Re: VMware Workstation vs VMware Server?

On Tue, 04 Sep 2007 13:16:16 -0600, Douglas Mayne wrote:

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.

Thanks for the explanation. I typically close the console after I've
launched a VM, if killing the console kills the VM that would be a big
problem. Consider the situation where you launch a VM remotely via ssh
and then start a long job in the VM. When you terminate the ssh session
you would kill the VM and hence the job. VMware Server does the right
thing, it leave the VM running. Your explanation about how to use NAT to
talk to a VM when there is no network fixed one of my problems with
VMware, which is how to use a VM on my laptop which might not be on a
network if I'm at a customer site. My other issue is the 3.6G limit. That
effects my 8G compute server but no other systems that I own. Hopefully
they will come out with a new version of Server that fixes that
limitation. I wouldn't mind paying for a version of Server that can do
everything that Server now does and has the capabilities of Workstation.
I like a free lunch as much as anyone but I'm perfectly willing to pay
for a better meal.
.