0

Is it possible to run VMWare Server v2 on Windows Home Server? Is this the best virtualization product for a home environment that wants a 24x7 virtual development OS/Server?

Omar Shahine
  • 3,747
  • 3
  • 26
  • 27
Brad Leach
  • 229
  • 2
  • 6

5 Answers5

3

Yeah, but you'd be better off running ESXi on the hardware and WHS on top of that.

Richard Gadsden
  • 3,686
  • 4
  • 29
  • 58
  • I am not familiar with ESXi - does it allow me to "dedicate" one or more physical drives for WHS (as AFAIK WHS needs to manage the entire drive - not a virtual drive). – Brad Leach Apr 30 '09 at 12:59
  • ESXi is very picky when it comes to what hardware is supported. – Edmund Tay May 02 '09 at 14:51
  • Unless you have a 64-bit machine listed on the [HCL](http://www.vmware.com/resources/compatibility/search.php) it's a real crap shoot (it has to be 64-bit though). – Scott Keck-Warren Feb 15 '11 at 18:54
1

If you haven't used virtualization, VMWare Server v2 is a good starting point. If learning and ease of use is your goal, then stick with Server v2. If performance is your goal, ESXi will give you more as it does not have the overhead of the Windows OS having to load into memory and CPU calls having to be translated though the OS.

If your WHS uses RAID, you will likely lose it on ESXi as it is unlikely that ESXi will support your setup. I could be wrong on this, so it is best to check on VMWare forums.

Joseph
  • 3,797
  • 27
  • 33
0

I'd recommend VirtualBox over VMWare Server 2.x for what you're trying to do (ie, virtualization ontop of a Host OS, rather than bare-metal virtualization).

The VMWare Server product will be hitting it's EndOfLife fairly soon (mid-2011 if I remember correctly, if it hasn't been already). This is the reason I'm converting my development/home VMs away from Server 2.x.

Another good reason is that VirtualBox does away with that bastard of a web-based UI that you're stuck with for Server 2.x.

If you have access to MSDN/Technet, you might want to consider running a Hyper-V server and virtualize your WHS instead. This is the way that I'm solving the home virtualization problem. I went with Hyper-V because I know it's stable, solid and with the amounts of money Microsoft is spending on it, it'll be around for quite a while. VirtualBox looks decent, and I'm sure it's fully functional, but I'm just more confident in the Hyper-V solution.

Peter Bernier
  • 329
  • 2
  • 4
  • 17
0

The newest type 2 (hosted) hypervisor solutions offered by VMware, which I would use instead of VMware Server, are VMware workstation or VMware Player.

Workstation is a pay solution and closer to an enterprise level solution. http://www.vmware.com/products/workstation/

Player is more so the replacement, I think, of VMware Server. http://www.vmware.com/products/player/

Both of these solutions do away with the web browser interface that Peter isn't a fan of... and of course neither was I. Both of them are solid solutions for personal use. Also as stated above, if you are trying to run a home business and/or get great performance ESXi might be a better solution.

Chadddada
  • 1,680
  • 1
  • 19
  • 26
0

Only just spotted your 24x7 requirement, only one VMWare product can offer that sort of reliability and that's ESX/ESXi - try that instead.

Chopper3
  • 101,299
  • 9
  • 108
  • 239