> You may want to try VMware-player if you, (like almost everyone else)
> preferred 1.x to 2.x. The later versions of player are more like 1.x,
> allowing you to install an operating system from ISO or whatever, and
> work quite well with 64 bit CentOS.
If you want automation, forget player.
On 02/25/11 8:04 AM, Les Mikesell wrote:
> Windows-hosted version of Server 2.x didn't have those problems.
>
I found all versions of VMware Server 2.0.x to be unstable under load on
multiple different platforms and essentially unusable. That was when I
switched those systems over to VBox
_
On 2/25/2011 11:24 AM, Akemi Yagi wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 25, 2011 at 9:11 AM, David Brian Chait wrote:
>>> VMware Workstation has no issues with the glibc update; VMware is just not
>>> properly supporting VMware Server, has nothing to do with Red Hat (Ubuntu
>>> is also listed as a supported OS,
On Fri, Feb 25, 2011 at 9:11 AM, David Brian Chait wrote:
>> VMware Workstation has no issues with the glibc update; VMware is just not
>> properly supporting VMware Server, has nothing to do with Red Hat (Ubuntu is
>> also listed as a supported OS, yet when you do the glibc update that matches
> VMware Workstation has no issues with the glibc update; VMware is just not
> properly supporting VMware Server, has nothing to do with Red Hat (Ubuntu is
> also listed as a supported OS, yet when you do the glibc update that matches
> > > the one that causes the issues on RHEL, the same thing
On Friday, February 25, 2011 11:04:23 am Les Mikesell wrote:
> RHEL5 was never a 'supported'
> platform, so a stable module wasn't included.
According to VMware's documentation, RHEL5 was and is a fully supported
platform for VMware Server 2.0 (see page 26 of the current 'VMware Server
User's
On 2/25/2011 8:36 AM, Ross Walker wrote:
>
> Also, VMware could have made their module load across kernel updates without
> recompile if they had set their kernel module up to support KABI (kernel ABI)
> tracking, but they didn't.
That was the other strange thing. RHEL5 was never a 'supported'
On 25/02/11 14:52, Les Mikesell wrote:
> On 2/25/11 4:48 AM, Johnny Hughes wrote:
>> >
>>> >> Anyway, my point was that the fabled library ABI stability of RHEL
>>> >> turned out
>>> >> not to work for VMware Server 2.0. But CentOS did come through with
>>> >> bug-for-bug compatibility as promis
On Feb 25, 2011, at 9:01 AM, Les Mikesell wrote:
> On 2/25/11 7:33 AM, Scott Robbins wrote:
>> On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 10:36:28PM -0800, David Brian Chait wrote:
>>>
>>> I think you need to download the VI3 rather than 4.1 to use 32 bit support,
>>> but it does work. I have it in production on
On Feb 25, 2011, at 5:48 AM, Johnny Hughes wrote:
> On 02/24/2011 10:47 PM, Les Mikesell wrote:
>> On 2/24/11 8:56 PM, Scott Robbins wrote:
>>> On Fri, Feb 25, 2011 at 03:44:32PM +1300, Machin, Greg wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
Rather use ESXi 4.1 and get
up and running quickly. If your h
On 2/25/11 7:33 AM, Scott Robbins wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 10:36:28PM -0800, David Brian Chait wrote:
>>
>> I think you need to download the VI3 rather than 4.1 to use 32 bit support,
>> but it does work. I have it in production on some older hardware and it has
>> not let me down yet.
>
On 2/25/11 4:48 AM, Johnny Hughes wrote:
>
>> Anyway, my point was that the fabled library ABI stability of RHEL turned out
>> not to work for VMware Server 2.0. But CentOS did come through with
>> bug-for-bug compatibility as promised, causing the same crashing behavior
>> after
>> the same min
On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 10:36:28PM -0800, David Brian Chait wrote:
>
> I think you need to download the VI3 rather than 4.1 to use 32 bit support,
> but it does work. I have it in production on some older hardware and it has
> not let me down yet.
I believe David is correct. We had some old ma
On 02/24/2011 06:04 PM, Les Mikesell wrote:
>
> Can someone remind me why VMware server 2.x broke with a RHEL/CentOS 5.x glibc
> update? I switched back to 1.x which I like better anyway, but if the reason
> for putting up with oldness is to keep that from happening, it didn't work.
Ultimately it
On 02/24/2011 10:47 PM, Les Mikesell wrote:
> On 2/24/11 8:56 PM, Scott Robbins wrote:
>> On Fri, Feb 25, 2011 at 03:44:32PM +1300, Machin, Greg wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> Rather use ESXi 4.1 and get
>>> up and running quickly. If your hardware is not on the supported list
>>> there are other lists of
On Thu, 2011-02-24 at 22:47 -0600, Les Mikesell wrote:
> Player isn't good for most of my usage because most of the time I don't want
> the
> console display at all - I just connect to the guests remotely with
> freenx/ssh/vnc when necessary. And I have Server 1.x setups that have run
> for
>
> Thanks, I did not know that. I could've swarn I had tested it on some
> old IBM x306. Will have to take a look into that.
> I still like that automation that I get with CentOS, puppet and VirtualBox.
> Ben
I think you need to download the VI3 rather than 4.1 to use 32 bit support, but
it d
On 25/02/2011 4:51 PM, John R Pierce wrote:
> On 02/24/11 9:18 PM, Ben wrote:
>> I have begun to switch all my hosts without hardware virtualization, so
>> can't use ESXi, to VirtualBox.
> ESXi only needs hardware virtualization support for 64bit guest VMs.
> as long as you can live with 32bit VMs,
On 02/24/11 9:18 PM, Ben wrote:
> I have begun to switch all my hosts without hardware virtualization, so
> can't use ESXi, to VirtualBox.
ESXi only needs hardware virtualization support for 64bit guest VMs.
as long as you can live with 32bit VMs, you're good with older CPUs. I
have it runnin
On 2/24/11 8:56 PM, Scott Robbins wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 25, 2011 at 03:44:32PM +1300, Machin, Greg wrote:
>
>
>
>
>> Rather use ESXi 4.1 and get
>> up and running quickly. If your hardware is not on the supported list
>> there are other lists of tested hardware where people have it running on
>> "
On 25/02/2011 1:13 PM, Scott Robbins wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 08:04:08PM -0600, Les Mikesell wrote:
>> Can someone remind me why VMware server 2.x broke with a RHEL/CentOS 5.x
>> glibc
>> update? I switched back to 1.x which I like better anyway, but if the reason
>> for putting up with o
On 2/24/11 8:56 PM, Scott Robbins wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 25, 2011 at 03:44:32PM +1300, Machin, Greg wrote:
>
>
>
>
>> Rather use ESXi 4.1 and get
>> up and running quickly. If your hardware is not on the supported list
>> there are other lists of tested hardware where people have it running on
>> "U
On Fri, Feb 25, 2011 at 03:44:32PM +1300, Machin, Greg wrote:
> Rather use ESXi 4.1 and get
> up and running quickly. If your hardware is not on the supported list
> there are other lists of tested hardware where people have it running on
> "Unsupported" hardware.
>
> Player is not a solution
-Original Message-
From: centos-boun...@centos.org [mailto:centos-boun...@centos.org] On
Behalf Of Scott Robbins
Sent: Friday, 25 February 2011 3:14 p.m.
To: CentOS mailing list
Subject: [CentOS] VMware (was Re: current bind version)
On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 08:04:08PM -0600, Les Mikese
On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 08:04:08PM -0600, Les Mikesell wrote:
> Can someone remind me why VMware server 2.x broke with a RHEL/CentOS 5.x
> glibc
> update? I switched back to 1.x which I like better anyway, but if the reason
> for putting up with oldness is to keep that from happening, it didn't
25 matches
Mail list logo
