> 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 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
I have always had issues with VMware server and compiling of kernel
modules, normally ended up costing a couple of days effort .. I have
found 2 is more resource intensive than 1. Rather use ESXi 4.1 and get
up and running quickly. If your hardware is not on the supported list
there are other lists
23 matches
Mail list logo
