David Mackintosh wrote: > On Thu, Mar 01, 2007 at 12:11:26PM -0500, Stephen Harris wrote: > > >> I'm wondering what people recommend for virtual servers these days? >> CentOS 4 with a vserver kernel? Wait for CentOS 5 and use Xen? VMware? >> (Vmware is the heavy solution, but it does mean I could host a windows >> session if I wanted to). Or Solaris 10 and zones? >> > > Personally I'm using VMWare-workstation, but it isn't an ideal solution: > - it costs > - it is hard to make VMs start at system boot > - it is a heavyweight solution > > ESX is a "lighter-weight" solution (in that it runs on the bare-metal rather than requiring a host OS that sucks up resources. It of course is the most expensive solution but IMHO, it's worth every penny. ESX is the only virtualization option I would care to put production workloads on. > The reason I am using -Workstatin as opposed to the free -Server > offering is because -Server does not provide some virtual hardware > that is useful in a workstation environment. > > I find it odd what drives your requirements in the end. In my > particular case, I am connecting to a Windows VM through a Sun Ray > session, and found my Windows VMs were less usefull without the sound > devices because Windows Movie Maker would not start on a system which > lacked a sound card. (And I wanted Windows Movie Maker to convert > video streams from the high-bitrate that comes from the camera down > to something a little more portable, not to actually view anything.) > VMWare Server can do sound, it's just that the default virtual machine doesn't include a sound card. Just go to the settings for the VM, add new hardware and add a sound card. Still Workstation does a number of handy things that Server doesn't, multiple snapshots for instance... Jay -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos/attachments/20070301/8b397b28/attachment-0005.html>