VMware instead of Multi-Boot Loaders?

[amigadave]

I know this has nothing to do with AmigaOS, that is why I am putting this in the Alternative OS Forum. Members here usually answer questions quickly and with great insight and intelligence from their own experiences. I value your collective knowledge.

After my Dell XPS700 died a second mobo failure, I have received my second replacement computer from Dell, as the first one could only run Vista and I refused it, wanting the ability to run XP Pro. I will list here in detail what my system has in it.

XPS630i
Core2Extreme Quad Core @3.0GHz
2GB RAM
Dual NVidia 9800GT 512mb graphics cards
2 - 300GB 10,000rpm SATA hard drives (second added by me)
Dual tuner TV card
Sound Blaster X-fi sound card
Windows XP Pro SP3 installed by Dell w/OEM DVD provided
Windows Vista Ultimate Bonus OEM DVD (installed on 2nd hdd by me)
Catweasle Mk3 Flipper (added by me)

My current setup has XP Pro SP3 on one hard drive and Vista Ultimate on the other hard drive.

It is my desire to set up the identical 300GB hard drives as a RAID array to have one 600GB fast hard drive and use one OS as a primary host OS and set up all others as VMware partitions. It is my thought that this will be better and more convenient than having to reboot each time I wish to use a different OS.

My question, or request for advice is this:

Which OS should I use as my primary, or Host OS, and can I find and install the needed VMware for free, or will I have to pay for a more full featured version of some kind of virtual machine software?

I would like to have access to XP Pro SP3, Vista Ultimate, Ubuntu 8.10, and/or some other Linux distribution, and if it is some how possible, run a VM of MacOS 10.5.5.

I also want to be able to remote desktop via my LAN to MorphOS2.1 running on my EFIKA, and perhaps even AmigaOS3.9 running on my A4000T and/or A1200/060.

It would be great if I could easily run all of the above from one keyboard, monitor and mouse, without having to move from one desk to another, or from one room to another and without having to run a mass of cables to a KVM switch.

I have only a little experience with Linux, but have installed and used Ubuntu some during the past year. I have no experience setting up a RAID, but assume that XP Pro, or Vista and maybe Ubuntu all have wizards that will easily get that done for me. I have used remote desktop sharing in the past on Windows, but another person set it up. On the Mac it is easy with iChat.

I have read (IIRC) that there are remote desktop clients for MorphOS and AmigaOS. So, I am hoping that I can set them up to use from my XPS630i system.

Do any of you have answers or advice for me? I have looked around Online and found some resources for setting up VMware on XP Pro and on Linux, but none of them made a recommendation as to which OS is best for the Host OS.

My good sense tells me that using Linux as the Host OS would be the most secure, but if I keep up with my Avast virus protection and Sun Belt firewall on my Windows installations, I might be just as safe using XP Pro, or Vista Ultimate as the Host OS.  If I could sell this Dell computer and buy a used (or new) Mac Pro, or iMac with decent specs similar to the capabilities of the XPS630i I would do it in a second.

Thanks in advance for any help.

Edit: I want to keep my ability to use this computer as my entertainment center for watching and recording TV shows.  It is currently set up with the DVI cable going to a Dell 20" widescreen LCD display and a DVI to VGA cable going to my Vizio 37" HDTV and the dual NVidia 9800GT graphics cards working together via SLI.  I don't know if this will be negatively affected if my Windows OSes are run through VMware, or if there are similar software and drivers to do the same thing from Ubuntu, or any other Linux distro.

[Golem!dk]

For VMware I'd add more RAM and go for a 64bit host OS.

[amigadave]

Golem!dk wrote:
For VMware I'd add more RAM and go for a 64bit host OS.

I maybe could do that.  I do have a licensed copy of XP Pro x64 that is not being used at the moment, but I was thinking of installing it on my Son's PC that he uses mostly just for games, but is currently not working and when it did work, the OEM 32bit XP Pro I purchased for it would not register correctly.

So your suggestion would be to install Windows XP Pro/x64 as my Host OS and then install Vista Ultimate and Ubuntu as VMware clients?  I have two empty RAM simm slots and could double my RAM to 4GB pretty easily.

Is XP Pro/x64 still being supported?  I think that the 32bit version of XP Pro is dead, or soon will be no longer supported by MS.  Dell was very reluctant to agree to my request for a different replacement computer because I did not want to be forced into upgrading to Vista.  Now that I have used Vista more, it is not that bad and I have not had any trouble with it (yet).

What do you think of my plan overall?  Is it a good idea?  Is there a way to take better advantage of the Quad Cores in my CPU when running multiple VM's?  Do you think my idea of using the two identical 300GB hard drives in a RAID is a good idea?

[Colani1200]

amigadave wrote:

Do any of you have answers or advice for me? I have looked around Online and found some resources for setting up VMware on XP Pro and on Linux, but none of them made a recommendation as to which OS is best for the Host OS.

Neither of them. The best solution would be ESXi which has been released as freeware this year. ESXi is a true type 1 hypervisor which means that it runs directly on the hardware without having a slow OS underneath. The guest systems will run significantly faster than on the hosted VMware products (like the VMware player or server). However, you will need another machine that runs the VMware infrastructure client to administrate the ESXi server. And you have to be lucky that your hardware is supported. ESXi is only certified for a number of server systems. I did manage to install it on desktop hardware in the past though.

[meega]

amigadave wrote:

Do you think my idea of using the two identical 300GB hard drives in a RAID is a good idea?

No.

(Reading material.)

[mikedouble]

Hi amigadave

That's a very nice system you got yourself there.

The choice of which host OS depends on which you use for your entertainment centre. If you run Linux as your host OS, with XP and Vista as the guests, you will likely lose the ability to record TV shows, and also your 3D graphics performance will plummet. This isn't anything against VMWare, its simply a matter of fact. I use VMWare a lot for work and at home, and think it's amazing, but there are limitations to what it can do. This would be the same for using VMWare ESXi as it doesnt support 3D or USB.

I agree that XP x64 is the way to go as the host OS. This way, you can have your 3D games and apps still running well in SLI, and you can also keep the ability to record and watch your TV on the computer. Vista, Ubuntu, and OSX can then all be ran inside VM's. If you like playing with OS's, AROS, Solaris, Novell, and many others all run well inside VMWare too.

I would suggest you download the trial version of VMWare Workstation. This will let you use the full product for 30 days so you can set up your virtual machines, and then after the 30 days, the free (built in) VMWare Player will let you still use those virtual machines without buying the full product.

I would also like to echo that I think the idea of going for a Raid0 stripe for your disks is bad. If one of the disks fails, you can say goodbye to everything on the computer quicker than I can say "argghhhh!!!". If you go with a Raid1, you will have roughly the same performance, but with the advantage that if one of the disks breaks, the other disk will take over and you wont lose anything.

Hope that all helps

Mike

[Painkiller]

Oh my oh my. Looks like your are in for a one major computing headache Just my personal opinion...

I wouldn't use two drives in either striping or spanning as it will be a major reliability issue if one drive fails. In striping you will lose all data and in spanning some data will still remain readable, but you can't know which data. I would mirror for reliability, but if you need the discspace then leave them as two separate drives.

I don't have any experience in virtualization, but I can't imagine it being easy. Or really that usefull, since linux and OSX pretty has needed programs for everyday use except games, well OSX tends to have those also and since there is no 3D acceleration atleast usefull one to run windows games in virtualization pretty much makes it useless IMO.

Remote desktop should be pretty easy with VNC

[Colani1200]

meega wrote:

amigadave wrote:

Do you think my idea of using the two identical 300GB hard drives in a RAID is a good idea?

No.

(Reading material.)

Eh? His system has got an onboard RAID controller.

[persia]

The main reason for doing a RAID is reliability, if one or two disks fail you information is still secure.  A two drive RAID makes no sense, you can't do striping or have a spare hard disk and any RAID features would involve a decrease in what is a tiny amount of storage space to begin with.

Now if you had say 7 or so 300 GB you could construct a relatively reliable 1.5 TB RAID.  But you don't.  Also it appears you are the only user.  RAIDs are most useful in systems that get a lot of access from a lot of users.

[mikedouble]

persia wrote:
The main reason for doing a RAID is reliability, if one or two disks fail you information is still secure.  A two drive RAID makes no sense, you can't do striping or have a spare hard disk and any RAID features would involve a decrease in what is a tiny amount of storage space to begin with.

Now if you had say 7 or so 300 GB you could construct a relatively reliable 1.5 TB RAID.  But you don't.  Also it appears you are the only user.  RAIDs are most useful in systems that get a lot of access from a lot of users.

If you have Raid1 across 2 disks, you generally get the same performance (on modern systems) as Raid0 but your data is stored on both drives. If the first drive fails, then the second drive will carry on working and keep all your data intact.

Admittedly, this scenario is of much greater advantage to enterprise users with servers, but for those who value their data more than how much storage they have, it makes perfect sense.

I personally use Raid1 on my data disks, with an external hard disk used as a backup. I'm paranoid you see...  :crazy:

[Colani1200]

mikedouble wrote:

for those who value their data more than how much storage they have, it makes perfect sense.

Many people aren't aware of their data's value until they are lost.

[persia]

Agreed, my home server has just under a TB of stuff stored on it and I'd be lost without it. The time to think about back up is before you have hardware failure.   For most people a cheap external disk and strategic backup to DL DVD is all they really need.  

[Trev]

My two cents:

Bare metal hypervisors like VMware ESX and Microsoft Hyper-V Server don't provide a local user interface, so as noted, you'll need a second system to access your virtual machines.

A hosted virtual machine solution like VMware Workstation/Server or Virtual PC/Server is a better choice in your case; however, most of your hardware won't be virtualized. If you want to use the Media Center features of Vista Ultimate, run that as your primary OS.

If you want to use the Catweasel under Windows, you'll have to use a 32-bit version of Windows. As far as I know, there are no 64-bit drivers for the Catweasel.

If you're fine with not using the Catweasel and your OEM version of Vista is 64-bit, go for that and don't run Windows XP at all, assuming your video capture device has 64-bit drivers. The XP v. Vista debate is really just that. Ultimately, you need to decide for yourself which version of Windows provides the functionality you need. Stability is largely dependent on hardware, device drivers, and third-party software, particularly antivirus (kernel mode file system filters) and other "security" sofware.

I don't know if you can run Mac OS X under an x86 virtual machine.

If you're serious about using a disk array, don't use your motherboard's onboard RAID controller, which is most likely software-assisted, and don't use Windows' built-in array features. Buy a third-party SATA/SAS caching array controller from Adaptec, Promise, or some other vendor. If you don't care about data loss, create a stripe ("RAID 0"); otherwise, create a mirror (RAID 1). A two disk stripe or mirror will perform about the same for reads. Writes on a mirror are similar in performance to a single disk. Performance ultimately depends on the interconnects and how the array is implemented by the hardware and software.

EDIT: Additional note on caching array controllers: with write caching enabled, writes (from the file system's perspective) happen as quickly as your host can move data to the controller's write cache, taking into account bus contention and cache overflows. Write caching is a great feature, but make sure the controller has a battery backed cache to prevent data loss during a power failure. Couple it with a journaling file system like NTFS or ext3 to prevent data corruption.