Re: VMware Workstation vs VMware Server?

On Tue, 04 Sep 2007 15:44:15 +0000, General Schvantzkoph wrote:

Has anyone used both Workstation and Server? Is there a significant
performance difference between the two? The two differences that seem to
standout in the features lists are the amount of RAM, Workstation
supports 8G, Server 3.6G, and the ability to mount host directories,
Workstation can do it, Server has to use NFS or SAMBA shares. Is there a
big difference between in performance between using NFS and the "native"
mounts that are available in Workstation?

I have used both. There performance is similar, but I didn't do any formal
benchmarks. Samba vs. shared local folders seems like a small difference.
It is easier for some users, though. One noticeable bottleneck that I have
noticed is bad performance over gigabit ethernet, at least with the
server version. But maybe, they've fixed this glitch since I last
checked, though.

The server version also has the ability to run a virtual computer in the
background, that is, without its displaying any interface. The virtual
computer is running, al-a any other network computer. This takes the
abstraction provided by virtual computers a little bit further.

Also, because the interface has been separated, it can now be easily
forwarded over the network. The same thing can be accomplished with X
forwarding over ssh, though. I guess the primary motivation for VMWare's
console application is for Windows users, who (in general) are not running
X.

--
Douglas Mayne

.

Relevant Pages