I have successfully installed RedHat Linux and run them on harddrive using VMware simulation. Things work quite smooth if I put all the nodes VM on my physical machine.
For management purposes, I want to use USB devices to store ISO and plug one if more nodes are needed. I would like to run VMware on my physical machines.
Can I just build one virtual machine on one USB device? So I can plug one node if needed.
I mean, if I simulate machine A one USB 1 and another machine B on USB 2, can I build a network using my physical machine as server?
(1) If so, are there problems I should pay attention to?
(2) If not, are there any alternative solution for my management purpose?(I do not want to make VMs on partitions of my physical machine now) Can I use multiple mobile hard drives instead?
Actually I want to start up master-slaves Hadoop2.x deployments using virtual machines. Are there any good reference for this purpose?
I shall explain that am not too lazy to have a try on my idea, however, it is now rather expensive to do so if I do not even know something about the feasibility of this solution.
Thanks for your time.
I'm not an expert on VMWare, but I know that this is common on almost any virtualization system. You can install a system :
on a physical device (a hard disk, a hard disk partition)
or on a file
The physical device way allows normally better performances since you only use one driver between the OS and the device, while the file way offer greater simplicity to add one VM.
Now for your questions :
Can I just build one virtual machine on one USB device? Yes, you can always do it on a file, and depending on host OS directly on the physical device
... can I build a network using my physical machine as server? Yes, VMWare will allow the VM to communicate with each other and/or with the host and/or with external world depending on how you configure the network interfaces of your VMs.
If so, are there problems I should pay attention to?
USB devices are pluggable and unpluggable. If you unadvertantly unplug one while the OS is active bad things could happen. That's why I advised you to use files on the hard disk to host your VMs.
memory sticks (no concern for USB disks) support a limited number of writes and generally perform poorly on writes. Never put temp filesystem of swap there but use a memory filesystem for that usage, as is done for live filesystems on read-only CD or DVD
every VMs uses memory from the host system. That is often the first limitation for the number of simultaneous VMs on a personnal system
My question is rather broad, I know, but I have been wondering about this for a long time.
A little background. I work in a Physics lab where all the lab computers are running Debian (mix of old version and Lenny) or more recently Ubuntu 10.4 LTS. We have written a lot of custom software to interface with experiment hardware and other computers.
We have a lot of FPGA boards that are controlling various parts of the experiment, these are connected via USB to different computers. After upgrading a computer controlling an experiment we started seeing crashes/lockups of the computer running all the lasers. This used to be completely stable.
My question is this: If the entire computer locks up because of an issue with
a) Python/GTK software gui
b) USB device driver
or
c) The actual device
can this be blamed on the Linux kernel (or other levels of the OS)?
Is it unfair to ask of the linux kernel not to panic even if I make mistakes in my implementation of software/hardware.
My own guess: Any user level applications should never be able to crash the entire system since they should only have access to their own stuff.
Any device driver becomes a part of the kernel itself and will therefore be able to crash it. Is my reasoning sound?
Bonus question: IS there a way to insulate device and kernel somehow such that Linux will keep running happily no matter what stupid mistakes are made with the hardware. That would be very useful for two reasons:
1) debugging is easier with a running system,
2) For the purposes of the experiment we really need long uptimes and having only a part of the system crash is infinitely better than crashes in one part of the system propagating to the rest.
Any links and reading material on this subject would be appreciated. Thank you.
You are correct that unprivileged code should not be able to bring down the system, unless there's a kernel bug. The line between unprivileged and privileged isn't exactly the same as user-space vs kernel, however. A user-mode program can open /dev/kmem and trash the OS's internal data structures, if the user account has superuser privileges.
To insulate the main kernel from device driver problems, run the device driver inside a virtual machine.
Several popular VM systems, including VMWare Workstation, support forwarding an arbitrary USB device from the host to the guest without a device-specific driver on the host.
I have tried using several commands as well as couple of examples using C/C++ but am still not able to find a flawless method that can differentiate between physical or virtual ethernet adapters. Physical means, on that available on your board or installed externally and virtual means created by virtualization apps such as VirtualBox/VMWare/Virtual PC or VPN etc.
Any pointers?
There is no flawless method. A virtual adapter can have any MAC address, including one that might have been assigned by a constructor to a physical device. And the other way around, given that one can change the MAC address of a physical adapter. You can only make an educated guess.
You might find it easier to detect if you are running virtualized at all, rather than look for specific information about the NICs. The virt-what(1) tool looks through aspects of the running system to guess if the system is virtualized or not. (The script isn't as smart as you think, but it does have a lot of small information gathering tools in one place.)
Someone intentionally trying to bypass a license check would probably not find it difficult to defeat this mechanism.
Maybe one can use mii-tool and check if it fails, which it does for virtual:
mii-tool vmbr2
SIOCGMIIPHY on 'vmbr2' failed: Operation not supported
mii-tool eno1
eno1: negotiated 1000baseT-FD flow-control, link ok
EDIT:
What is mii-tool: view, manipulate media-independent interface status
This utility checks or sets the status of a network interface's
Media Independent Interface (MII) unit. Most fast ethernet
adapters use an MII to autonegotiate link speed and duplex
setting.
https://www.man7.org/linux/man-pages/man8/mii-tool.8.html
If we need to do OS reload on a remote machine, how can the network boot be enabled on the client machine without making any changes in the BIOS ??
I am in a try to develop a control panel, in which this feature is included. i.e., fully automated OS reload and thinking of using the pxe boot. But enabling and disabling boot from network is a problem. Any work around, please ?
Hacker approach: Use the bootloader to load GPXE from the harddisk.
You'll need a version that fits to your NIC: Images for many hardware types and booting methods can be generated at ROM-o-matic. Use the PCI ID from the NIC to programmatically select the version that fits best. People may also have add-on network cards, e.g. for gigabit LAN.
This way you don't need to fiddle with the mainboard and network card specific ways to turn PXE on.
First, since your question is not programming related, I suggest you pose it again on the sister site serverfault.com. You might get more/better answers there.
Second, I do not think you will be able to remotely activate PXE on arbitrary machines. Maybe this works when you have Intel's AMT (Active Management Technology) on those machines, but then you already have BIOS access. But nevertheless you could activate PXE boot on all machines and from your PXE server, selectively offer boot images only to those machines you want to. All other machines would then just boot the installed OS. The FAI (Fully Automatic Install) system uses that approach, but is Linux only, AFAIK.
I agree with Dubu that reliable enable/disable of PXE boot in the BIOS across heterogeneous target hardware is not readily achievable. The better suggestion is to configure all your target machines to include PXE prior to local disk in their configured boot order always. You can PXE boot to something like PXELINUX and have the default choice be a local disk boot. Then you can selectively target particular machines to PXE boot into a network loaded OS (for OS reinstallation purposes) by configuring symlinks with the target machine's MAC address inside the PXELINUX TFTP root.
We have a physical machine that runs VMware and hosts a VM we use for SharePoint deployment testing. That machine is old and dying, and my employer's network czars are heavily pushing hosted VMs as a replacement for outdated physical servers. I was curious about whether it's possible to run VMware inside VMware, and if so, whether there are severe performance implications. We don't require extreme performance from this setup, since it's just used for SharePoint testing and the associated SQL Server is on a different box. My guess is that we can't just use the primary hosted VM for our testing because we'll want to roll back occasionally and otherwise have more control over it, and getting buy-in for that from the network folks is unlikely. Does anyone have any experience with this?
edit: I know this nesting certainly isn't the preferred option, but (1) we want the flexibility of being able to use VMware snapshots at will and (2) the network folks will not allow us to arbitrarily roll back to a previous point in time because of the potential for removing mandated security updates. My guess is that a local desktop machine running VMware Workstation might just be the way to go. The hosted option seems attractive if it will work though since it's less machine maintenance for me to deal with.
The technical limitation with running VMware inside VMware is that VMware, Virtual PC, etc takes advantage of the Virtualization features present in modern CPUs.
If you have two or more hypervisors are both trying to control Ring 0 then there will be problems, this is something that I've encountered while trying to run both VMware and Virtual PC simultaneously on my desktop - one will error out/crash.
If your hypervisor can interact with the 'parent' hypervisor, then you'll be OK. Alternatively if the child hypervisor doesn't try to use the CPU virtualization features, or entirely emulates the CPU (such as QEMU) then you should also be OK.
Basically old-style hypervisors on old CPUs use Full virtualization (slow) which would be capable of nesting with a heavy, heavy performance hit. modern Hypervisors/CPUs use hardware assisted virtualization (near native performance) and you'd be hard pressed to find a hypervisor that is designed or capable of nested virtual machines.
Finally, I'd really advise against running dev/test VMs on the same physical server that is running production VMs. There's just too much to go wrong and security implications - you need to manage the dev/test environment and it sounds like you shouldn't have access to production environment. Likewise you probably don't want the operations team messing about with your test environment.
UPDATE: ESXi 4 now supports virtualizing itself. See this article for more information
I've never run VMware in VMware, but I've run VirtualPC inside VirtualBox without problems, so there's no fundamental reason it shouldn't work I suppose...
It sounds to me more like you have a problem with the inflexibility of your "network czars" than any technical one. If you're a developer or QA you need a testing environment where you can fool around with outdated (and potentially insecure) versions of the OS and applications, without putting the rest of the company network at risk.
Ex-VMware employee here.
Firstly, when you say Nested VMware I will assume you mean Nested ESXi. (You could also mean Workstation, Fusion, or Player).
Nested ESXi environments are unsupported and should not be used for production. These scenarios are not tested in QA and not guaranteed to work. In short, if you experience any kind of problem, VMware will not help you with this Nested ESXi setup.
With that said, yes you can do it and yes it does work. A lot of people use nested ESXi in their labs but not in production. Previously there were special configuration file edits that were necessary for nested ESXi to work. I have seen environments with even 3 layer nested ESXi servers (ESXi vm on and ESXi vm on a physical ESXi host). More recently there is the ESXi appliance which makes this much easier.
Have a look here:
http://www.virtuallyghetto.com/2015/12/deploying-nested-esxi-is-even-easier-now-with-the-esxi-virtual-appliance.html
I ran into this same problem. I work at a large company where our entire infrastructure is virtual, so if you need a server you get a VMware VM. So I had a couple of Windows 2003 Server Standard Edition based Guest VM's that had 6GB of memory and 200 GB of disk space, but I wanted to run linux and a LAMP stack on them. So I tried to install VMware Workstation on one and I got an error message saying it couldn't be installed within a VM. I also tried Microsoft Virtual PC and got a similar error message. I installed Sun's VirtualBox and that installed fine, but I couldn't get the networking to work w/in the guest Ubuntu OS. My next step is to try QEMU although performance might become an issue.
You ought to have a look at Mainframes - they are Virtualised from the word go:
Hardware - runs Hypervisor Type 1 - Level 1
on this you have zVM - Type 2 Hypervisor - Level 2
on this you have zOS - your main big operating system - Level 3
and/or
on this you have zLinux - Level 3
and/or
on this you have zVM for testing next version - Level 3
and/
on this you have zOS for testing zVM plus zOS both at next version - Level 4
So going down to level 4 is pretty common
Mind you on a Mainframe you can have 1000's of VMs running at the same time - and most sites who start using zVM/CMS and zVM/Linux usually do.
I can see two solutions for this (three if you count a VM inside a VM which is just crazy).
New hardware, which should be robust enough to handle several VM's used specifically for testing (sharpoint, etc.). In this situation your team could be given more rights without affecting non-testing VM's.
Sharepoint test VM's are moved to the main VM pool and those who need access are given the ability to checkout/deploy/rollback testing resources. This could be direct through VMWare tools or through an internal project that works through a VMWare API.
This should be a joint decision between Network/Dev/Testing.
JFYI:
I tried installing and running VMware ESXi server host(child ESXi server) as a virtual machine(on parent ESXi server) and it runs however you can not run any VMs under child ESXi server.
I am doing practice of VMware vSphere Data center virtualization on single Physical machine. There is VMware Workstation installed on Windows 8 OS. In VM Workstation, I have installed Windows Server 2008 OS, VMware ESXi OS and created the VMware Data center LAB. There is VMs running in LAB, and its confirm that We can user VMware in VMware. But it depends on your need, and Products which is chosen.
You can install ESXi on VMware Workstation, it's usefull to learn ESXi, so there in no reason run VMware in VMware.
Yes. You can run VMWare inside VMWare. Though its not officially supported, You can deploy VMs in the child ESX. I have checked for an advanced feature like PassThrough the HBA card but which was not available in child ESX, hence I could not provide a LUN from array.
So in production its better to not use this.
But for training and practices this can be used.
You can do that.
You can install vmware esxi inside virtual machine of another vmware esxi.
But the performance will be very bad.
Totally works.. totally can't do it other then for some kinda testing or some kind of educational purpose, because you won't get support. and from my limited experience it doesn't perform that well.
Yes, you can, VMware can even detect if it's running inside of another vmware machine and warn you that VMception will cause worse performance. which it will, trust me, just try to get the version the virtual machines work best in a physical machine, as to get as much performance possible.
"whether it's possible to run VMware inside VMware" What?
I can run Windows with Sharepoint in a VMWare machine that's hosted somewhere.
Or, I can run Windows with Sharepoint in a WMWare machine that's actually a VMWare machine that's hosted somewhere.
Why on earth would I add a level of nesting? Why not just go with Windows with Sharepoint hosted somewhere?
You can have any number of VMWares running on a single host. Lots of different versions doing lots of different things.
Nesting them doesn't make sense.