Re: VMware Workstation vs VMware Server?

On Tue, 04 Sep 2007 17:52:20 +0000, General Schvantzkoph wrote:

On Tue, 04 Sep 2007 10:28:20 -0600, Douglas Mayne wrote:

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.

Are you saying that the Workstation version can't run a VM in the
background? That would be a huge deficiency. I run my Linux VMs without X
connecting via ssh, I always run them in the background. It wouldn't be a
problem for my Win2K VMs but I don't care about performance issues or
memory limits with them because they are only used for Quickbooks and
Actel FPGA tools, VMware server is fine for them.

I think it depends on your definition of a "background" application.

Obviously, either application can be a tasks on your X desktop, and
be given forground or background status, the familiar alt-tab
cycling. I assume you are using VMWare as an X-forwarded application, and
any graphical application that is started will be place in rotation on
your desktop. That isn't what I mean by "background."

I am referring to the different behavior offered by VMWare Server. It has
a different behavior than VMWare Workstaion when the X application
itself is terminated. The VMWare workstation does what you would expect
of any graphical application- it goes away and doesn't leave anything
behind. This behavior can be somewhat harsh, and not what you intended.
I have sometimes clicked the window corner "X" which kills
the window inadvertantly, and it kills my VM at the same time (and with no
"are you sure" confirmation.) With the workstation, the "X" that closes
the window is the equivalent to the VM's power button.

The server version is also called "vmware console," and this is for a
reason. The "vmware console" is more of an abstract concept where a
machine's interface is unbound from its graphical (on-screen)
representation. If the console application is terminated, it leaves behind
any VMs (functioning in memory), that were active at that time. VMWare
server's VMs only get closed out when their power state is altered by the
console button, or when the underlying VMWare services are stopped. (A
reboot with running VMs machines will have the same consequence that I
explained above- no chance to close your VMs.

BTW, this is how it works for VMWare Workstation V5. I haven't tried V6. I
think the interface model presented by the server version is better. It
would be nice if this concept were added to the workstation version.
Either that, or the two should products merge to avoid confusion.

--
Douglas Mayne
.