1k per server for that. If another virtualization technology was installed on that OS, you can get the use of the other 4GB, and if not, I can always run my apps on Dom0, although I'd prefer to not install too much stuff on Dom0.
First, The Dom0 OS runs as a guest of the Xen hypervisor- it is just a guest that happens to have access to the PCI bus as well. The Xen hypervisor still controls what ram and CPU all domains including the Dom0, can see; if the xen kernel is limiting you to 4G ram total, that limit will apply in the Dom0 as well.
Also, you are not going to be able to run a virtualization technology that uses the hardware virtualization support from within a Xen guest, even if that Xen guest happens to be the Dom0. The Xen hypervisor controls access to those instructions.
You can run virtualization technologies that don't require HVM- OpenVZ and linux vserver will both work fine. Heck, you can do that within an unprivileged Xen DomU, but that won't help you if you want to run windows.
Luke S Crawford wrote:
Ruslan Sivak russ@vshift.com writes:
running vmware under a xenU guest wouldn't lift any ram limit imposed by the xen kernel or dom0.
...
The 4GB limit is artificial, and only applies to the vm's started using their closed source XenSource. The host OS is most likely CentOS 5, and sees the whole 8GB (although it's not x64, so I'm guessing they use PAE or something.)
It is PAE.
If it's PAE, then I'm a bit confused, as they advertise it as "*Native 64-bit hypervisor:* Scalability and support for enterprise applications"
I only need 8GB of ram support, and no other features that are offered in XenStandard, so it seems kind of a waste to pay $1k per server for that. If another virtualization technology was installed on that OS, you can get the use of the other 4GB, and if not, I can always run my apps on Dom0, although I'd prefer to not install too much stuff on Dom0.
First, The Dom0 OS runs as a guest of the Xen hypervisor- it is just a guest that happens to have access to the PCI bus as well. The Xen hypervisor still controls what ram and CPU all domains including the Dom0, can see; if the xen kernel is limiting you to 4G ram total, that limit will apply in the Dom0 as well.
Also, you are not going to be able to run a virtualization technology that uses the hardware virtualization support from within a Xen guest, even if that Xen guest happens to be the Dom0. The Xen hypervisor controls access to those instructions.
You can run virtualization technologies that don't require HVM- OpenVZ and linux vserver will both work fine. Heck, you can do that within an unprivileged Xen DomU, but that won't help you if you want to run windows.
Well I have up to 4GB of run windows and I can have the other 4GB for dom0, so if I can get OpenVZ or linux vserver running on there, I can use that to run my linux VM's.
Doesn't openVZ require a different kernel? That would replace the Xen kernel wouldn't it? Or is there a way to custom compile Xen+OpenVZ kernel?
I'm not too familiar with linux vserver, but my guess is you can't run it in Dom0 either...
Russ
Ruslan Sivak russ@vshift.com writes:
Luke S Crawford wrote:
It is PAE.
If it's PAE, then I'm a bit confused, as they advertise it as "*Native 64-bit hypervisor:* Scalability and support for enterprise applications"
heh. looks like I wasn't paying attention. A long time ago, I believe the xensource product (3.1?) was i386-PAE only- and 32-on-64 is 32-PAE on 64, so you won't be able to run non-pae 32-bit guests in paravirt mode.
Well I have up to 4GB of run windows and I can have the other 4GB for dom0, so if I can get OpenVZ or linux vserver running on there, I can use that to run my linux VM's.
But xenexpress limits you to 4Gb of physical ram total see http://www.xensource.com/Documents/XenServer41ProductOverview.pdf so if you have 4Gb in the DomU, you can't use another 4Gb in the Dom0
Luke S Crawford wrote:
Well I have up to 4GB of run windows and I can have the other 4GB for dom0, so if I can get OpenVZ or linux vserver running on there, I can use that to run my linux VM's.
But xenexpress limits you to 4Gb of physical ram total see http://www.xensource.com/Documents/XenServer41ProductOverview.pdf so if you have 4Gb in the DomU, you can't use another 4Gb in the Dom0
From what I understand, they limit you to 4GB for DomU, you still have another 4GB available for Dom0, that you can use to run other apps, including possibly QEMU, or some other virtualization products.
Russ
On 18/06/2008, at 11:00 PM, Ruslan Sivak wrote:
From what I understand, they limit you to 4GB for DomU, you still have another 4GB available for Dom0, that you can use to run other apps, including possibly QEMU, or some other virtualization products.
Russ
I haven't been following the thread, but has the discussion been about memory limits of Xen?
Am I going to face any issues wanting to run some CentOS 5.x x86_64 boxes with 16 or 32 GB memory as Xen hosts with up to 10 or 12 GB memory CentOS 5.x x86_64 domUs ?
Furthermore, am I going to encounter issues running CentOS 5.x i386 boxes with 8 GB memory trying to run CentOS 4.x i386 domUs with 3.5 or 4GB memory?
Regards, Tom
Tom Lanyon tom@netspot.com.au writes:
I haven't been following the thread, but has the discussion been about memory limits of Xen?
We were discussing memory limits of the free (as in beer) closed source citrix xensource product- limits are added to the free product in order to encourage people to upgrade to the more expensive products.
These limits don't exist in the open-source xen product, which is what the centos/Xen stuff is based on.
http://tx.downloads.xensource.com/downloads/docs/user/#SECTION01130000000000...
Am I going to face any issues wanting to run some CentOS 5.x x86_64 boxes with 16 or 32 GB memory as Xen hosts with up to 10 or 12 GB memory CentOS 5.x x86_64 domUs ?
I've personally run CentOS x86_64 5.1 boxes with north of 16G ram- there is nothing I am aware of that would stop you from putting as much ram as you want in a particular DomU.
Furthermore, am I going to encounter issues running CentOS 5.x i386 boxes with 8 GB memory trying to run CentOS 4.x i386 domUs with 3.5 or 4GB memory?
You will be needing PAE, but that is default for CentOS i386/xen, so it should Just Work. make sure you install the libc6-xen package (should be installed as a dependency.) The usual PAE limits apply.
I'm typing this message in emacs running on a DomU hosted on an i386/PAE box with 6G ram running CentOS5.1/xen.
On 24/06/2008, at 9:08 AM, Luke S Crawford wrote:
We were discussing memory limits of the free (as in beer) closed source citrix xensource product- limits are added to the free product in order to encourage people to upgrade to the more expensive products.
These limits don't exist in the open-source xen product, which is what the centos/Xen stuff is based on.
http://tx.downloads.xensource.com/downloads/docs/user/#SECTION01130000000000...
I've personally run CentOS x86_64 5.1 boxes with north of 16G ram- there is nothing I am aware of that would stop you from putting as much ram as you want in a particular DomU.
You will be needing PAE, but that is default for CentOS i386/xen, so it should Just Work. make sure you install the libc6-xen package (should be installed as a dependency.) The usual PAE limits apply.
I'm typing this message in emacs running on a DomU hosted on an i386/ PAE box with 6G ram running CentOS5.1/xen.
Hi Luke,
Thanks for the confirmation; this is what I had understood but some of the prior discussion scared me. :)
Regards, Tom
Tom Lanyon wrote:
On 24/06/2008, at 9:08 AM, Luke S Crawford wrote:
We were discussing memory limits of the free (as in beer) closed source citrix xensource product- limits are added to the free product in order to encourage people to upgrade to the more expensive products.
From what I understand, Citrix does provide source to their product, so other then licensing, how is it different from open source?
Russ
Hi, guys!
Please, could I ask you by some documentation about XEN and Cluster on CEntOS-5. Theese one could be from basic to advanced level.
Thanks in advance.
Adriano Vieira
Adriano dos Santos Vieira (Hapia IN) wrote:
Hi, guys!
Please, could I ask you by some documentation about XEN and Cluster on CEntOS-5. Theese one could be from basic to advanced level.
Not that hard to find.
Ralph
Ruslan Sivak russ@vshift.com writes:
Tom Lanyon wrote:
On 24/06/2008, at 9:08 AM, Luke S Crawford wrote:
We were discussing memory limits of the free (as in beer) closed source citrix xensource product- limits are added to the free product in order to encourage people to upgrade to the more expensive products.
From what I understand, Citrix does provide source to their product, so other then licensing, how is it different from open source?
like most of the dual-licensed products, if you pay you get support, and a nice GUI admin tool. The Citrix XenSource product has another advantage that is worth paying for: Paravirtualized windows drivers- Citrix/XenSource will provide you with stable paravirt disk and network drivers. Very important things, if you plan on doing serious work with your windows guest.
Of course, I'm all *NIX, so yeah, for me there isn't much difference. But if you are running windows, Citrix/XenSource provides some compelling value.
Luke S Crawford wrote:
like most of the dual-licensed products, if you pay you get support, and a nice GUI admin tool. The Citrix XenSource product has another advantage that is worth paying for: Paravirtualized windows drivers- Citrix/XenSource will provide you with stable paravirt disk and network drivers. Very important things, if you plan on doing serious work with your windows guest.
Of course, I'm all *NIX, so yeah, for me there isn't much difference. But if you are running windows, Citrix/XenSource provides some compelling value. ____________________________________________
I'm not quite sure it's dual licensed, because that would imply that someone can recompile their product and get full functionality for free, albeit without support. The free XenServer is still limited to 4GB of RAM and 4 VM's per server. Also from what I can see, XenServer lacks the ability to do snapshots, which I really don't understand considering they're using LVM.
And actually James has been making great strides with his GPLPV drivers, so freeware Xen is catching up to XenServer fairly fast, although it's still lacking good GUI tools.
Hopefully soon James will release version 1.0 of his drivers, and I can finally consider using Xen in production.
Russ
Luke S Crawford wrote:
russ@vshift.com writes:
If you only have 512mb of ram, there's almost no reason to virtualize. Windows needs a minimum of 128-512MB to run stable. I highly suggest that you get more RAM - its very cheap these days.
seconded. my standard server has 8G unbuffered ecc. Newegg sells 2x2Gb packs of unbuffered ECC kingston brand ddr2 for under $100.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820134312
No reason, really, to not fill your motherboard with ram.
If you want to dedicate a box to virtualization, and won't be using more then 4GB of ram for your virtual machines - I highly recommend xenserver express. Its free, but has much better performance then vmware.
the free (closed) xensource product is good... I also wanted to point out the new gpl windows pv drivers:
http://wiki.xensource.com/xenwiki/XenWindowsGplPv/
you could use them with the standard open-source Xen, or even with the Xen support distributed with CentOS 5, and avoid the ram limits all together. (well, there is a limit to the open-source xen, but it's ridiculous; most of us won't hit it for several years, at least.)
still kinda beta, but something to watch.
Yea, I've been playing around with this. The performance seems on par with the XenSource drivers, but like you said, it's pretty beta. James has been great in fixing the bugs, but it's just not ready for production use right now. Without using the GPLPV drivers, Xen is not ready for production use, the IO throughput sucks, and there is no graceful shutdown.
If XenServer Express would only allow for 8GB, it would be perfect. The administrative interface is really polished and fully featured (except things like migrations, which understandably come with the enterprise version).
Once the GPLPV drivers mature a little bin and someone makes some decent admin tools for Xen, Xen will be ready for the enterprise. I bet a company can make good money just developing and selling the admin tools for Xen.
Russ
On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 10:25 PM, Ruslan Sivak russ@vshift.com wrote:
Luke S Crawford wrote:
russ@vshift.com writes:
If you only have 512mb of ram, there's almost no reason to virtualize. Windows needs a minimum of 128-512MB to run stable. I highly suggest that you get more RAM - its very cheap these days.
seconded. my standard server has 8G unbuffered ecc. Newegg sells 2x2Gb packs of unbuffered ECC kingston brand ddr2 for under $100.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820134312
No reason, really, to not fill your motherboard with ram.
If you want to dedicate a box to virtualization, and won't be using more then 4GB of ram for your virtual machines - I highly recommend xenserver express. Its free, but has much better performance then vmware.
the free (closed) xensource product is good... I also wanted to point out the new gpl windows pv drivers:
http://wiki.xensource.com/xenwiki/XenWindowsGplPv/
you could use them with the standard open-source Xen, or even with the Xen support distributed with CentOS 5, and avoid the ram limits all together. (well, there is a limit to the open-source xen, but it's ridiculous; most of us won't hit it for several years, at least.) still kinda beta, but something to watch.
Yea, I've been playing around with this. The performance seems on par with the XenSource drivers, but like you said, it's pretty beta. James has been great in fixing the bugs, but it's just not ready for production use right now. Without using the GPLPV drivers, Xen is not ready for production use, the IO throughput sucks, and there is no graceful shutdown. If XenServer Express would only allow for 8GB, it would be perfect. The administrative interface is really polished and fully featured (except things like migrations, which understandably come with the enterprise version). Once the GPLPV drivers mature a little bin and someone makes some decent admin tools for Xen, Xen will be ready for the enterprise. I bet a company can make good money just developing and selling the admin tools for Xen.
Russ
CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
*Perhaps you could be interested in this project: * I discovered three major issues in the usage scenarios of OpenVZ in the enterprise market:
1. Installation takes time and needs Linux knowledge 2. The missing GUI management 3. And the inability to run unmodified guests like Windows on an OpenVZ host
I also had other wishes like integrated backup and restore, live-migration, central configuration management and integrated virtual appliances download. So I presented this last year to our development team – a few months later, we proudly presents the first release of our *Proxmox Virtual Environmenthttp://pve.proxmox.com/ .*
Now we have the virtualization platform for the enterprise, licensed under GNU GPLv2.
Proxmox VE is the *only *virtualization platform which can do all of the following on one physical host:
- Container Virtualization (OpenVZ) - Full virtualization (KVM) - Para-virtualization (KVM)
We encourage everybody to test Proxmox VE and give feedback, for download and documentation please visit the *Proxmox VE Wiki </>.*
Feel free to get in contact with me directly - martin@proxmox.com.
Victor Padro wrote:
*Perhaps you could be interested in this project:
I discovered three major issues in the usage scenarios of OpenVZ in the enterprise market:
- Installation takes time and needs Linux knowledge
- The missing GUI management
- And the inability to run unmodified guests like Windows on an OpenVZ host
I also had other wishes like integrated backup and restore, live-migration, central configuration management and integrated virtual appliances download. So I presented this last year to our development team – a few months later, we proudly presents the first release of our *Proxmox Virtual Environment http://pve.proxmox.com/.*
Now we have the virtualization platform for the enterprise, licensed under GNU GPLv2.
Proxmox VE is the *only *virtualization platform which can do all of the following on one physical host:
* Container Virtualization (OpenVZ) * Full virtualization (KVM) * Para-virtualization (KVM)We encourage everybody to test Proxmox VE and give feedback, for download and documentation please visit the *Proxmox VE Wiki </>.*
Feel free to get in contact with me directly - martin@proxmox.com mailto:martin@proxmox.com.
I tried installing this today, but it just goes to a blank screen after loading the installer.
Russ
Victor Padro wrote:
Proxmox VE is the *only *virtualization platform which can do all of the following on one physical host:
* Container Virtualization (OpenVZ) * Full virtualization (KVM) * Para-virtualization (KVM)We encourage everybody to test Proxmox VE and give feedback, for download and documentation please visit the *Proxmox VE Wiki </>.*
Feel free to get in contact with me directly - martin@proxmox.com mailto:martin@proxmox.com.
Sounds interesting, I just don't like the debian as underlying os for the server ;-) However, since it's licensed under the GPL, I will try to get it work with a redhat based linux.
Regards,
Peter
I have an 8 gig dram server I am playing with Xen on in centos 5.1 on right now.
Are you telling us that Xen on centos 5.1 only uses 4 Gig Dram?
Or will it allow all 8 Gig to be used if setup correctly between main dom and virt doms
- rh
On Sun, Jun 15, 2008 at 10:05 PM, Robert - elists lists07@abbacomm.net wrote:
I have an 8 gig dram server I am playing with Xen on in centos 5.1 on right now.
Are you telling us that Xen on centos 5.1 only uses 4 Gig Dram?
Or will it allow all 8 Gig to be used if setup correctly between main dom and virt doms
As far as my experience goes you can use the 8GB completely for all the domU's. I think you are still limited to 4GB per domU.
Regards, Tim
Robert - elists wrote:
I have an 8 gig dram server I am playing with Xen on in centos 5.1 on right now.
Are you telling us that Xen on centos 5.1 only uses 4 Gig Dram?
Or will it allow all 8 Gig to be used if setup correctly between main dom and virt doms
- rh
I think if you're on an x64 bit platform you can use up to 8GB of ram for dom0 (well you need to leave enough for dom0, mine takes up about 600mb after a clean install, and if you allocate too much to domU, the server goes down - hard).
What I was talking about is XenServer - the commercial product based on Xen now owned by citrix. They have a bare metal installer that installs a version of CentOS 5 and their version of Xen in about 10 minutes, and has a very nice windows based administrative console. Their free version XenServer Express only allows DomU to use up to 4GB of RAM collectivelly, and I believe only 4 VMs total. They also have fairly nice paravirtualized drivers for windows (although James' GPLPV drivers are catching up to them).
I think I will run XenServer at home where I have a box with only 4GB of RAM, but for work, I'm probably going to go with CentOS 5.2 and Xen 3.2, since XenServer is too limiting, and I don't think it's worth shelling out $1k per box to get use of the other 3.5GB of RAM.
Russ
Tim Verhoeven wrote:
It is actually pretty simple. Only hardware requirement, your CPU needs to support the hadware virtualization extensions (recent Intel and AMD cpu's have that). If you have that you start the virtualization manager point it to a .iso image of a Windows install CD and you are ready. The rest works the same as virtualizing Linux.
You should be able to use the vmware cpu check tool as an easy check to determine if your CPU has those instructions or not. (sometimes looking up cpu info to match it with specific features can be a pain)
http://www.vmware.com/download/ws/drivers_tools.html
It says it's for 64-bit compatibility but the same instructions are needed at least for VMWare.
nate
Sorry if I offend someone by sending this mail that is not related to Centos, but I am installing Ubuntu in a VM (Vmware) and after I installed Ubuntu when is booting it freezes and I can write commands but I don't know what to do to view what is happening, if you can help me, it is welcome, I am using Ubuntu because I am following a tutorial to get a CRM open source to work, thanks in advance.
George from Uruguay.
on 6-11-2008 2:46 PM Masters IT Gmail spake the following:
Sorry if I offend someone by sending this mail that is not related to Centos, but I am installing Ubuntu in a VM (Vmware) and after I installed Ubuntu when is booting it freezes and I can write commands but I don't know what to do to view what is happening, if you can help me, it is welcome, I am using Ubuntu because I am following a tutorial to get a CRM open source to work, thanks in advance.
George from Uruguay.
Why, Oh why would you ask this here? Maybe you could get Microsoft support to help you! ;-P
Trolling, and thread hijacking.
Next you will answer this by top-posting....
On 6/11/08, Masters IT Gmail mastersit.com@gmail.com wrote:
Sorry if I offend someone by sending this mail that is not related to Centos, but I am installing Ubuntu in a VM (Vmware) and after I installed Ubuntu when is booting it freezes and I can write commands but I don't know what to do to view what is happening, if you can help me, it is welcome, I am using Ubuntu because I am following a tutorial to get a CRM open source to work, thanks in advance. George from Uruguay.
Jorge: In my part of South America (Colombia) I believe that you should have posted this in a VMWare Mailing List. It has nothing to do with CentOS and is very off topic. Lanny
Thanks i will try it, sorry for the offtopic!
-----Mensaje original----- De: centos-bounces@centos.org [mailto:centos-bounces@centos.org] En nombre de Lanny Marcus Enviado el: Miércoles, 11 de Junio de 2008 07:15 p.m. Para: CentOS mailing list Asunto: Re: [CentOS] Doubt about Ubuntu Server
On 6/11/08, Masters IT Gmail mastersit.com@gmail.com wrote:
Sorry if I offend someone by sending this mail that is not related to Centos, but I am installing Ubuntu in a VM (Vmware) and after I installed Ubuntu when is booting it freezes and I can write commands but I don't
know
what to do to view what is happening, if you can help me, it is welcome, I am using Ubuntu because I am following a tutorial to get a CRM open source to work, thanks in advance. George from Uruguay.
Jorge: In my part of South America (Colombia) I believe that you should have posted this in a VMWare Mailing List. It has nothing to do with CentOS and is very off topic. Lanny _______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
-
Adriano dos Santos Vieira (Hapia IN) -
centos＠911networks.com -
Lanny Marcus -
Luke S Crawford -
Masters IT Gmail -
MHR -
nate -
Ned Slider -
Peter Hinse -
Ralph Angenendt -
Robert - elists -
Ruslan Sivak -
russ＠vshift.com
-
Scott Silva -
Tim Verhoeven -
Tom Lanyon -
Victor Padro