This is a read-only archive. Find the latest Linux articles, documentation, and answers at the new Linux.com!

Linux.com

Feature: Reviews

VMware Server 2 shows some improvement

By Mayank Sharma on October 31, 2008 (8:00:00 AM)

Share    Print    Comments   

In the early days of desktop virtualization, there were few low-priced alternatives to VMware Workstation that didn't involve a steep learning curve. Even the freely available VirtualBox didn't affect Workstation's market domination and instead faced competition from the newly rebranded VMware GSX server, which was offered for free as VMware Server. Despite being an entry-level server virtualization product, many people used VMware Server on the desktop. Taking that into consideration, you have to look at the recently released VMware Server 2, from two angles -- as an entry-level server virtualization platform and as an alternative to desktop virtualization products like VirtualBox. With its performance and other improvements, it does enough to keep existing customers happy, but probably not enough to get others to switch.

Compared to its predecessor, Server 2.0 offers quite a few enhancements. You can now create more scalable virtual machines that support USB 2.0 devices, can use up to 8GB of virtual RAM, and have 10 virtual network cards, as well as SCSI disks. You can also install Server 2 on 64-bit Linux hosts to run 64-bit Linux and Windows guests.

If you are using VMware Server in a networked multi-user environment, you can't help but admire its highly configurable access and configuration parameters. It lets you fine-tune the access to all areas of VMware Server for all users. The access parameters are so detailed that you can have a user that can use VMware Server to create and modify VMs yet can't add a new disk.

VMware Server 2 also bundles the VIX API v1.6 that allows developers to write scripts to automate VM tasks. Finally, VMware Server 2 can run VMs that were created with VMware Workstation. In my tests I had no issues migrating VMs created with the recently released Workstation 6.5.

Useful Web-based interface, but with usability issues

The most distinguishable feature of VMware Server 2 is its Web-based interface. Once it's installed, you have to use your browser to create, administer, and run VMs. The Web interface makes VMware Server ready for network use. All you need is a Web browser to access VMware Server and create VMs from any machine on the network. I tried it with the new Firefox 3.0 and it worked fine.

If you are using VMware Server for local VM deployment, as a replacement to Workstation or VirtualBox, you wouldn't always want to have a browser window open just for accessing the VM. For this you need the VMware Remote Console plugin. The plugin launches a Firefox session that lets you run the VM. You can also create a shortcut to the VM (it's just another URL) and place it on your desktop. When you double-click the icon, it'll let you log in and run your VM.

However, you still need the browser for creating and administering a VM. Unfortunately, the VMware Server Web interface isn't quite intuitive. Even a seasoned virtualization campaigner will need to refer to the user manual to understand a few controls and procedures. For example, if you need to use an ISO image for your DVD drive, it has to be part of a registered "datastore." A datastore in VMware Server is a repository that can hold local and remote files and even VMs. This isn't quite like Workstation, where you can use any ISO off the bat.

Then there are some usability issues as well. For example, when adding a datastore to map a local directory, you have to enter the path manually as opposed to using a Browse window. And users cannot navigate the interface with a keyboard.

Improved VM performance

One of the most important performance-related enhancement in VMware Server 2 is that it now supports Virtual Machine Interface extension. VMI is a paravirtualization interface that improves performance by allowing a guest OS to communicate with a software interface similar to the host hardware.

VMI has been included in the Linux kernel since version v2.6.21. To use it, after creating a VM, you need to enable VMI before you install the guest. Apparently not all VMware Server VMs support VMI. For example, the Fedora 9 VM has the VMI option grayed out. Without VMI, the VMs were noticeably slower than with VMI enabled. Even on the VMI-enabled Ubuntu 8.04 guest, the performance improvement wasn't noticeable across the board. Starting OpenOffice.org took a lot longer than it does natively, but startup and shutdown of the guest was pretty fast. What puzzles me is that both Fedora 9 and Ubuntu 8.04 are an order of magnitude faster when running as guests under Workstation 6.5 and VirtualBox 2.0.2 version Server 2.0 on the same dual-core host with Intel's virtualization technology (Intel VT)!

Other issues

The biggest issue with VMware Server is that it allows you to save only one snapshot per VM. The similarly free-of-cost VirtualBox has no such limitation. If you are constantly modifying a VM, you'd want the ability to take more than one snapshot.

There's also no 3-D support, which is currently available with Workstation 6.5. I also had some mouse-related issues after installing the VMware Server guest additions. I lost the ability to scroll up, and the guest OS couldn't track the mouse movements properly. As pointed on the VMware forums, you can partly solve the issue by using the regular "mouse" driver instead of "vmmouse."

Sound on the guests works, but you have to specifically add a sound card using the Add Hardware wizard. It would have been better to include an option to adding a sound card when you're creating the VM itself, instead of adding a diskette drive, which probably has few takers.

Final verdict

After using it for several days I have mixed feelings about VMware Server 2, mostly because it tries to ride two boats -- as a desktop and server-level virtualization software. On the desktop, it offers almost everything you'd find in the similarly priced VirtualBox, except for multiple snapshots. If you are a developer and write programs that involve a VM, you'll be better off with VMware Server 2 and its VIX API.

Despite being billed as an entry-level server virtualization software, VMware Server 2's server capabilities are limited to remote access with a Web-based interface. Better server virtualization platforms, like VMware ESXi, have a small footprint, are designed to run on bare metal, and offer near-native performance. At the server level, VMware Server 2 is more of a demonstration platform than anything else. VMware itself recommends using VMware Server for testing and development, and the commercial variant VMware ESXi for production systems.

All said and done, VMware Server 2 doesn't have enough new features and performance gains to attract VirtualBox users, but does enough to keep its existing users, who probably use VMware VMs that can't easily be migrated to VirtualBox. Apart from the Web-based interface, VMware Server has no clever tricks up its sleeve that you can't perform with available competition.

Share    Print    Comments   

Comments

on VMware Server 2 shows some improvement

Note: Comments are owned by the poster. We are not responsible for their content.

VMware Server 2 shows some improvement

Posted by: Anonymous [ip: 118.90.70.198] on October 31, 2008 08:26 AM
How about comparing it to KVM? I am running KVM-75. It's stable, and fast. It is not GUI friendly, though, so you need to know how to type into a command line. The latest, KVM-77, does USB apparently.

#

VMware Server 2 shows some improvement

Posted by: Anonymous [ip: 24.131.41.49] on October 31, 2008 12:26 PM
I agree with your review, however, in my testing with a Vista-64 host I found that unsigned drivers prevented installation of VMware Server. Googling located instructions to get around that, but a quick attempt failed and we moved on to ESXi.

ESXi, while being bare metal is highly specific concerning which hardware it will support. Basically if you aren't running server hardware from HP or Dell or IBM, you are probably wasting your time. My **very** standard P45 motherboard SATA controller was not supported. There was no chance my laptop would be seen either. How useful is that for a test system?

VirtualBox installed for me without requiring a reboot on my laptop with a Vista-64 host. I've been running for a few months with Ubuntu, WinXP and Puppy clients. The WinXP client is fast enough that I don't notice it isn't running directly on the hardware. Even lite video editing works in that VM. There was a major problem with 2.0.2 and a huge Microsoft memory leak that required a hotfix from MS (not a normal patch). That was bad, but I understand the current version 2.0.4 uses a different refresh method and removes that dependency on the leaky Win64 refresh API. I'm still happy using Vbox.

On real servers we run Xen 3.0.3 and Ubuntu server LTS. We've had some network issues where it seems to simply stop running on the host, but all the clients continue to work. There's a line commented out on the clients in the /etc/networking/interface file that enabling made a huge positive difference.

VirtualBox is easier to use than VMware for most people and very fast. Commercial support and add-on products are greater for VMware and I'd have to take a very strong look at that for any data center application where Xen doesn't fit and where downtime costs are non-trivial and real.

#

VMware Server 2 shows lots of problems, too

Posted by: Anonymous [ip: 88.161.128.95] on October 31, 2008 02:26 PM
The web-base interface is a complete pos tool that needs a couple more iterations before being usable:
- If you have any client-side ssl certs installed in Firefox, the interface keeps asking which certificate has to be used with it. About once per http object in the page, ie many times before even getting to the start page.
- Error messages like "server timed out" accumulate in javascript popups like if it was 1988. Get away from the pc leaving the console open for a while, come back, and you will have a hundred pop ups open.
- The Firefox plugin to run consoles on active vm images sometimes refuses to start, or crashes when launching.
- The tabbed interface to switch between all the consoles on active vms was much better than the current design where every console gets a new window on its own.
- There are extremely frequent timeouts in the connection between the web interface and actual vmware server service.Luckily the latter is still rock solid and the vm keep running without a hitch

#

Re: VMware Server 2 shows lots of problems, too

Posted by: Anonymous [ip: 88.161.128.95] on October 31, 2008 02:27 PM
Oh, and I forgot to mention taht it uses os-integrated authentication, but it has zero docs stating that! So after you install it, you are left cluelessly wondering what kind of username and password need to be used to access it...

#

VMware Server 2 shows some improvement

Posted by: Anonymous [ip: 24.84.196.212] on October 31, 2008 04:30 PM
The web based interface is available in VS1 as well. In VS1 VMware Server Console is used to install and deploy VM's while the web based interface only allows administration of already installed VM's. It looks like VSC has been deprecated and all management is now through the browser. It makes sense to use a common application for administering but I sure like VSC and will miss it.

I'm not sure what is meant by "Despite being billed as an entry-level server virtualization software, VMware Server 2's server capabilities are limited to remote access with a Web-based interface." If it can do everything VS1 does then it can be used to remotely deploy and install VM's and perform all admin tasks.

Looking at the documentation I am impressed. I wonder how the documentation compares to Xen, KVM or OpenVZ. I'm still using the proprietary VMware because documentation is so much better making deployment much easier. If you want to try out different OS's without doing a full install then use VirtualBox. If you want to remotely deploy virtual machines without software costs using available hardware then VMware Server is certainly a good option.

#

VMware Server 2 shows some improvement

Posted by: Anonymous [ip: 62.174.233.85] on November 01, 2008 01:31 PM
Well, VMWare server 2 has managed to partially corrupt an image, that I need to use for a demo on Monday. So my weekend will be partially ruined thanks to VMware. If my company policy was not to use VMware, I would have switched to Virtualbox long ago.

#

Re: VMware Server 2 shows some improvement

Posted by: Anonymous [ip: 62.174.233.85] on November 01, 2008 01:31 PM
Sorry, forgot to mention it happened after restoring a snapshot...

#

VMware Server 2 shows some improvement

Posted by: Anonymous [ip: 82.152.27.154] on November 03, 2008 11:27 AM
I've been testing Server 2 on a Debian 64bit (Intel quad-core, 8gb RAM, 4TB RAID 5 + Raptor for O/S if it matters) installation running Windows Server 2003 virtual machines.

Have to say I've been extremely impressed. Once the VM drivers are installed on the guest partition the speed is great for our SME load. I use remote desktop to the guest, so don't really care about the poor plugin. Backups are handled by rsync anyway so snapshots are handy, but not essential.

I also never had a problem with ISOs - I just link to my laptops drive or to a file, am I missing something there?

As a consolidation tool, it is invaluable. Sure in the future we will look at ESXi, but for our existing load a correctly backed up VM server does 90% of our tasks (file, print, AD, blackberry server, web server, exchange etc etc), only the SQL server has it's own dedicated hardware. An organised rotation of snapshots and data backups ensures even bare-metal restores are fast and with the cash we have saved, we have a complete backup host ready to go. Next on my list is to work out clustering so the failovers are automatic, but I presume that is an ESXi-only feature.

One downside though - the web admin I agree does need work. I corrupted my first test box by hitting the icon that I thought would refresh the web page but actually rebooted the virtual machines while I was in hte middle of installing SP1 - that button needs a confirmation dialogue!

Joe

#

This story has been archived. Comments can no longer be posted.



 
Tableless layout Validate XHTML 1.0 Strict Validate CSS Powered by Xaraya