Sridhar Dhanapalan writes:
> 2009/3/20 Daniel Pittman :
>> Ben Donohue writes:
>>
>>> yes i know it not FOSS. However I think that he wanted something
>>> simple to manage with FOSS as preferred.
>>>
>>> However you are incorrect about the "and only available on Windows
>>> with the dot-net platf
2009/3/20 Daniel Pittman :
> Ben Donohue writes:
>
>> yes i know it not FOSS. However I think that he wanted something
>> simple to manage with FOSS as preferred.
>>
>> However you are incorrect about the "and only available on Windows
>> with the dot-net platform". I said that it runs on bare met
2009/3/20 Sam Lawrance :
>
> On 20/03/2009, at 11:47 AM, Daniel Pittman wrote:
>
>> Ben Donohue writes:
>>
>>> Doesn't anyone know that VMware ESX3.5i is now free?
>>
>> Sure, as in beer. That fails the "FOSS highly desired" bullet point on
>> the original posters list of features. Point one, in
Ben Donohue writes:
> yes i know it not FOSS. However I think that he wanted something
> simple to manage with FOSS as preferred.
>
> However you are incorrect about the "and only available on Windows
> with the dot-net platform". I said that it runs on bare metal.
Sorry, but I seem to have fail
Hi Daniel,
yes i know it not FOSS. However I think that he wanted something simple
to manage with FOSS as preferred.
However you are incorrect about the "and only available on Windows with
the dot-net platform". I said that it runs on bare metal.
That means that it erases everything on the
On 20/03/2009, at 11:47 AM, Daniel Pittman wrote:
Ben Donohue writes:
Doesn't anyone know that VMware ESX3.5i is now free?
Sure, as in beer. That fails the "FOSS highly desired" bullet point
on
the original posters list of features. Point one, in fact.
Is the requirement driven by t
2009/3/18 Sridhar Dhanapalan :
> We're getting a new box at work to host virtual machines, and I'm
> trying to figure out what the best virtualisation solution might be.
> The specs will very likely be a dual quad-core CPU with 32GB RAM,
> running CentOS.
>
> I'd like to have something that:
>
> *
Ben Donohue writes:
> Doesn't anyone know that VMware ESX3.5i is now free?
Sure, as in beer. That fails the "FOSS highly desired" bullet point on
the original posters list of features. Point one, in fact.
> It's not FOSS but you can get a free license and use it. The management
> interface is
Doesn't anyone know that VMware ESX3.5i is now free?
It's not FOSS but you can get a free license and use it. The management
interface is simple and neat.
I'm not talking about vmware server which runs on top of a windows or
linux host. ESX3.5i runs on bare metal and supports windows and linux h
On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 04:08:19PM +1100, Tony Sceats wrote:
> with VirtualBox 2.1.4 you don't have to setup any bridging, at least not to
> be on the same LAN (ie, my VirtualBox machine is on the same subnet as my
> the physical machine)
>
> basically you just say use eth0 (or whatever) in the Vi
Actually I guess not - I just noticed the window title of my virtual
machine, and it's xVM..
On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 4:41 PM, Tony Sceats wrote:
> erm, I thought it was, but the 'About VirtualBox' doesn't say so - I got it
> from the VirtualBox website as a binary not as source though.. didn't p
erm, I thought it was, but the 'About VirtualBox' doesn't say so - I got it
from the VirtualBox website as a binary not as source though.. didn't pay or
register or anything either though
On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 4:32 PM, Mark Walkom wrote:
> Is that for OSE?
>
> I know xVM can do it but I though
Is that for OSE?
I know xVM can do it but I thought OSE couldn't (yet).
2009/3/19 Tony Sceats
> with VirtualBox 2.1.4 you don't have to setup any bridging, at least not to
> be on the same LAN (ie, my VirtualBox machine is on the same subnet as my
> the physical machine)
>
> basically you just
with VirtualBox 2.1.4 you don't have to setup any bridging, at least not to
be on the same LAN (ie, my VirtualBox machine is on the same subnet as my
the physical machine)
basically you just say use eth0 (or whatever) in the Virtual Machine config,
and it doesn't setup any bridge interfaces
very
On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 01:09:47PM +1100, Jeff Waugh wrote:
>
>
> > It still looks like having proper network bridging (so the VMs are
> > directly on the network just like any other host) is a pain in the bum.
> > The solutions I've seen involve performing some arcane rituals with brctl
> > and
Sonia Hamilton writes:
> * Daniel Pittman [2009-03-19 10:22:50 +1100]:
Administratively, do you actually care if people sign their replies to
you or not?
>> Respectfully, VMware server no longer really qualifies as "simple" given
>> that the dependency list for basic management now includes Jav
> It still looks like having proper network bridging (so the VMs are
> directly on the network just like any other host) is a pain in the bum.
> The solutions I've seen involve performing some arcane rituals with brctl
> and co.
Bridging is brain-meltingly simple on Debian-based systems. Quick e
On Thursday 19 March 2009 10:00:05 slug-requ...@slug.org.au wrote:
> >> I have not been able to get VMWARE to keep time on my dual AMDs
> >> despite trying all the solutions I could find. (Guest loses 5min
> >> /hour !)
> >
> > I vaguely remember a long time ago doing some rtc pokery to get thi
Sridhar Dhanapalan writes:
> 2009/3/19 jam :
>
>> I have not been able to get VMWARE to keep time on my dual AMDs
>> despite trying all the solutions I could find. (Guest loses 5min
>> /hour !)
>
> I vaguely remember a long time ago doing some rtc pokery to get this
> going. An alternative wou
* Daniel Pittman [2009-03-19 10:22:50 +1100]:
> Respectfully, VMware server no longer really qualifies as "simple" given
> that the dependency list for basic management now includes Java, a Java
> application server, a Firefox plugin, binary-only components included in
> that plugin, an AJAX web a
2009/3/19 jam :
> I have not been able to get VMWARE to keep time on my dual AMDs despite trying
> all the solutions I could find. (Guest loses 5min /hour !)
I vaguely remember a long time ago doing some rtc pokery to get this
going. An alternative would be to frequently sync to an ntp server.
On Wednesday 18 March 2009 21:19:08 slug-requ...@slug.org.au wrote:
> > Well XenServer 5 would do it, but it's not FOSS.
> > Virtualbox *might* if it's Solaris 10 (I haven't gotten 9 working yet),
> > pretty sure the others will work - Windows will and I find it faster on
> > my laptop than on bare
Dean Hamstead writes:
[...]
> Xen is snapping at VMwares heels, however if you want basics and
> simplicity, why are you resisting the free VMware server.
Respectfully, VMware server no longer really qualifies as "simple" given
that the dependency list for basic management now includes Java, a
Andre Kolodochka wrote:
> Why not "closed source" VMWare, which is the pretty much been there
> from the beginning?
Because when something goes wrong you can't hack the source code
to fix it.
I mess about quite a bit with qemu and yes, I have at times hacked
about it its source code.
Erik
--
-
> 2009/3/18 Jeff Waugh :
> > Depends on what you mean by manage, but if you're trying to avoid being
> > a part time sysadmin, then something clicky might be best.
>
> I have no aversion to the CLI. I spend half my time in there and I'm quite
> fond of it for some things. I often type vim keybin
Sridhar Dhanapalan writes:
> 2009/3/18 Mark Walkom :
>
>> Well XenServer 5 would do it, but it's not FOSS.
>> Virtualbox *might* if it's Solaris 10 (I haven't gotten 9 working yet),
>> pretty sure the others will work - Windows will and I find it faster on my
>> laptop than on bare metal.
>
> Yes,
2009/3/18 Jeff Waugh :
>
>> * is easy to manage (I've got other responsibilities and don't want to
>> be bogged down with sysadmin work)
>
> Depends on what you mean by manage, but if you're trying to avoid being a
> part time sysadmin, then something clicky might be best.
I have no aversion to t
> We're getting a new box at work to host virtual machines, and I'm
> trying to figure out what the best virtualisation solution might be.
> The specs will very likely be a dual quad-core CPU with 32GB RAM,
> running CentOS.
>
> I'd like to have something that:
>
> * is FOSS
Check.
> * is eas
Sridhar Dhanapalan wrote:
We're getting a new box at work to host virtual machines, and I'm
trying to figure out what the best virtualisation solution might be.
The specs will very likely be a dual quad-core CPU with 32GB RAM,
running CentOS.
I'd like to have something that:
* is FOSS
* is easy
> Yes, it's Solaris 10. I was under the impression that Virtualbox was
> focused more on desktop virtualisation and is less geared for servers.
> Is that incorrect?
They are feeling the lure of data center virtualisation. However Virtualbox
is probably not mature enough for system critical appli
2009/3/18 Mark Walkom :
> Well XenServer 5 would do it, but it's not FOSS.
> Virtualbox *might* if it's Solaris 10 (I haven't gotten 9 working yet),
> pretty sure the others will work - Windows will and I find it faster on my
> laptop than on bare metal.
Yes, it's Solaris 10. I was under the impre
Well XenServer 5 would do it, but it's not FOSS.
Virtualbox *might* if it's Solaris 10 (I haven't gotten 9 working yet),
pretty sure the others will work - Windows will and I find it faster on my
laptop than on bare metal.
Xen is pretty powerful, but there is still a lack of good, solid management
We're getting a new box at work to host virtual machines, and I'm
trying to figure out what the best virtualisation solution might be.
The specs will very likely be a dual quad-core CPU with 32GB RAM,
running CentOS.
I'd like to have something that:
* is FOSS
* is easy to manage (I've got other r
33 matches
Mail list logo
