 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> I am a sick, sick individual. I'm trying out Virtual Box by running it
> INSIDE A VIRTUAL MACHINE! :-D
>
> I created a VMware virtual machine, installed Windows, installed Virtual
> Box for Windows, and then created a Windows VM inside that.
>
> Perhaps unsurprisingly, this doesn't actually *work*. (Presumably the
> CPU hardware doesn't support nested virtualisation...)
>
> (I wonder... Is there some option I can flip inside VMware to make
> nested VMs work? Perhaps if I turn off hardware virtualisation or
> something...)
Yep, there is: Disable binary acceleration. Now Virtual Box quite
happily runs the Windows XP install CD. (I probably shouldn't let it
complete though... VMware runs dramatically slower in this
configuration. Curiously, not as slow as QEMU - or maybe it's because I
have a faster PC now?)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
So, I fiddled with some settings in my PC's BIOS, and now I'm running a
64-bit installation of Debian inside VMware.
In spite of VMware being run under a 32-bit edition of Windows XP. :-D
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 09:12:14 +0000, Invisible wrote:
>> It also has to know the hardware supports it. ;-)
>
> No, the way I understand it, paravirtualisation doesn't require any
> special hardware. (While full virtualisation does - unless you want to
> do software emulation...)
Paravirtualized operating systems have to be built specifically for the
platform - I always get those mixed up; you're right, no special
hardware, special OS instead.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 10:10:23 +0000, Invisible wrote:
>> Disk that's not allocated in the VM takes no space - unless it
>> previously held deleted files. That's what the "shrink disk" option
>> does - zeros out unused sectors in the VM's disk and removes them from
>> the disk file.
>
> Apparently "shrink disk" only works if the VM has no snapshots. *sigh*
Yes, this is true.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 11:49:26 +0000, Invisible wrote:
> I created a VMware virtual machine, installed Windows, installed Virtual
> Box for Windows, and then created a Windows VM inside that.
>
> Perhaps unsurprisingly, this doesn't actually *work*. (Presumably the
> CPU hardware doesn't support nested virtualisation...) But the program
> gets far enough for me to see what the user interface is like and what
> options are available, etc.
I've heard of people running XEN virtual machines under VMware, but it's
not terribly stable - and completely unsupported, of course.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> I created a VMware virtual machine, installed Windows, installed Virtual
>> Box for Windows, and then created a Windows VM inside that.
>>
>> Perhaps unsurprisingly, this doesn't actually *work*. (Presumably the
>> CPU hardware doesn't support nested virtualisation...) But the program
>> gets far enough for me to see what the user interface is like and what
>> options are available, etc.
>
> I've heard of people running XEN virtual machines under VMware, but it's
> not terribly stable - and completely unsupported, of course.
Like I said, turn off hardware acceleration and it seems to work just
fine. Oh, and *really* slowly... But hey, I only wanted to see what VB
looks like. ;-)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> OK, time to go check out the thing I actually came to test... ;-)
>
> Wow... OK, Word 2007? Nothing like any other version of Word, ever.
> Like, the UI is COMPLETELY DIFFERENT now. Wow. o_O
By contrast, Windows 7.
As far as I can tell, it's *exactly* like Vista. I can find only the
tiniest differences.
Interesting...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> - I like the "snapshot manager" thingy. That's really nice.
So what's the best practice with snapshots?
Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer
The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune,
Or to take arms against a sea of troubles
And, by opposing, end them. To die, to sleep
Erm, wait...
If you want to test several things, is it better to take several
snapshots, or to clone the VM into several seperate VMs?
I notice that you can't run several snapshots of the same VM at once,
whereas if they were seperate VMs you could. And also you can only
reclaim freespace for a VM with no snapshots.
On the other hand, you'll never have a VM with *no* snapshots at all,
because then it would be impossible to go back in time...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
>> - I like the "snapshot manager" thingy. That's really nice.
>
> So what's the best practice with snapshots?
>
> If you want to test several things, is it better to take several
> snapshots, or to clone the VM into several seperate VMs?
>
> I notice that you can't run several snapshots of the same VM at once,
> whereas if they were seperate VMs you could. And also you can only
> reclaim freespace for a VM with no snapshots.
>
> On the other hand, you'll never have a VM with *no* snapshots at all,
> because then it would be impossible to go back in time...
I personally take snapshots as often as I commit on a version control
system.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> I personally take snapshots as often as I commit on a version control
> system.
Likewise. Only trouble is, it tends to eat disk space.
Maybe all I really need to do is go out and buy a cheap external drive...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
