[rescue] VMware (was: replacing an Ultra2)

John Ruschmeyer jruschme at gmail.com
Tue Apr 17 18:42:30 CDT 2007

ajones wrote:
> > Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2007 09:00:35 -0500
> > From: "Chad McAuley" <chizad at gmail.com>
> >
> > On 4/15/07, Michael-John Turner <mj at turner.org.za> wrote:
> >
> >> I haven't compared Server and Workstation lately, but I'm not
> quite sure
> >> how they justify charging for Workstation when Server is free and
> >> (theoretically) offers more features...
> >>
> >
> > Depending on what your virtualization needs are, Workstation has some
> > features that Server does not.  Two that come to mind off the top of
> > my head are multiple snapshots (although I'm assuming this is actually
> > technically possible in Server, just without the pretty GUI to manage
> > the snapshot tree). and teams.  The teams feature allows you to set up
> > a multiple tier network from whatever VMs you have set up.  This
> > allows you to power on/off and suspend/resume the VMs as one unit, as
> > well as restrict bandwidth between the different tiers.
> >
> VMware Server supports multiple snapshots just fine, albeit in a less
> than user friendly fashion.  It does not support snapshot *trees*.  You
> can't trivially branch snapshots off of one another.   The VMW daemon
> will complain about not being able to parse its log files or something
> along those lines.

Another difference appears to be that one can not share a host directory
with a virtual machine. Instead, it appears  that you need to use some
external networking like SMB or NFS.

That said, I have trouble with their pricing strategy, too, since I'm not
sure why an enthusiast with simple needs wouldn't just run Server for free.

Speaking of free... has anyone tried InnoTek's VirtualBox? It's another
VMware competitor (from the developers of VirtualPC for the PC), but has
recently been made free for personal use and also open sourced.


More information about the rescue mailing list