 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> Our VMware "expert" claims that pre-allowating the HD image can result
> in reduced load on the HD subsystem (obviously at the expense of more
> disk space eaten).
Probably.
> Given that the main disk image is 1.5GB but the snapshots are only 300MB
> each, I figured it was doing some sort of compression.
No, it's just keeping a list of sectors you've ever written anything to.
> Oh, definitely. And that's why I was hoping that the VMware Tools might
> include a tool to zero unused sectors. But apparently not...
Linux does. I don't know of anything in vmware to deallocate sectors, even
if they're all zeros.
> Ooo, hey. Crazy idea: I could set up my VM how I want, and then boot
> from the Ghost boot CD and take a Ghost image! It only copies used
> sectors, and has compression built-in.
That would probably work, yes.
> More annoyingly, to get VMware Player they demand that you register an
> account using a real name, etc.
Why is that a problem?
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Human nature dictates that toothpaste tubes spend
much longer being almost empty than almost full.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Given that the main disk image is 1.5GB but the snapshots are only
>> 300MB each, I figured it was doing some sort of compression.
>
> No, it's just keeping a list of sectors you've ever written anything to.
I assumed that's what the main image file was doing also.
>> Oh, definitely. And that's why I was hoping that the VMware Tools
>> might include a tool to zero unused sectors. But apparently not...
>
> Linux does. I don't know of anything in vmware to deallocate sectors,
> even if they're all zeros.
Linux has a way to zero unused disk blocks?
(I'm not surprised that this doesn't make VMware release those blocks,
however... Should make the file more compressible though.)
>> More annoyingly, to get VMware Player they demand that you register an
>> account using a real name, etc.
>
> Why is that a problem?
I dislike having to "register" to get my hands on supposedly "free"
software.
In my mind, "free" software is software that you can use anywhere you
want. But from the looks of this, the software has to be "activated". So
even though it's "free", you can only have it on a single computer, and
so on. And you have a serial number to not lose, and... it's just more
hassel.
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>>> Given that the main disk image is 1.5GB but the snapshots are only
>>> 300MB each, I figured it was doing some sort of compression.
>>
>> No, it's just keeping a list of sectors you've ever written anything to.
>
> I assumed that's what the main image file was doing also.
It depends how you configure things.
> Linux has a way to zero unused disk blocks?
dd if=/dev/zero of=/xyzzy bs=1M count=... ; rm /xyzzy
> (I'm not surprised that this doesn't make VMware release those blocks,
> however... Should make the file more compressible though.)
It does.
> I dislike having to "register" to get my hands on supposedly "free"
> software.
There's an easy cure for that. :-)
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Human nature dictates that toothpaste tubes spend
much longer being almost empty than almost full.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>> Linux has a way to zero unused disk blocks?
>
> dd if=/dev/zero of=/xyzzy bs=1M count=... ; rm /xyzzy
There is a Windows program that uses just that technique.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 12/11/2009 5:02 AM, Invisible wrote:
> My only experience of VM technology so far has been with a freeware
> program called QEMU. (I also briefly touched BOCHS, but never really
> used it much.)
Andrew, you should check out Virtual Box, too:
http://www.virtualbox.org/
Sun's offering of a VM. It comes in an OpenSource and binary flavor, and
can run on a variety of host systems. I've used it several times, and it
works nicely, and seems to run at a decent clip.
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 11:02:35 +0000, Invisible wrote:
> OK, time to go check out the thing I actually came to test... ;-)
Can i say "I told you so"? ;-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 16:27:53 +0000, Invisible wrote:
> One thing I've noticed is that VMs take a surprisingly small amount of
> disk space. I mean, I give each VM an 8GB virtual disk, but I'm using
> nowhere near 8GB per VM. More like 2GB. Which is still a lot, but it's
> an 80GB disk that's 79% free...
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.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 08:45:39 -0800, Darren New wrote:
> The other thing people use snapshots for is so they can either try
> something that might break things, or to make the vdisk back-up-able
> while it's running.
I use it for having a "known good" state for my Windows VMs - that way,
if things get hopelessly screwed up, I can go back to a state where
things are known to be working.
I usually apply patches/updates (antivirus and the like), reboot, let it
run for a little bit to see if there are any issues, and then merge the
snapshot in with the base, shrink, and then take a new snap.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 19:08:46 +0000, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> Our VMware "expert" claims that pre-allowating the HD image can result
> in reduced load on the HD subsystem (obviously at the expense of more
> disk space eaten).
Yep, that's true.
>> You're aware that Vista and later comes with a free (but incompatible
>> with VMWare) VM system, right? See if you have a program called
>> "virtual PC" around.
>
> I hear that Windows 2003 Server (?) comes with a "hypervisor" which runs
> on the real metal, and then 2003 itself actually runs as a
> paravirtualised guest. Or something like that...
It can as long as the system hosting supports the right virtualization
technology.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 11:31:25 -0800, Darren New wrote:
>> Oh, definitely. And that's why I was hoping that the VMware Tools might
>> include a tool to zero unused sectors. But apparently not...
>
> Linux does. I don't know of anything in vmware to deallocate sectors,
> even if they're all zeros.
VMware tools' shrink functionality zeros the unused sectors out before
shrinking it. The Linux VMware tools do as well, for that matter.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 19:36:42 +0000, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>> Why is that a problem?
>
> I dislike having to "register" to get my hands on supposedly "free"
> software.
mailinator.com - throwaway email addresses.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
> There is a Windows program that uses just that technique.
You can do it by either writing a big file full of zeros yourself, or using
the disk-defrag interface to manually put a block of zeros at each free spot
on the disk, which is what cipher /w does.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Human nature dictates that toothpaste tubes spend
much longer being almost empty than almost full.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] dev null> wrote:
> >> (And it's not like I'm going to *pay money* to get a product I don't
> >> even use for my home PC.)
> >
> > what?! How can you possibly write mail or SQL scripts without it? Do you want
> > to sound dumb without a spell checker or miss that futurist word completion when
> > programming?
>
> I honestly can't actually determine whether he's serious or not...
That's called sarcasm, Betelgeuse dude.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"nemesis" <nam### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> > >> (And it's not like I'm going to *pay money* to get a product I don't
> > >> even use for my home PC.)
> > >
> > > what?! How can you possibly write mail or SQL scripts without it? Do you want
> > > to sound dumb without a spell checker or miss that futurist word completion when
> > > programming?
> >
> > I honestly can't actually determine whether he's serious or not...
>
> That's called sarcasm, Betelgeuse dude.
notice however that there are some people who truly think like that.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Semiunrelated...
OMG thank heavens for autosave. Even when your spreadsheet is to
corrupted for Excel to recover, it falls back to the most recent
autosave. Instead of, say, the last time you remembered to actually save.
More programs should have this feature. :P
--
Tim Cook
http://empyrean.freesitespace.net
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Tim Cook wrote:
> Semiunrelated...
>
> OMG thank heavens for autosave. Even when your spreadsheet is to
> corrupted for Excel to recover, it falls back to the most recent
> autosave. Instead of, say, the last time you remembered to actually save.
>
> More programs should have this feature. :P
I'm trying to remember a single instance in history when Excel has eaten
one of my spreadsheets...
(Remember: I'm a maths nerd. I actually use Excel with some frequency.)
I think the only time was when I was running Windows 3.1 on a 286 with
16MB of RAM, and I asked it to print out a 3D Mandelbrot graph I created
using VBA... That choked it.
Word, on the other hand, is legendary for eating your documents. Indeed,
the main reason I'm even trying out 2007 is to see if it can uncorrupt
three important documents that died this week.
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>>> I honestly can't actually determine whether he's serious or not...
>> That's called sarcasm, Betelgeuse dude.
>
> notice however that there are some people who truly think like that.
...which is why I thought you might be serious. ;-)
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>>> Oh, definitely. And that's why I was hoping that the VMware Tools might
>>> include a tool to zero unused sectors. But apparently not...
>> Linux does. I don't know of anything in vmware to deallocate sectors,
>> even if they're all zeros.
>
> VMware tools' shrink functionality zeros the unused sectors out before
> shrinking it. The Linux VMware tools do as well, for that matter.
I'll have a look when I'm back in the office...
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> I hear that Windows 2003 Server (?) comes with a "hypervisor" which runs
>> on the real metal, and then 2003 itself actually runs as a
>> paravirtualised guest. Or something like that...
>
> It can as long as the system hosting supports the right virtualization
> technology.
Well, if it's para-virtualisation rather than "full" virtualisation,
then yeah, the guest OS has to know it's paravirtualised. ;-)
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> Can i say "I told you so"? ;-)
Can you say how to make the VMware Tools for Linux actually install? :-P
VMware doesn't recognise the KNOPPIX ISO image as a Linux install disk.
(Presumably because it's a cloop filesystem.) It also doesn't provide
KNOPPIX or Debian as an install option (but does provide Ubuntu,
weirdly). I think I selected "Other Linux 4.6.x". KNOPPIX installs fine,
and then I try to install the VMware Tools...
Eventually discovered how to untar the tarball. Run the installer (Perl
script). It runs, says it's installed, asks to run the configuration
tool. When that runs, it tells me no precompiled binary is suitable for
my kernel, do I want to try to build one? OK, sure... Where are the
kernel headers? Um, no idea.
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
>
> While I won't deny having said that, I certainly don't remember it.
Well, you didn't say it in those exact words, but it evaluates to this:
> O2k7
> was designed based on actual measurements of millions of people using
> Office. Most people aren't very logical. :-)
>
;)
-Aero
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>
> I think the only time was when I was running Windows 3.1 on a 286 with
> 16MB of RAM, and I asked it to print out a 3D Mandelbrot graph I created
> using VBA... That choked it.
>
16-bit Excel (I actually didn't know one has even existed) already had VBA?
-Aero
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>
> I hear that Windows 2003 Server (?) comes with a "hypervisor" which runs
> on the real metal, and then 2003 itself actually runs as a
> paravirtualised guest. Or something like that...
>
Isn't that 2008, that runs on HyperV?
-Aero
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Eero Ahonen wrote:
> Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>> I hear that Windows 2003 Server (?) comes with a "hypervisor" which runs
>> on the real metal, and then 2003 itself actually runs as a
>> paravirtualised guest. Or something like that...
>>
>
> Isn't that 2008, that runs on HyperV?
Plausibly.
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>>>> I honestly can't actually determine whether he's serious or not...
>>> That's called sarcasm, Betelgeuse dude.
>>
>> notice however that there are some people who truly think like that.
>
> ...which is why I thought you might be serious. ;-)
>
It's called Poe's Law.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Human nature dictates that toothpaste tubes spend
much longer being almost empty than almost full.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> Can you say how to make the VMware Tools for Linux actually install? :-P
Everyone at my work decided to switch distributions from debian to ubuntu on
the VM because Ubuntu is being kept up to date. OK, so I take the VM, run
the updates, VMware tools crashes, which means everything performs like a
pig, not unlike X11 at 9600 baud.
I say "What's up with that?" They say "Oh, yeah, don't install updates. It
kills VMWare tools."
Well, good thing I spent 3 weeks switching over to the new VM.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Human nature dictates that toothpaste tubes spend
much longer being almost empty than almost full.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>>>> I honestly can't actually determine whether he's serious or not...
>>> That's called sarcasm, Betelgeuse dude.
>>
>> notice however that there are some people who truly think like that.
>
> ...which is why I thought you might be serious. ;-)
me, the anti-M$ Linux guy?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
nemesis wrote:
> me, the anti-M$ Linux guy?
I think *everybody* is against the idea of an M$ Linux. ;-)
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> nemesis wrote:
>
>> me, the anti-M$ Linux guy?
>
> I think *everybody* is against the idea of an M$ Linux. ;-)
I think I missed a colon...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
>
> Well, good thing I spent 3 weeks switching over to the new VM.
>
Luckily you did have a snapshot from before running the updates. Right?
;)
-Aero
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Eero Ahonen wrote:
> Luckily you did have a snapshot from before running the updates. Right?
Running the updates was approximately the first thing I did after
downloading and installing the new image, so yeah.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Human nature dictates that toothpaste tubes spend
much longer being almost empty than almost full.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sat, 12 Dec 2009 15:11:33 +0000, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>>> I hear that Windows 2003 Server (?) comes with a "hypervisor" which
>>> runs on the real metal, and then 2003 itself actually runs as a
>>> paravirtualised guest. Or something like that...
>>
>> It can as long as the system hosting supports the right virtualization
>> technology.
>
> Well, if it's para-virtualisation rather than "full" virtualisation,
> then yeah, the guest OS has to know it's paravirtualised. ;-)
It also has to know the hardware supports it. ;-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sat, 12 Dec 2009 15:20:27 +0000, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>
>> Can i say "I told you so"? ;-)
>
> Can you say how to make the VMware Tools for Linux actually install? :-P
What guest OS?
> VMware doesn't recognise the KNOPPIX ISO image as a Linux install disk.
> (Presumably because it's a cloop filesystem.) It also doesn't provide
> KNOPPIX or Debian as an install option (but does provide Ubuntu,
> weirdly). I think I selected "Other Linux 4.6.x". KNOPPIX installs fine,
> and then I try to install the VMware Tools...
I'm guessing Linux. OK - so if you install knoppix on a VMware hard
drive, go to the menu to install the VMware tools, and then look at
what's mounted in the VM; you'll see a mounted ISO has shown up and has a
tools installation script on it.
> Eventually discovered how to untar the tarball. Run the installer (Perl
> script). It runs, says it's installed, asks to run the configuration
> tool. When that runs, it tells me no precompiled binary is suitable for
> my kernel, do I want to try to build one? OK, sure... Where are the
> kernel headers? Um, no idea.
Well, that's what happens when you use a distro that's not officially
supported - if you try the openSUSE 11.1 or 11.2 LiveCDs or installers,
you should see the installation is much simpler.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>>>> I hear that Windows 2003 Server (?) comes with a "hypervisor" which
>>>> runs on the real metal, and then 2003 itself actually runs as a
>>>> paravirtualised guest. Or something like that...
>>> It can as long as the system hosting supports the right virtualization
>>> technology.
>> Well, if it's para-virtualisation rather than "full" virtualisation,
>> then yeah, the guest OS has to know it's paravirtualised. ;-)
>
> 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...)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> What guest OS?
>
>> VMware doesn't recognise the KNOPPIX ISO image as a Linux install disk.
>
> I'm guessing Linux.
Specifically, a Debian Linux live CD containing about 4.5GB of data on a
cloop-compressed ISO-9660 filesystem squeezed onto a single live CD. (It
also features a crapload of automatic hardware detection.) However,
there is an opion to install to HD, uncompressed. Once you do that, it
behaves more or less like a typical Debian installation.
> OK - so if you install knoppix on a VMware hard
> drive, go to the menu to install the VMware tools, and then look at
> what's mounted in the VM; you'll see a mounted ISO has shown up and has a
> tools installation script on it.
Got that far.
>> Where are the kernel headers? Um, no idea.
>
> Well, that's what happens when you use a distro that's not officially
> supported - if you try the openSUSE 11.1 or 11.2 LiveCDs or installers,
> you should see the installation is much simpler.
OK, I'll probably try that then.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> 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*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Oh *sweet*. If you have VMtools installed, you can just drag and drop
files from the VM to the real machine. How easy is that?!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mike Raiford wrote:
> Andrew, you should check out Virtual Box, too:
>
> http://www.virtualbox.org/
>
> Sun's offering of a VM. It comes in an OpenSource and binary flavor, and
> can run on a variety of host systems. I've used it several times, and it
> works nicely, and seems to run at a decent clip.
Thanks for the tip. :-)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mike Raiford wrote:
> Andrew, you should check out Virtual Box, too:
>
> http://www.virtualbox.org/
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...) But the program
gets far enough for me to see what the user interface is like and what
options are available, etc.
(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...)
> Sun's offering of a VM. It comes in an OpenSource and binary flavor, and
> can run on a variety of host systems. I've used it several times, and it
> works nicely, and seems to run at a decent clip.
If you get the Open Source version, you have to somehow compile it
yourself. (!!) I'll have to set up a Linux VM before I can try that...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> I think the only time was when I was running Windows 3.1 on a 286 with
>> 16MB of RAM, and I asked it to print out a 3D Mandelbrot graph I created
>> using VBA... That choked it.
>
> 16-bit Excel (I actually didn't know one has even existed) already had VBA?
Well, I used both Word and Excel at school, long before any version of
Windows higher than 3 existed...
As to VBA... I'm fairly sure it was still Windows 3.1 I was using when I
did that. (If only because I remember seeing Windows 95 for the first
time and thinking how totally different it was...)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
