Windows 2003 Server in a Solaris-hosted VM? - Solaris

This is a discussion on Windows 2003 Server in a Solaris-hosted VM? - Solaris ; Barry OGrady wrote: > On Wed, 27 Feb 2008 23:25:51 +0000 (UTC), Cydrome Leader wrote: > >> In comp.unix.solaris Rich Teer wrote: >>> Hi all, >>> >>> I (or rather, my client) have a need to run a Solaris machine ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2
Results 21 to 29 of 29

Thread: Windows 2003 Server in a Solaris-hosted VM?

  1. Re: Windows 2003 Server in a Solaris-hosted VM?

    Barry OGrady wrote:
    > On Wed, 27 Feb 2008 23:25:51 +0000 (UTC), Cydrome Leader wrote:
    >
    >> In comp.unix.solaris Rich Teer wrote:
    >>> Hi all,
    >>>
    >>> I (or rather, my client) have a need to run a Solaris machine and
    >>> a machine running Windoze server 2003 (don't ask...). Obviously
    >>> this could be achieved by using two separate servers, but I was
    >>> wondering if there was a way to achieve this by running some sort
    >>> of VM inside a non-global zone.

    >> you cannot run windows inside solaris.

    >
    > Is it possible to run Solaris inside Windows via a VM?
    > Virtual Server 2005 is free from Microsoft.


    I run Solaris 10u4 and various flavours of Nevada under Windows using
    VMware Server 1.0.4 (which is also free).

    Al

  2. Re: Windows 2003 Server in a Solaris-hosted VM?

    On Fri, 29 Feb 2008, Barry OGrady wrote:

    > What about running Solaris in a VM under Windows 2003?


    Why would anyone want to do that? Windoze has enough instability
    issues of its own, without dragging down other OSes running in a
    VM.

    --
    Rich Teer, SCSA, SCNA, SCSECA, OGB member

    CEO,
    My Online Home Inventory

    URLs: http://www.rite-group.com/rich
    http://www.linkedin.com/in/richteer
    http://www.myonlinehomeinventory.com

  3. Re: Windows 2003 Server in a Solaris-hosted VM?

    On Fri, 29 Feb 2008, solx wrote:

    > I have tried VirtualBox Beta 1 on a Dual Opteron 2018 (dual core) with 8GB
    > RAM, Windows 98SE runs fine but the Screen is limited to 640x480 and 16
    > colours. I then created another Virtual Machine and attempted to create a
    > Windows 2K VM but it seemed to hang on install during booting Windows 2000 or
    > was just very slow.


    IIRC, the Virtual Box docs mention that Win2000 is problematic/very slow.

    --
    Rich Teer, SCSA, SCNA, SCSECA, OGB member

    CEO,
    My Online Home Inventory

    URLs: http://www.rite-group.com/rich
    http://www.linkedin.com/in/richteer
    http://www.myonlinehomeinventory.com

  4. Re: Windows 2003 Server in a Solaris-hosted VM?

    In comp.unix.solaris Barry OGrady wrote:
    > On Wed, 27 Feb 2008 23:25:51 +0000 (UTC), Cydrome Leader wrote:
    >
    >>In comp.unix.solaris Rich Teer wrote:
    >>> Hi all,
    >>>
    >>> I (or rather, my client) have a need to run a Solaris machine and
    >>> a machine running Windoze server 2003 (don't ask...). Obviously
    >>> this could be achieved by using two separate servers, but I was
    >>> wondering if there was a way to achieve this by running some sort
    >>> of VM inside a non-global zone.

    >>
    >>you cannot run windows inside solaris.

    >
    > Is it possible to run Solaris inside Windows via a VM?
    > Virtual Server 2005 is free from Microsoft.


    It can be done, although it's pretty silly.

  5. Re: Windows 2003 Server in a Solaris-hosted VM?

    Rich Teer wrote:
    > On Fri, 29 Feb 2008, solx wrote:
    >
    >> I have tried VirtualBox Beta 1 on a Dual Opteron 2018 (dual core) with 8GB
    >> RAM, Windows 98SE runs fine but the Screen is limited to 640x480 and 16
    >> colours. I then created another Virtual Machine and attempted to create a
    >> Windows 2K VM but it seemed to hang on install during booting Windows 2000 or
    >> was just very slow.

    >
    > IIRC, the Virtual Box docs mention that Win2000 is problematic/very slow.
    >

    Odd, it's worked fine for me.

    --
    Ian Collins.

  6. Re: Windows 2003 Server in a Solaris-hosted VM?

    Al Slater writes:
    >
    >I run Solaris 10u4 and various flavours of Nevada under Windows using
    >VMware Server 1.0.4 (which is also free).
    >


    Is that really "under" windows? It isn't actually Windows and Solaris
    are each guest OSes hosted by VMWare Server?

    -Greg
    --
    Do NOT reply via e-mail.
    Reply in the newsgroup.

  7. Re: Windows 2003 Server in a Solaris-hosted VM?

    gerg@panix.com (Greg Andrews) writes:
    >Al Slater writes:
    >>
    >>I run Solaris 10u4 and various flavours of Nevada under Windows using
    >>VMware Server 1.0.4 (which is also free).
    >>


    >Is that really "under" windows? It isn't actually Windows and Solaris
    >are each guest OSes hosted by VMWare Server?


    VMWare Server is an daemon/service run under Windows or under Linux that
    will virtualize vm's under it. At best, the other VMs will run
    alongside windows or Linux with some virtualization.

    ESX server is a hypervisor that boots on bare hardware, and doesn't
    require another OS to run. It'll have as its first VM, a redhat linux
    VM that manages the aspects of the hypervisor itself, but the hypervisor
    doesn't run under that linux instance unlike VMWare Server that does.

    The ESX server is a bit more robust, but I can't think of the last
    time I've had to take down my VMWare Server on a redhat system.



  8. Re: Windows 2003 Server in a Solaris-hosted VM?

    In alt.solaris.x86 Doug McIntyre wrote:
    > gerg@panix.com (Greg Andrews) writes:
    >>Al Slater writes:
    >>>
    >>>I run Solaris 10u4 and various flavours of Nevada under Windows using
    >>>VMware Server 1.0.4 (which is also free).
    >>>

    >
    >>Is that really "under" windows? It isn't actually Windows and Solaris
    >>are each guest OSes hosted by VMWare Server?

    >
    > VMWare Server is an daemon/service run under Windows or under Linux that
    > will virtualize vm's under it. At best, the other VMs will run
    > alongside windows or Linux with some virtualization.
    >
    > ESX server is a hypervisor that boots on bare hardware, and doesn't
    > require another OS to run. It'll have as its first VM, a redhat linux
    > VM that manages the aspects of the hypervisor itself, but the hypervisor
    > doesn't run under that linux instance unlike VMWare Server that does.


    I was a bit confused and put off by this part at first. I don't like or
    trust linux. Here is how ESX seems to work.

    the install process is like installing redhat or centos. it's clearly
    linux

    the machine boots up, it's clearly linux, but somewhere along that process
    the machine boots the vmware kernel or whatever it is, and the linux you
    saw is now running inside vmware. It's not longer a machine that just
    booted linux. The vmware management consoles which run in this very
    modified linux are now just a guest VM like anything else you install on
    it.

    Most vmware patches can be installed while your esx server is running,
    which is a plus. the only downside to the virtualization world is you need
    to shutdown all your guest VMs if you need to reboot the esx server
    itself, for a major patch, which happens every now and then.

    Overall, it's still cheaper than having dozens of even ****ty servers,
    most of which are doing nothing anyways.

    > The ESX server is a bit more robust, but I can't think of the last
    > time I've had to take down my VMWare Server on a redhat system.


    I've never vmware esx crash, but lots of problems with vmware server under
    windows xp on various machines. When acrobat/firefox act stupid like they
    always do, your vmware server may die with them in any attempts to
    recover.

  9. Re: Windows 2003 Server in a Solaris-hosted VM?

    On Fri, 29 Feb 2008 15:14:28 GMT, Rich Teer wrote:

    >On Fri, 29 Feb 2008, Barry OGrady wrote:
    >
    >> What about running Solaris in a VM under Windows 2003?

    >
    >Why would anyone want to do that? Windoze has enough instability
    >issues of its own, without dragging down other OSes running in a
    >VM.


    Fair enough, though I'd like to try it as an exercise.
    I have an ML370 with P3/933 and 1.25 GB RAM on which I have
    installed Microsoft Virtual Server 2005.
    Would that work? How much RAM should I allocate to the VM?
    I am running Solaris 10 with Sunray server and Windows connector
    on a Netra with 256 Meg RAM. Does the X86 version require more
    RAM than the Sparc version?

    >--
    >Rich Teer


    Barry
    =====
    Home page
    http://members.iinet.net.au/~barry.og

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2