Fri 14 Dec 2007
I am currently evaluating Virtual Server plus Virtual Machine Manager (VMM) because I am thinking of replacing our VMware Server installations with Microsoft’s virtualization solution. Since I am still undecided, I was curious to test the beta of VMware Server 2. I was hoping that they added the feature I was waiting for (VSS support). Unfortunately, my test results didn’t end as I expected. Even though VMM didn’t really convince me to move to Virtual Server, my test of VMware Server 2 did.
There are some new interesting features, but only one is really important for me. Unfortunately, it is a change for the worse. These are the new features:
- Web-based management interface
- Support for Vista, Windows Server 2008, Red Hat Enterprise Linux 5, Ubuntu 7.1 and others
- Support for 8GB RAM per virtual machine, up to two virtual SMP (vSMP) processors and up to 64 virtual machines per host.
- 64-bit guest operating system support (Intel EM64T VT-enabled processors and AMD64 processors with segmentation support)
- Support for VIX API 1.2 (a programming interface for automating virtual machine and guest operations)
- Support for Virtual Machine Interface (VMI): guest OS can run either on native hardware or in paravirtualized mode.
- Support for USB 2.0 devices
If you are regular reader of my blog, then you’d already know which of the new features really turned me off. Yes, it is VMware Infrastructure Web Access, the new Web-based management interface for VMware Server 2. I thought, Virtual Server’s admin console is the worst imaginable user interface, but VMware managed somehow to beat Microsoft here. At least, Microsoft recognized now that a Web browser is not really made for managing back-end apps. So they decided to give Hyper-V a real user interface.
So, what is so bad about this new user interface of VMware Server 2? First of all, it is sluggish as all web-interfaces (some of Google’s tools excluded). Second, do you really want to logon to a server using a console that is embedded in a browser window? VMware Server 1 has this nice autofit feature which automatically adjusts the screen resolution of the guest when you resize the console Window. It seems this is not possible anymore with VMware Server 2. At least I wasn’t able to find it and the documentation doesn’t contain the word “autofit”. I suppose, it is not that easy to program such a feature for a browser plug-in.
This browser plug-in is installed when you open the Console for the first time. It worked without problems on the host running Windows Server 2003 R2 SP2. But I wasn’t able to install it on a Vista machine. Under Firefox, I got the error message “Installation of msvcr71.dll failed. Error Code -202.” and with Internet Explorer I got a C++ Runtime Error. Later, I wasn’t even able to connect to Infrastructure Web Access with Internet Explorer. I guess it was an SSL-related problem because the last message I saw was a certificate error. Well, my test was over anyway since there is not much to explore with VMware Server 2.
I got a couple of other error messages, but I don’t want to bore you with them. Okay, this is just beta software. So you might expect to be confronted with some bugs. But I tested betas from VMware before and I never encountered as many problems. Many of them were in one way or another related to the web-interface.
The ugly user interface was not the only disappointment, though. The main reason why I want to move to Virtual Server 2005 R2 SP1 is its support for the Volume Shadow Copy Service (VSS). This allows you to run live backups of virtual machines. My hope was that VMware would offer VSS support for VMware Server 2. However, I am not sure if VMware plans to add such a feature in the final version. There is service called VMware VSS writer. I didn’t find anything about it in the documentation, though. So I wouldn’t count on it.
I just wished they didn’t mess up with the great management interface of VMware Server 1. Even if VMware Server 2 will support VSS, we will most likely move to Virtual Server now.
Newsletter: 
Loading ...
My test results were similar to yours. I found that it dramatically slowed the host PC, and I was never able to get the management interface to work fully in either Firefox or IE7. Like you, I wondered where the “real” interface went.
I’ve been a big fan of VMWare for years now, and have been a paying customer since Workstation 4. Unfortunately, I think Microsoft is about to crush them on features and pricing this year.
I bought ESX starter edition last month, only to find out that I can’t even buy the upgrade of Converter so I can migrate P2V direct to my ESX server. The new Foundations package claims that Consolidated Backup comes with it….but only if you spend $2500 on Virtual Center. I would think that even someone with 1 ESX server would want to backup their VM’s.
I’m hoping they get a bit of a wake up call here and redeem themselves or I fear they will be losing a lot of market share this year.
I have a old server running Virtual Server and a newer one with VMWare Server. We’re doing all new implementations on VMWare. We are planning to limp along this way until we can switch everything to Hyper-V (who came up with that name?) and VMM. I can’t imagine why you would want to switch back to Virtual Server. I’d rather work around the drawbacks to VMWare than deal with the horrid Virtual Server product just to get VSS support…
Does Vmware server support VSS within the virtual machine?
Stephen: The features supported in the virtual machine are dependent upon the guest OS, so if you’re running Windows Server 2003 or 2008 in the guest, the guest will have VSS support. The disadvantage to not having VSS supported by the virtualization software is that you can’t backup VMs while they are running. You have to pause them, do the backup, then restore them.
Just for completeness, I should also mention that Vista has VSS, too.
Dave, I also think that there will be hard times to come for VMware. One thing is for sure, the prices for virtualization software will go down. However, it will take a while until Microsoft will catch up with ESX.
Scott, it will take at least 9 months until Hyper-V final will be available. I don’t want to wait so long. VMM + Virtual Server is certainly a better option than VMware Server 1 or VMware Server 2.
Stephen, I have no idea about the purpose of this service, but I don’t think that it is for the guest OS. I am also not sure if it will be still available in the final version since it is not mentioned in VMware’s documentation.
I swear to god, why not step up and buy ESX and VC and used VCB. OR, until you can step up to the real Enterprise software just treat your guests as physical boxes backing them up the same way a you backup physical boxes. It kills me when I hear people whine about free software not meeting their expectations, and others cry about having to buy software to perform a function (thats why one buys software). Not to mention its an effing beta, did you even bother to follow up with the vendor? GSAD!
I agree with Steve! Not sure I buy bashing a free product in beta with all of the debug code enabled being judged as “a dissapointment” from what sounds like a a pro-Microsoft ad site at all! Since when has MS put out ANY bug-free software in final release let alone in beta…Sounds like the copy was run by MS Marketing first rather than a review of a final shipping product. And as to the comment of MS crushing VMware on features and pricing? VMServer is FREE!!! Are you comparing ESX with Virtual Server or Viridian (a yet to be shipping product??) MS has a long way to go to prove they can beat a 5 year headstart in virtualization technology that VMware has and granted, they have a great Marketing machine, but is that all it takes nowadays? Ad-slicks and no substance in the base technology? Then God help all of us in this field!!! I think I will start farming or ranching…
Steve, no software product is really free. It always costs time to work with software, and time is money. I wasted my time with VMware Server 2. And let’s not forget that it is only free because Virtual Server is free, too. Do you remember how overpriced GSX was? I also think that ESX is too expensive. Virtual Server + VMM have already most of the features I need.
Oljaitu, beta software can always be buggy. But this is no beta yet. Maybe it is an early alpha. Can you believe that they accidently left the exe of the old graphical interface in the installation folder? It is obvious that VMware is getting nervous. However, the bugs were not really a problem. I believe that they will fix them by the time the final comes out. My biggest complaint was about the web-based user interface. VMware is going into the wrong direction and I am not planning to join them.
I understand that no software is free, if your time is that precious don’t waste it on beta code, don’t waste it on a free product that is not FOSS where updates are consistently rolling out. What i was trying to say before is your whiney and have no idea what the final version will be, no one does … and I doubt VMware is scared. Also, when you get in to multiple hosts and many guests ESX is not too expensive, looking at the power savings and the money saved/ earned reducing downtime. For someone who is on Microsoft’s jock you should love buggy software.
The web based U.I. on VMWare Server 2.0 chews up too much screen estate. (check my sig for a screenshot of it in action). I hope they fix it before 2.0 release proper.
I’m also looking at the VMServer 2 Beta and was disappointed that the console appears to be going away. I was also disappointed that the Windows installation installed Tomcat instead of using IIS which is already running on my test machines. I’m not a fan of having 2 or more web servers running on a box. Other then being slow, which can be expected with a Beta that hasn’t been optimized for performance the only issue I have is with the web interface console, I tend to get a black screen and nothing else when I use it. Occassionally I’ll get the guest to show up. Again, it’s a Beta and a long way from production.
Regarding Microsofts Virtual Server here’s a couple issues I have:
1) No USB support
2) Clusters are supported but require the SCSI device be dedicated to one shared disk. (training)
3) Doesn’t support multiple processors
4) Web interface, prefer to use VMCR-Plus when setting up machines.
5) P2V appears to require the Physical machine to shutdown at the end of the conversion unlike VMWares Convert.
I have to agree that they must be insane to think this web interface is a good idea or that I want an extra web server running just to handle their interface.
I’ve so far been very disappointed with MS’s offering as well.
Anyone stop to think that perhaps, because the GUI is the only element that is not cross platform and must be developed specifically for each host OS, VMWARE is saving it for last. Perhaps they will even make it optional or an for $ upgrade to the server product.
Keep in mind that the VMWare server product is primarily intended for use in application servers and is intended more for set it and forget it use. I can count the number of times on my fingers that I acually used a console (remote or otherwise) to manage my web, print, or even file servers. If they were running as a VM that was configured to start as a service, then I would spend all of a few hours a year dealing with a slow web interface.
Though I agree that a web based console, and only that, is a risky avenue to take for vmware… it does make sense considering the intended use of the product. However I suspect that a console will be written for Windows, at least, prior to the final release. They just haven’t expended any effort on it yet as it would require too much effort to maintain as the software evolves.
Jay, I agree. MS offerings are not really convincing thus far. At least, this ugly web interface is gone in Hyper-V.
Joe, you are probably right about the cross platform issue. This will be the greatest problem for VMware in the future. Microsoft can just focus on Windows, while VMware has to make their software work on other platforms, too. There might be some customers who value the cross platform support, but I somehow doubt that it is worth it in the long run. If I want a virtualization under Linux, I would rather go for Xen anyway.
I suspect the Web GUI is also to keep it in line with their ESX server management tools. Managing all the different virtual environments (ESX, Microsoft VPC & VS, VMWare Server, XEN, etc) from a single interface is becoming a key point in my opinion.
I might not like the interface because it’s slow and clunky, but I suspect that’s the future and as the product moves toward final release the bugs will be worked out, and the interface will be optimized for better performance, provided we all feedback our issues and concerns to VMWare. They can only fix it if the Beta testers, that’s us, tell them what’s broke.
Tim, you’re absolutely right and that’s exactly why I wrote this post.
I would imagine they should run a java based applet similar maybe to Cisco’s ASDM. This may simplify the cross platform support. While Im not a big fan of the web mgmt tools, I would say that how often do you really go in there? I mean you setup a couple servers, they get configed and your off and running. If you are constantly going in and out of the interface to do things then maybe workstation is a better product, since it also includes vm binding’s and bandwidth binding’s.
I totally agree with the disappointment of their web-based only management interface. What a nightmare.
well, the web interface is there for installation/management purpose. I’ve almost never used the “real” vmware server interface for other tasks, preferring to accessthe virtual system with their preferred method: ssh/X forwarding and Remote Desktop/Terminal Services.
And when installing and when those services or the networks are down, vmware provides another method to display the application desktop, available under the virtual machine hardware screen, which creates a vnc display with the screen content of the virtual machine, accessible with any vnc client out there
I could be wrong on the exact download but if you download vmware server 2.0 for linux there is a windows installer hidden in there for Virtual Infrastructure Client (possibly called VMware-viclient.exe). This works like the old vmware server console. Using this made it not such as much as the web interface. I think this program can also be used to manage an ESX server. Was not able to find a standalone download for this program.
Your assertion that VIC can be used to manage an ESX server is true. In fact I installed VMware Server beta 2 and then connected with VIC that I had installed already from having ESX server.
Thats great that VIC can connect. Now lets hope they offer solutions for non-ESX customers.
Thats true that the common method of connection to a VMserver be an RDP connection opposed to a console connection. But lets think about people that house infrastructures inside of a network and allow access thru a terminal server. When comparing a published VMserver console over citrix to a published browser over citrix you will feel the wrath of their stupidity.
The web ui was avaiable in vmware server 1.0 it just was documented i tryed using it and it was the same crap that is in vmware server 2 it is not just slow in is poorly designed and is missing features that were in vmware server 1’s console application.
I am going to run 1.0 util they release a console for vmware server 2 or untill I get so fed up with it that I join the microsoft camp.
ment to say undocumented
For those of you that have not tried connecting to Server 2 Beta using the VC Client should do it. It appears that VMware is moving the server product to behave more like ESX in terms of management. I was even able to add Server 2 Beta as a new host in VC (although there were some C++ runtime errors but that’s expected since the versions of VMware were so different). I was even able to perform operations such as entering maintenance mode, which didn’t exist in previous versions of Server.
Everyone here is right; the Web UI is not the way to go. As someone pointed out, it existed in 1.1 and wasn’t really good. For those of you that took the survey, the very last question was “Do you prefer Web or Console?”
I highly doubt VMware will release this product without a thick client; they’re just spending their efforts elsewhere. Overall I have been very disappointed with the development speed of all their products; they deliver almost as bad as Microsoft.
At least there’s a silverlining hidden also inside the gigantic Windows installation. Please point your browser to https://:8333/client/VMware-viclient.exe —and there it is: the VMware Infrastructure Client 2.5 installer. No need to get the Linux package. And then say goodbye to the browser based UI.
Autofit is working. You have to first enter fullscreen. Than it’s possible to scale the window and the guest system fits exactly into the window.
I will admit to being slightly confused by some of what you’ve written, but yes, VMware 2.0 and the management tools do impress me a good deal less.
For starters, the VI and MUI remote console has only been for just that - r-e-m-o-t-e access when absolutely necessary. The MUI was the only way I could set up the VM startup ordering in 1.x though, as the native console didn’t have it. However, it does look as if they have removed the VMware Console as a rich-client application in place of a Firefox plugin and the ability to connect straight to your guests from the desktop. That’s somewhat disappointing, and honestly I wish VMware would just start using a damn good cross-platform toolkit such as Qt and build a proper client administration tool. Managing virtual machines is not something you can reasonably do with a browser infrastructure.
The bit I am confused about is the Volume Shadow Copy thing. As far as I’m concerned, a piece of virtualisation software shouldn’t need to know about it. VMware Server has support for virtual machine snapshots, and it also has a scripting framework where you can easily pause a VM, or take a snapshot and not pause it, and then have your backup software use VSS to backup your VM at that point in time while it continues to run. It doesn’t beat LVM snapshots on Linux, but it’s there.
I do agree with other comments that VMware’s cross-platform strategy will do them in in the long-term. Microsoft only has to concentrate on Windows, VMware’s management tools leave a lot to be desired as rich clients and are getting worse (they’re going in completely the wrong technical direction), and KVM, not Xen or VMware, is the best native direction for Linux in the long run.
If I were VMware I would just forget about creating a virtualisation product on Windows and stick to Linux. ESX is where their money is made anyway, and you’re always second best when competing on platforms your competitor owns. I’d start putting some major effort into the management tools, and they’re the only part I would make cross-platform. That would allow them to exist on a platform on their own terms, allow them to simply take advantage of Xen and KVM as they come on and give them some advantage over the competition. As it stands, they’re going to be outflanked.
Good comments up above….Especially about how vmware should forget windows and worry about *nix. Now that the release of server08 ships with hyper-v (veridian) so i’ve read, thats true that vmware will be in the backseat for virtualization on the windows platform, if not now, by the next release.
Thanks for the person who commented about VI console connection to server 2, that helps a lot. Unfortunately being a .net app, means there will be no thick client at all for linux.
The web-browser-only interface alone was a deal-breaker for me. I am rolling back to 1.0.5 and testing out Virtual Box. The only current problem with VB is that the OS version doesn’t have USB 2.0 support, though the closed version does.
I was most excited about VMWare 2.0’s support for 64 bit, but that can still be worked around in v1. I will stick with it for now as well and continue to seek alternatives unless VMWare gets off its ass.
I think the console was removed as VMware planned to make Server managable with Virtual Center all along. If you have ESX with VC 2.5 you can manage your ESX host and VMware Servers from a single window.
It does however require an agent be installed on each host.
Or you can buy Virtual Center for Virtual Server starting at $1500, includes 3 dual cpu agents.
http://www.vmware.com/products/server/vc.html
I’m also confused why the author is expecting enterprise service from a beta free product? As to MS even getting close to ESX, it’s quite laughable. We’re extremely happy with our 30-ESX install SAN-booting with DRS, HA and soon to be using Site Recovery Manager. Windows has become an application layer now, not an OS as such since all our servers are baby-sat by their ESX host, and so it will be for the foreseeable future!
Brendan, all I expect is VMware to compete with Microsoft. I wonder who will use VMware Server 2 when Hyper-V is released. VMware should at least provide a simple GUI-based management tool. ESX is something different of course. This virtualization solution plays in another league.