Re: [slim] I see vortexbox in a vm as a good solution

Inspired by this thread I thought I'd give Vortexbox a spin as a guest OS under Ubuntu 10.04, using VmWare's free VMplayer. This was way easier than trying out the distro on bare metal, which I have done once before. I was highly impressed by how complete and functional Vortexbox is these days.

Re: [slim] I see vortexbox in a vm as a good solution

JJZolx;570441 Wrote: Why? If you have a dedicated machine on which to run Squeezebox Server then the VM is just added overhead and administrative complexity. And Vortexbox has unnecessary components that most people don't need on a dedicated server. I would say: Because the VortexBox VM

Re: [slim] I see vortexbox in a vm as a good solution

epoch1970;571170 Wrote: So I am running linux (debian mostly), and kvm these days. Before that I was using linux and Virtualbox. On the linux host I use a package called something like bridge-utils. The command that does it all is brctl. Let's say we have a debian host with a working

Re: [slim] I see vortexbox in a vm as a good solution

pski;571518 Wrote: I would say: Because the VortexBox VM is vastly faster than running SBS without virtualization on the same box. It sounds like you're talking about a VM running on system that's also running Windows. If so, you should make that clear. Of course there's no reason to have

Re: [slim] I see vortexbox in a vm as a good solution

epoch1970;570497 Wrote: 4. setup networks outside the VM manager (e.g. my own bridges, not the default NAT network) I'm curious about this point. Could you expand on this? What are you using for the bridge and how do you get the VM and host to talk to each other using it? Thanks. --

Re: [slim] I see vortexbox in a vm as a good solution

So I am running linux (debian mostly), and kvm these days. Before that I was using linux and Virtualbox. On the linux host I use a package called something like bridge-utils. The command that does it all is brctl. Let's say we have a debian host with a working plain network configuration: Code:

Re: [slim] I see vortexbox in a vm as a good solution

JJZolx;570441 Wrote: Why? If you have a dedicated machine on which to run Squeezebox Server then the VM is just added overhead and administrative complexity. I beg to differ. You just can't ignore the fact that performing a rollback on a VM after an unsuccessful upgrade is so simple. In the

Re: [slim] I see vortexbox in a vm as a good solution

Not sure if it is of any help, but I wrote a blog post about 'installing vortexbox in vmware server' (http://www.blisshq.com/music-library-management-blog/2010/03/23/automatic-digital-music-workflow-with-vortexbox-part-one-installation/). I tried VirtualBox too, but had less success, I found

Re: [slim] I see vortexbox in a vm as a good solution

epoch1970;570497 Wrote: I beg to differ. You just can't ignore the fact that performing a rollback on a VM after an unsuccessful upgrade is so simple, compared to downgrading a machine. In the context where most people want their music server to simply work, and the promise of a distro such

Re: [slim] I see vortexbox in a vm as a good solution

elstensoftware;570569 Wrote: Not sure if it is of any help, but I wrote a blog post about 'installing vortexbox in vmware server' (http://www.blisshq.com/music-library-management-blog/2010/03/23/automatic-digital-music-workflow-with-vortexbox-part-one-installation/). I tried VirtualBox

[slim] I see vortexbox in a vm as a good solution

Could we start a thread/area about vm's on various platforms? -- pski real stereo makes the lights dim on the bass notes. (this means your amp could also use it's own circuit.) pski's Profile:

Re: [slim] I see vortexbox in a vm as a good solution

Why? If you have a dedicated machine on which to run Squeezebox Server then the VM is just added overhead and administrative complexity. And Vortexbox has unnecessary components that most people don't need on a dedicated server. -- JJZolx