Subscribe via e-mail: 
Review: VMware Server 2 – what a disappointment
By Michael Pietroforte | 109 Comments | Permalink | Trackback | Previous | NextI 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.
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.
Michael, I beg to totally disagree with you and well said Brendan.
I had some experience with the earlier versions,1.0.1, 1.0.3 and was very satisfied with the new server 2. Even just being in Beta, it really won me over. I love the new WEB based interface. You complain about the console, it was for me the best improvement. You can have it as a window or full screen with very steady mouse control and no effort at all.
All this from a free piece of software! Come on.
By the way, I am running it on an HP DL380 G5 server with Windows Server 2003 x64.
Jorge, your experiences aren’t common. I’ve been playing with Server 2 for a week and the web interface is 3-5 times slower than the old console. It’s taking me forever to do any maintenance on my VMs. The worst part is that I frequently get disconnected with “serviceNotAvailable” errors. No rhyme or reason to it — I just have to log in, start over and hope I can do what I need to before getting booted again.
The company I work for is evaluating VMWare for in-house needs (I’m not officially part of that team) and I fervently hope they haven’t run across this beta yet.
I hope they’re brewing up a new console interface somewhere in the background.
Jorge, whether you like a certain user interface or not is certainly a matter of taste. But it is a matter of fact that the hype of web-based user interfaces for management tools is over. Many vendors of management tools including Microsoft acknowledged that the price for having a platform independent user interface is too high. Most admins use Windows as desktop OS, therefore a web-based user interface is rather pointless. And yes, VMware Server is free, but so is Hyper-V. To be honest, I think that VMware Server on Windows hosts is dead.
Interesting disscusion. I personaly tryed both VMWare Server 2 b2 and the Hyper-V beta which comes with Server 2008.
I really liked the Vmware console but I had no problems using the Browser for the Server 2. Actually I use the console not more than once a month even less!!!! Ussusaly I start the virtual machine and then forget about it. That’s the point of having virtual server – to act as a real server. Then I use RDP connection as I ussualy do for managing my server boxes. I use pretty nice RDP VNC client and thus I’ma able to manage all my mixed (Win+Lin) environment. So the console is not that bad. The thing i noticed is that you have to be patient a little bit with the plug in and wait 20-30 seconds to load preperly until you start working. My VMWARE Server 2 host is on SUSE SLES 10 with installed couple of Server 2003 R2 SP2 x64 guests. So far so good. Very nice performance, no problems at all. We even use one of the virtual guests for production in our company and we host our Sharepoint and SQL server for the Sharepoint in it. It is doing fantastic job. I see complain about the VMWARE console not running on Fire Fox nor on Vista. I tested so far vmware server on Vista x64 host no problem with firefox and ie6,7. In my office we use SUSE SLES10 as host again no problems with the firefox inside the suse host, nor with firefox and ie6,7 using it from another vista box to manage the server. So far beta2 is good. beta1 was terrible but may be vmware is reading more often their forum because they got a lot of feed back and changed a little bit the console. So I think they will release pretty good and stable sistem finaly.
About the Hyper-V. It is not bad at all. Their concept is very DEEP by the way concerning the internal construction of the virtual idea. The main difference between the two is the way guests are interacting with the hardware. Mycrosoft use their hypervisor which is about 1MB at very low level. They even say that Server 2008 is going to sit on top of it when they are ready with the hypervisor. So microsoft is going to attack ESX, because in the future they will going to virtualise the whole Windows Server 2008 even in no Hyper-V setup. You will not notice the difference. Also their hypervisor will work in an entirely different model. The hypervisor will be like a bus which will give full hardware access to the guests. So the guests in Hyper-V will see the devices as they are. So you will have to install drivers for the devices in each guest. This will totaly make the guests as real servers on top of the same hardware. ESX and the Server are using thir own devices which in turn comunicat with the hardware. May be they are developing something different now (vmware i mean) because a fired of mine, gold partner of both micorosft and vmware was pitched to take part in some very secret vmware project. He had been offered to sign 600page contract for confidenciality though before he could participate…
Despite all this nice stuff that is comming from Microsoft I had terrible experience settign up single Server 2003 R2 SP2 x64 guest in the server2008 hyper-v!!!! The set up of the networking was terrible and I crashed the server 2008 a couple of times until I get it right. This was terrible experience. A firedn of mine got the Hyper-V RC but I don’t have it still so Microsoft may be made some improvements.
I will not use the Hyper-V for production at this stage to tell you the truth.
I use vmware server 2b2 in production. My company has the crazy idea of puting the ISA server in a virtual machine!!! last year. We did it on vmware server 1.0.5 1.0.6 and soon we will host it on server2. We have a pretty heavy trafic and a lot of security, but had no problems at all!!!! ISA in virtual machine. The guys that make our IT support told me last year tha I’m crazy to put it in virtual machine. I did it it works like charm. Even faster than hard box. The thing is that for hosting the virtual machine in my office we use always LINUX/UNIX especialy SUSE. SUSE are very closely related to vmware and they have some joint development.
So I see future in both products. So far vmware is showing better stability and reliability than Microsoft in the virtualization. At this stage even with Server 2008 instalations in my company wit Hyper-V I will stick with SUSE host vmware server windows guests! And that is because ESX is kind of simmilar idea. Despite vmware is telling that their ESX is not a posix kernel (ESX is a kernel + hypervisor on a kernel level) I’m sure they use code and ideas from the opensource linux kernel development. Recent versions of linux kernels have virtualization on kernel level.
Just my 2 cents.
> Under Firefox, I got the error message
> “Installation of msvcr71.dll failed. Error Code
> -202.”
Run FF as Administrator to install the plugin.
my 2c regarding VSS usage with VMware.
I moved from VMware Server to ESX to leverage the High Availability feature of VMware’s Virtual Infrastructure. This is a key feature where VMware leaves Microsoft’s virtualization offers in the dust.
The neat thing about ESX is that it supports NFS datastores. NFS is growing steadily in popularity and has become a reliable, cost effective, not to mention fast (search for netwapp solutions if you need convincing) alternative to iSCSI and FC.
Now back to VSS, our backend storage servers run Windows 2003 and share VMDK’s over NFS exports to our ESX servers. Because the storage servers are running Windows the VSS service is available and using backup exec’s VSS plug in we connect directly to the storage server and backup all VMDK’s while the VMs are online. Pretty nifty.
The performance of this method of backup is also noteworthy at around 50 – 80% utilization of GB Ethernet at an average of 3.8 GB/minute.
It looks as if this review was indeed jumping the gun. The website for VMware Server 2 RC1 states that it does, in fact have VSS support. Also, the Web interface works extremely well. The console actually pops up a separate window that pretty much acts like the old VMware Server Console. Personally, I love the fact that I don’t have to go download a separate application to install on my desktop just to access my VMware Server console. And like another poster said, I very rarely need to do that anyway. Once I have the VMs set up and running, they just go.
So install VMware Server 2 RC1, give it a try, and see if any of the critiques in this review still apply.
–Dan
Dan, when I wrote this review, VSS was not yet supported. As to the web interface, this is certainly a matter of taste. However, I think that VMware Server 2 is not a match for Hyper-V.
I hate the ESX-eque interface! Please give me back the thick client!
Also to use disk images (ISOs) in 2.0, why do they have to be located in my storage folders? What a pain…
VMware is an amazing company. Unlike M$ who decided they want to get into virtualization, VMware has been “in the game” since the beginning. They have almost 10 years of exsperience under their belt. Try to top M$! Also its BETA! To expect a beta to not have bugs is expecting a lot. I expect the final version to be very good.
Hi,
Regarding the interface. One can always install the virtuall infrastructure client and manage all of your esxi, vm servers and esx from the window application interface. can be downloaded for free as part of the evaluation products – and installed afterwards without need of a license. The interface is fast and easy to use.
Don’t like the web interface? Use VIC.
Have to store ISO’s in your storage folder? Create a new datastore.
Bugs? It’s a release candidate, folks.
C’mon people.
FYI, both Virtual Server and VMServer are free because of Xen. I won’t use Microsoft’s product for a number of reasons. Not the least being that if they ever corner the market you’ll pay more than you ever imagined someone would have the nerve to charge. No thanks, I use VMServer with no problems (2.0 beta 2)on CentOS 5, I’d use Xen, but the server I’m using doesn’t have VTx, so you can’t run windows servers in the sessions with Xen (Microsoft sued Xen to prevent a para-virtual appliance of windows from being used). Yes Xen fell in bed with Microsoft to develop Viridian, so I’m not sure what that portends, but I’d rather deal with Xen Citrix than do business with people who’ll take you for a ride once the market belongs to them.
I had test VMServer 2 in beta and found the above problems with the web interface as well. VMware just release the real version and guess what, it still has problems. You need to use SSL to connect even to the local box, fine it’s secure however I can’t connect to the console unless the site (my local server) is in the trusted sites. Ok, I put it in there and now I can’t connect because the console does not allow me to enter anything when it’s trusted. The old interface in 1.07 worked ok, the beta’s & RC’s of 2 were buggy and now the release version is still buggy.
Hyper-V is looking more attractive…
The latest release candidate for VS2.0 is pretty good. The Web interface isn’t that slow. The console supports the auto-fit feature more like VMware workstation. The performance is very good.
I don’t have much to complain about with VMware Server 2.0 anymore. It works now.
Same can’t be said about Hyper-V. Holy shit. It wouldn’t be a bad product but the networking is a [censored]. Sure, if you got it set up first time, you’re good. But heaven for bid you want to reconfigure it. If your Hyper-V network configuration gets fudged for ANY reason (and it happens easily) you’re looking at no less than a complete OS re-install. Screw that.
Well, after days of pain with my new Vista PC (argh), I’ve discovered that only VMware Server 2 will correctly run on vista with the disk images taken from my old Server 1 installation on XP.
Except now I have the godawful web-based management system that:
a) won’t load on Firefox (gives a self-signed certificate error that CANNOT be overruled. never seen that before either! very odd)
b) works, sort of, in IE, except the console popup never opens, it just times out. But at least I can get it started now.
c) even when it does work in IE needs a whole barrage of self-signed certificate warnings and passwords before I can get into managing the server.
It’s horrible, I don’t want it, I want my old one back or I’m going to cry.
Jolyon
A) What are you talking about? The admin console works fine in Firefox. It uses a self-signed SSL Certificate, so Firefox complains about that. Firefox 3.0 added stricter controls over these, but you can easily allow the certificate by clicking the very clearly marked “Or, you can add an exception” link. This is normal IT stuff – any web site that uses a self-signed cert will do it. (Obviously you don’t do much IT work.)
B) Console opens fine on my IE. Both on Vista x86 and x64.
C) Again, it’s because it’s a self signed certificate. With IE you only have to click one link “Continue to this web site.” Stop being a child.
You can set up the VMware remote console to not use SSL, and you won’t have the warnings. But, if you add exceptions you won’t see them anymore and you can continue to use strong encryption.
SSL Certs aren’t VMware’s fault. ANY – and I repeat: ANY web app will have the same problem. You can A) Purchase an SSL cert from Verisign, or B) Not f’cking worry about it because it’s not a public web site.
Sorry Jolyon, you lose. Get some experience with IT before you start spreading unfounded FUD.
Well Joe, obviously you don’t work in Public Relations.
a) I know all about self-signed certificates. I create my own frequently and I know all about the 8 clicks or so needed to accept a self-signed cert in Firefox. I do it all the time at work. However, this is the first time I’ve just seen a dialog box pop up saying:
xps:8333 uses an invalid security certificate.
The certificate is not trusted because it is self signed.
(Error code: sec_error_ca_cert_invalid)
[OK]
And that’s it. No other options, no choice to ignore the warning and show the page anyway. Just get told that Firefox isn’t going to show it. And then it just gives up. This is on Firefox on Vista. If you don’t believe me then email me and I’ll email back a screengrab.
I don’t need a lecture about spreading FUD. I was commenting to this thread as I am another person who’s found the upgrade to version 2 of VMware a disappointment SO FAR. I haven’t had time to really deal with the aspects of performance and functionality, but as a user I find the change to a purely web-based management system a big step backwards.
b) As is the way with these things, the console IS now working in IE (after a reboot), so this part at least WAS my problem rather than anyone elses.
c) Yes. All secure web apps will need some certificate and if it’s self-signed then you’re going to have to put up with some annoyance. But you are missing the point. The web interface is great for external management of VMWare, if you need to manage many servers in remote sites for example. And for this, the minor inconvenience of the SSL cert handling is fine. But what was wrong with the old application for managing VMWare? Sure, it’s extra work for them to maintain two systems, but it worked and it worked nicely.
So, in future before you carry on your fanboy routine please check to make sure that you understand what the poster is saying.
Jolyon
I have installed VMS2 on W2k8 and have run into the same problems as noted above. In IE locally I get to a cookies must be enabled screen (and they are) while in Firefox locally I see the same error message as above:
- xps:8333 uses an invalid security certificate.
- The certificate is not trusted because it is self signed.
- (Error code: sec_error_ca_cert_invalid)
- [OK]
I am not running any third-party certificate on the box and don’t really want to as it is internal test use only. I have added it to the trusted sites but still no luck.
Anyone found a solution to this problem?
Thanks.
Well, after having got a working implementation of VMware Server 2 up and running recently, I have to say it was a pretty smooth experience. The Linux installation experience of the server was certainly way, way better. Both 64-bit host and guest OS support has been greatly improved,
In terms of the client, the installation experience was certainly far smoother and you don’t have to straddle the web interface and the VMware Console rich client like you used to for features such as the start-up order which you didn’t get in the rich client. I’m still not sure about making it purely a web client, and there are some improvements they’ll have to make to it to make it more responsive, but overall it was far better than I expected, and I suppose they have to try and be as cross-platform as possible. The plugin installation for the console was very smooth. The console also seems to be quite a bit faster, and I’ve been running that externally over a DSL line.
Jolyon, quite frankly if you don’t know that self-signed certificates cause a problem with Firefox 3, and this is not a VMware problem, then I really don’t know what you’ve been up to. The options you get in Firefox are not up to VMware, and I suggest you learn how to trust a self-signed certificate in Firefox. Yep, Firefox is annoying because self-signed certificates are perfectly sensible in a lot of cases, but this is a completely different debate.
You can also define a fixed MAC address from the interface itself and choose to sync clock time without editing the vmx files. Yay!
One thing I didn’t find in the web interface was a way to turn the annoying built-in DHCP server off, which would have been nice. I had to manually edit /etc/vmware/locations and and set the last DHCP entry for an interface to ‘no’.
Sigh…
I don’t know whether it’s Firefox or VMWare’s fault that the self-signed certificate with VMWare gets Firefox upset, but if you’d paid attention when you read my message you’ll have seen i pointed out it’s NOT normal behavior where you can trust a self-signed certificate. It does not give me the choice. Other self-signed certificates (as I create on my linux systems, for example), work fine with Firefox. It’s just VMWare’s one that doesn’t.
Now, I think the 8-click step to approve a self-signed certificate in Firefox 3 is a bit over the top, but I didn’t even get the chance to do that with VMware. It was that error box only.
I can live with VMWare running through IE7, although I would prefer it if it could be made to work properly with Firefox.
The certificate works fine (once you’ve accepted the warnings) with Google Chrome, although of course the plugin for the console doesn’t, so there’s not much point.
Jolyon
“I don’t know whether it’s Firefox or VMWare’s fault that the self-signed certificate with VMWare gets Firefox upset”
Pffffffffffffff. There’s you problem, and you’re complaining in the wrong direction. Just to be clear once again, this is NOT a VMware issue at all and is a Firefox one.
“but if you’d paid attention when you read my message you’ll have seen i pointed out it’s NOT normal behavior where you can trust a self-signed certificate.”
Errrrr, it’s still not VMware’s problem. Complain to the Firefox developers if you don’t like the way they’ve done it, otherwise there is around about a four step process in trusting it. Quite frankly, manually trusting a certificate for something like the VMware interface is probably a good idea actually.
The error I get is (Error code: ssl_error_bad_cert_domain) possibly because I’d upgraded from Firefox 2, and what you appear to be getting is (Error code: sec_error_ca_cert_invalid). What you would get for an unsigned certificate is (Error code: sec_error_untrusted_issuer) with an “Or you can add an exception link…” underneath, although you should still get an exception link so I don’t get that one as I’ve seen the same error with an exception link.
Have a look at Firefox rather than VMware issues and quit complaining, because that’s where the problem lies, see whether there is an update and look at whether the certificate has actually been trusted within Options -> Advanced -> Encryption -> View Certificates -> Servers and see whether it actually has an exception. If not, then add it.
You’re running virtualisation software for crying out loud.
I am having no problem at all with the most recent version of firefox (3.0.3)connecting to my VMware 2.0 Server. You can manually add your site’s certificate to the list of trusted site by going to Tool>Options>Advanced>Encryption>View Certificates>Servers>Add Exception.
If you’re getting a “Cert Invalid” error, it may be because you already have a cert in the certificate store and it’s not matching up to the new one. I’ve seen this problem before – you have to delete the old cert you manually trusted (It’s in the firefox options security tab) and then you should be able to trust the new one. It can happen when you switch certificates on a server and both of them were not trusted to a root certificate store.
It doesn’t happen all the time though; I’ve only seen it once.
It’s not a Vmware problem.
So. All the complaints about the latest version of Server 2.0 seem to be centered around a misunderstanding of certificates. Well, there ain’t much VMware can do about that.
PS. You can use the VMware Infrastructure Client to admin Server 2.0. It’s included in the installation of Server 2.0, but not installed by default. Currently the VI client doesn’t support hardware version 7 (used in the web console) so you can’t edit the VM hardware from the VI Client if you created it in the web console. I’m sure VMware will fix this up by the time it’s released. Then, you won’t have to use the web console at all.
Get used to it. The VMware Server 2.0 web console will eventually replace the Virtual Infrastructure Client for ESX as well. It will end the debate about having to run Windows boxes to run a VMware system if you only use Linux boxes and VMs.
Alternatively, you can downgrade to Firefox 2.
However, this will be a problem if you have re-installed VMware, got a new certificate for the server and your browser is still holding the old one. It won’t match up and it will complain. You’ll have to manually re-add it.
At last – thank you for some sensible advice rather than just attacking the messenger.
I know that anything involving certificates can be messy and difficult, you can’t compromise security for ease of use.
But my instant reaction to VMWare 2 was negative because of this frustration, and I wonder how many other people will just give up and go and use a different system.
Now, when I get back tonight I’m going to try to see if there’s an invalid certificate in firefox (there shouldn’t be though. brand new PC, brand new install of Firefox, brand new install of VMWare, no legacy installs of anything).
Jolyon
With Firefox 3.0.3, “browse” to ‘about:config’ and change the option ‘browser.xul.error_pages.expert_bad_cert’ to true.
Then you can use the ‘Tool>Options>Advanced>Encryption>View Certificates>Servers>Add Exception’ method as mentioned above and enter your hostname:8333. Hopefully that works for you in astonishing fashion as it did for me (not in a good way).
Before “upgrading” I looked for any warning about not actually being able to startup my VMs and that the whole paradigm shifted to web, but saw nothing and am so far very disappointed with the rough transition. If I have to use my browser to login then it’s lost my local account credentials, even on Windows there is no SSO. Lame. Because I respect most of the technical merits of what VMware has done (not the website) I’ll share a saying, maybe Turkish, I used to hear at troubled company: “no matter how far down the wrong road you’ve gone, turn back”. I hope you keep a native management interface around in case you rediscover the need for it.
My previous comments about the “native” interface were premature. Seconds after using it, I’m convinced the web UI is a better model and the new console plugin is good. Have fun.
“But my instant reaction to VMWare 2 was negative because of this frustration, and I wonder how many other people will just give up and go and use a different system.”
Well, it would be their loss. I know some people these days demand instant gratification but this isn’t exactly a video game.
I mean, VMware Server isn’t intended to be as easy as Windows Notepad. It does virtualization and that’s not something that is expected to be used by moms and pops that use their computers for eBay and e-mail.
Yea, the new web based thing has some caveats; self-signed certs pop out errors and stuff. If you don’t have any experience with things like that, it could come as a surprise. But, VMware does make VMware Workstation which is better suited for people that want to just run XP on their Vista x64 or that want to test code on their PC.
It all boils down to the fact that a fairly significant number of IT beginners/novices want to run this software but they aren’t prepared technically to handle any problems at all so they tend to lash out at the product. I understand the frustration of people just getting into IT these days; it’s a lot more difficult than if you started in the DOS/Netware days like I did. But, I usually try to find out what the problem is, rather than assume the product is no good.
But hey, VMware Server is free, it runs on both Windows and Linux, and it works good. I’ve always been happy with it – with solid virtualization that you can use for nothing.
the new web interface looks like ESX, so i don’t see what the problem is?
I like it
Cross-platform interface for the win. Sure, it’s beta — keep your pants on and I’m sure it will be improved where it’s lacking
Nothing else can offer this level of performance for free in this clean of a package, period. (At least not yet)
You should never base a review on a beta product. Simple as that.
I hate the new web interface in VMware Server 2 and totally disagree with the Cross-platform argument. Performance and stability is more important.
I downgraded to VMware server 1.0.7 and it works like a charm.
Joe, what an honour to meet you, a real IT computer expert that know when other people are IT beginners/novices!!!
I have to agree with all the negative comments.
VMware Server 2 = VMplayer + an overly complicated, convoluted, cumbersome, under-performing Web interface.
Installation was far from easy due to the certificate issue, and I finally gave up on W2k8. Installed on W2k3 was fairly straightforward after adding a certificate exception.
So why not offer both, the original console and the web interface? This release smells of outsourcing.
As a paying VMware customer, I am staying with 1.x and have already stared looking at other alternatives.
VMware Server 2.0 is one of the easiest softwares to install and set up. If you have a hard time with it, it’s because you just don’t know computers very well.
Not everything has to be able to be run by the lowest common denominator user such as yourself.
VMware DOES make VMware Workstation which has a nice little GUI for you dumb asses, though – so maybe you should just use that.
Or, if you bothered to learn about the product you would have seen that Server 2.0 includes the VI Client 2.5 which you can use to manage Server 2.0.
The VMware Server 2.0 interface is almost a mirror image of the Virtual Infrastructure Client used to manage ESX hosts and Virtual Center. It works just fine on my end using any OS so if you can’t get it running it’s because you’re really, really not good at IT type work.
Sorry, it’s the truth.
Unfortunately, like most flavor-of-the-week techs you just don’t get it. In today’s market it has nothing to do with trying to over complicate technology just so techs feel or look more important than that really are. It is the end-user experience, cost of ownership, and product agility. In this case, this upgrade falls short in an attempt to blend versions and components.
There are implementations that need it all. The fact is that Infrastructure works well for a number of my data centers. But then there are cases where simple, small, and streamlined is best. In other segmented portions of the business, Server was best based on price, environment, and the knowledge of the users and techs at that facility.
In the end, we will have to agree to disagree. I just hope VMware makes the necessary improvements based on user feedback and before they slip any farther in the market segment.
Unfortunately, virtualisation is not a technology to be implemented by non-technical end users, and anyone who talks about end-user experience, cost of ownership and ‘product agility’(?!!) falls into that bracket and hasn’t the faintest idea what he is talking about.
VMware Server 2 is a pretty vast improvement over 1 in that the management tools got put into one place. In the past it was necessary to install both the rich client and the web interface because you could specify certain things like the start up order of VMs in the web interface but not in the rich client. That has now been unified in one place. You can now give access to specific users in the management interface to certain machines and tasks, whereas in 1 you would have to hack file permissions to do something similar, and it is no longer necessary to hand edit config files if you want things like static MAC addresses or to change other options.
If that isn’t an improvement in the ‘end user experience’ then I don’t know what is. If you don’t know what the above paragraph means then you don’t know VMware Server, and should probably question whether you are best placed to comment on or use it at all if you cannot manage browser certificates.
I’m afraid it will take something a lot worse than VMware Server 2 and a lot of wishful thinking for VMware to slip further in the ‘market segment’.
Hey guys, calm down. We are talking about software here. There’s no reason to get emotional. Technically, VMware Server 2 is certainly an improvement. The user interface is a matter of taste. Some (like me) simply don’t like web interfaces when it comes to administration.
” It kills me when I hear people whine about free software not meeting their expectations, ”
Even if it’s free, I still have a problem with a steaming pile of crap sitting on my desk.
More to the point, VMware server /used/ to be good software, and while it might still be there somewhere, fat chance getting to it.
I agree with you. I just installed it and then rolled back to the version 1, because console was missing, and because I noticed that the package was occupying around 1 Giga.
Now you’re also saying that it’s even slower than the older.
To be honest we could use VNC or similar tools to connect the host. But why use vnc if the old console was simply perfect?
People please stop bitching about VMware server. Its free software that is amazing for the price. Sure they removed the console, but you can save links to your vm’s on the desktop. As for speed its just as fast. The web interface is very cool and powerful if you know how to use it. Case in point if you are a Joe Blow IT guy who didn’t go to college and cant figure out how to use VMware server, then don’t. There is a certain level of competency involved in the virtualization that if you lack you should not try to use.
James, no software is really free. It costs time and therefore money to manage it. VMware Server 2 is a very simple software. Anyone who knows a little about virtualization can manage it. The point is that I am faster with a GUI interface.
I have tried 2.0 several times (to replace 1.07), each time the web interface stopped me cold. In the most recent case, the web interface works for a few minutes and then locks up cold. The web server (tomcat) itself appears to stop responding. The most recent attempt was on a fresh clean Windows Server 2003 build + IE7 and all service packs and updates.
See, as soon as you start relying on such software as IE7 or web browsers in general, you open up a whole new can of worms. That’s why the original GUI is superior, and a web interface is a “nice option to have” when you need it. Web interfaces should be a companion + backup to the GUI, not a replacement. Losing administrative access to your virtual machine settings because the web interface falls over and dies constitutes an UNACCEPTABLE RISK in my particular situation!
I appreciate VMWare providing this product for free. However, I fear that dropping the GUI will cripple interest in the product. Hopefully VMWare will put the GUI back (wishful thinking, right), or make sure the web interface is reliable.
Oh well, back to 1.07 for the time being – I cannot risk losing admin access because some shabby tomcat web app crashes.
And as for the people above alluding to those who hate the web interface as being novice, thanks for the laughs!
David,
I am running the newest version of VMware Server on server 2003 (with all the update) without problem. The web interface works great from Firefox 3.0.4 and IE 7. I believe you are doing something wrong (what are software are you running on the “clean” build of server 2003?). In my opinion the newest version of VMware Server runs better then any of the previous ones. I should know as I’ve used the software for many years and watched it progress. Just a side note on this- VMware Server is not really a robust enough application for a production environment. ESXi provides a lot more features and the beloved console.
James
hi guys
noob here.cud use som advice.i started on VMware only recently and installed the Vmware server.it installed nicely and it worked witout prblms for some time.recently when running my vm in the background if i access any network shares in my domain using the host machine(my guest is not added to my host domain),the host windows explorer that i use to access the network hangs and stops responding.and there is a warning appearing in my host event viewer “redirector failed”.after sometime the whole system hangs and i have to restart the host.i’d like to know if anyone has encountered anything lik this and if so is there any soln?
Web interface of VMWare server 2 (no longer beta) totally disapponted me. It is plainly unusable, and it get worst the fact it can’t live well with vm created with 1.x version and imported in a new server.
What a pity!
I unistalled it and now I’m searching an alternative virtualization product, they really disapponted me to say the least!
If you really can’t stand this product then use ESXi3.5. Both are free. Don’t bash on free software that is very good!!!
[...] Server 2 è stato rilasciato da qualche settimana e, per parere personale (condiviso da altri), posso affermare che sia una delle peggiori [...]
Okay. 1st look at VMserver 2 and the differences I can get used to.
A bit of googling and I’ll work it out.
Its not as idiot friendly as vmserver 1 but, like I said, I’ll work it out.
I like the inbuilt support for usb 2 (yeah!).
The web interface, it makes sense to run seperate windows for each machine. I liked that it was easy to flip from one machine to the next in vm 1, and this still allows it.
The certificate error thing, well, I guess I’ll have a learning experience getting rid of that.
Hope the vm people have made some videos for newbies like me to help get my head around how it all works now.
Hey there,
I glanced over the comments and didn’t see any that addressed this but — you totally don’t have to use the horrible web admin site. You can use VIC, just as you would with ESX. It’s just a little hidden.
I wrote this article for Beta 2, but it still applies:
http://blog.netnerds.net/2008/01/vmware-server-2-beta-use-virtual-infrastructure-client-to-speed-up-administration/
As an aside, the web interface is a TON faster than it was in beta 2, though. Or maybe I’m just using a much faster machine..
Actually Chrissy, I mentioned the VI Client a few times =) You did say glanced, of course. The only down side to doing that is if you use the VI Client you can only create and manage virtual machines at version 4, not version 7 like the web interface uses. So, if you create a VM in WI, you can’t manage it with VI Client. You would want to pick one or the other to use primarily. I prefer the web interface, unless I were to add a VMware Server 2.0 machine to Virtual Center. I am hoping they update virtual center at some point to support version 7 virtual machines.
I think VMware Server 2.0 is fine; I’ve been using it for production machines since release (since RC, actually) and it works. The only feature that didn’t survive earlier pre-release versions to the final is the ability to view the VM console embedded in the browser. I guess maybe it turned out to be inefficient to do so. The launched console viewer is fine.
Lots of folks complain that it’s “Bloated” because the disk foot print is larger or the RAM footprint is larger. I can only imagine the disk issue being a problem for someone that already wanted to complain about SOMETHING (Wow, 130MB! What will we all do? To humanity!!) and the RAM footprint is really a non issue unless you’re running the software on a machine with such low RAM that it’s probably not a good candidate for running VMware in the first place.
I like Server 2.0, it’s been good and reliable and I like being able to manage it from any PC without having to install the VMware client or open up special ports on firewalls (console viewing requires a small plug-in but not required for any other task.)
Oh well. I guess I can accept change. You can use it or not use it. It’s not like it costs anything.
[...] Joe @ 4sysops.net points out a downside: The only down side to doing that is if you use the VI Client you can only [...]
Thanks for the info, Joe! I quoted you on my blog if you don’t mind. You said lots of folks complain that “it’s” bloated. Are you referring to Server 2 or webAccess? Using pmap, I found webAccess uses about 485MB of RAM so I’m assuming you are talking about hostd, which used 120MB of RAM on my server.
Ultimately, though, I decided to ditch Server 2 and use ESXi instead.
I find that Serve 2 hangs often. 1.x never hung up.
Web interface is sluggish. My host is running 4 Core with 4 gig of RAM and RAID 5. Running only 2 virtual hosts. Ran 3-4 virtual hosts on 1.x. It was slow, but never crashed.
Be aware that VMware Server 2’s web interface is an improvement to VMware Server 1, in that 1 didn’t have a web interface.
As far as via a ‘program’ client, that has been improved too. The Virtual Infrastructure client can be used to connect to and manage a VMware Server 2 deployment. The VI client is more robust than the original VMware Server client.
Amen, brother! I too have been a paying customer, fan, etc. for 6 years now, and this new web interface will totally kill an otherwise great product. I thought Oracle had shown the way with their new web management GUI in 10g that was a total disaster. I immediately uninstalled 2.0, and I’m going back to 1.0.8. I did, however, get it to work in Firefox, it was just sooo slow, clunky, and unmanageable. Plus, you went from a 140MB install to a 500MB install file, much heavier on the host machine, performance was a total dog. I’d say – leave it in the dust. Unless they bring back the thick console…
In my opinion the web console is awful,
we use vmware for support and testing and regularly have multiple vm’s running.
In the old version it was very user friendly – either switching between machines via the inventory or via tabs.
Now each machine has to open in a new window it’s bloody awful.
“Be aware that VMware Server 2’s web interface is an improvement to VMware Server 1, in that 1 didn’t have a web interface.”
Ummm, I still use VMWare Server 1.x (1.0.8) and I have a web interface. You need to have IIS installed BEFORE you install VMWare Server 1.x It warns you of this during install, so might want to read first before clicking Next at light speed. With the 1.x interface you can tell which VM to start first, second, etc and how many minutes apart. Great for a domain with Exchange etc.
I am just getting into Server 2.0, so far so good.
I did investigate low budget possibilities of vertualizing our small server park.
Vmware Server 2 did apeal me a lot from the beginning.
The biggest mistake was releasing a very buggy version as beta, but they did make up for that after the 2.0 release big time.
Handling administration of such vital processes through a web interface is something I’m not a fan of. Despite my opinion it is working flawlessly on FF3 and IE7. The option to run it over an non encrypted connection shouldn’t be there if you ask me.
You could still access your VM consoles with the “old” VM VIclient. The installer is included in the Win package of VMS2, located typically after installation in “C:\Program Files\VMware\VMware Server\hostd\docroot\client”.
None of the problems described above applies AFAIK on the current release. You can e.g.:
-Make snapshots of running VM’s and back them up, this can be automated/scripted
-Set the autostart option vor VM’s
-Set the order and wait time for autostarting VM’s
-Import VM’s created by (older) VM desktop and/or server software
I can understand the rant here for the first beta release, but the current version is a hyperV killer.
The performance footprint of VMware Server 2.0 is smaller than I imagined it to be.
I had only one problem, you can’t access a VM console through the web interface when the VM host has no connection with a DNS server. (when testing in local network or localhost without internet e.g.) This can be bypassed by adding static DNS entries or using the ViClient.
For the money Vmware Server rocks. Big time.
Drupal Ontwikkeling,
I fully support your post, the Beta was a big disappointment. Now the release version really gets the job done just great.
As for the problem with dns, thats an issue you will have with all most all services doing reverse lookups, which the console does. (ssh will behave the same)
A bad review of VMware on a Windows biased website… huge surprise there! not. Get over it, it’s a beta product for free. I’ll never use another Microsoft product again.
I use VMware Infrastructure Client with VMware Server 2 without a problem. For those of you who don’t like the web-based interface, this works well.
What I’m having problems with is USB support to my USB Analog TV Tuner devices… Anybody use the USB support for other than disks?
First of all WTF do ppl not understand about the word BETA? When you download a beta its understood that there WILL be bug and ISSUES that will not have been worked out. This is why you NEVER install BETA products in a production environment. That said VMware Server is 100% free of cost- QUIT YOUR BITCHING!!!!! When you get something for free, especially as good as VMware Server, you don’t bitch about it. Pay for it and then you will have a right to bitch that will subsequently be justified by an outrageous support bill…
To address the previous post. VMware server is a server class virtualization product. The fact that you are trying to use a TV tunner suggests to me that you are NOT running a server virtual machine (correct me if I am wrong here and I will be glad to provide more insight), in which case a server grade solution is NOT what you are looking for. VMware workstation has much better support for desktop virtulization.
James, chill. Sheesh, he was just asking about USB support..
VMware Server 2.0 isn’t beta anymore, so take that.
Anyways, I’m currently using VMware Server 2.0 on a linux box, and one of the virtual machines has a USB > Serial dongle attached via USB support. It works fine.
I’ve had pretty much any USB device work with VMware but sometimes it can be tricky connecting them. If the host OS doesn’t have a driver for it, you can’t pick it from the list to connect it. It’s a little bit of a pain in the ass. You can open the console, and have the “Automatically connect USB devices to Virtual Machine” and you won’t need the driver on the host, but you need the VM console to be open and active in order to attach it.
I’ve found that a generally better solution for connecting USB devices to a virtual machine with less problems is to use a network USB hub like the Belkin network USB hub. It’s about $100 and it’s pretty cool. You connect USB devices to it, and plug it into the network. There’s a client app that runs on the machine (or virtual machine) for connecting those devices over the network.
It’s surprisingly quick. It’s only 100Mbit Ethernet, but that’s enough for most things. I tried lots of stuff like my Windows Mobile PDA (ActiveSync works no problem,) mice, drives, USB keys, and a webcam. They all worked great. Not as fast as direct connect, but good. The mouse movement was indistinguishable from local connect – over the network!
The downside is that you have to login and run the Belkin client app to connect devices. The upside is that they support Windows x64 and it works in Windows 7. They also support MacOS. Another upside is that multiple machines can connect to the device – only one can connect to any individual device but you can have different machines plug in to different devices on the same Hub.
ok – it’s may 2009 – just installed VMware Server 2 on linux – what a disappointment. The web interface is awful.
Is there any way to get back to the old Gnome interface that I used on 1.0.5?? That was a great tool…
Web interface totally sucks. It is slow and unreliable. When I actually started my virtual machine, it was lagging like a b*thc and took about 30 minutes just to log me on. It’s sh*t don’t recommend using it ever.
Good job at failing, VMWare!
Looks like someone didn’t bother to read the previous posts! The VMware infrastructure client can be used to connect to VMware server to provide application based management.
I have to agree with the author here. Just tried VMWare Server and they certainly have ruined a fine product by forcing it down the web browser path. We use ESX for production environments but for the quick run a vm on this host pc task, we are going to be looking at using the 1.x production or moving to Hyper-V.
James,
To your post (late response, I know!), I installed VMware 2.0 on Windows Server 2003 R2 x64 fully updated. Super clean OS with no “junk”, not even AV software. There was not much to do wrong, I’ve been working in IT for over 8 years but certainly I’m not infallible… I basically didn’t have time to figure out why the web server was randomly crashing/hanging and requiring a reboot. Maybe IE was sending malformed requests
VMWare rocks… not trying to rag on their product. Can’t beat free. Older versions are still readily available so it’s all good. I’m going to test 2.0 in a lab environment soon and give it another go.
PS I do know about ESXi. Another great free product. We kind of skip it though. In my environment, we use VMWare Server on Windoze for various reasons. And work with ESX 3.x installations running HA and VC.
D
I fully agree, i tested WMWare Server 2 (final) but it was extremely disappointing.
Simply put, the web based GUI is a bad, bad, very bad idea!
Yes, now they don’t have to write two separate GUIs for Win and Lin, but it is not a big deal: they could have used Java, or a cross platform graphic library like Qt… anyway they have to write a lot of platform specific code since paths, security model, and environment values (and registry) works in a completely different way on the two platform!
And, the complexity of testing the UI explodes: now they have to test it on Win and Lin, AND for each test it with the available browser: FF, Opera, Epiphany, Konqueror, Safari, IE (and don’t 4get XP integralists have ditched IE7 and following ones, so you would still need to run well on IE6 that has still a sizeable market share!).
Ok, and some tasks requires the process met some specific security settings… so multiply the previous number for any combination of system’s security setting for the current user for any possible security setting of the web browser… nice!
Result? A lot of issue running the most basic tasks I used to do in 1.x version, no context menu, a lot of problems complicated by the fact sometimes they are not reported at all.
I’ll stick with 1.x version as long as it is reasonable, then I’ll migrate to something else unless they provide again a viable GUI.
I see some of the discussions here are not very old. Thats why I’d like to give my 2 cents to this conversation.
It was the new VSS Backups in ESX 4.0 driving me to update my private VMServer from 1.x to the newest. This was not for the first time but I rolled back last time because I didnt like the Webiface. So, I did again because I thought I can do the same in VMServer 2 now as with ESX 4.0 for the VSS gadget. Unfortunately I couldn’t deal with the VSS integration and it endet with the fight again to get comfortable with the Webiface.
The good thing I may add here is that there is no problem accessing the VMServer 2.0 with the VI-Client 2.5, so I’m happy now. The bad thing is there is still no nice way to backup a VI using the same technology as with ESX 4.0.
Thanks for this nice thread here
<<<michel
Since my last post here (comment 93) we used VMS2 in a small production environment. I’m not so pleased anymore, we had serious issues with I/O corruption on high disk usage due to bugs still unsolved, also upgrading VMS2 and maintaining compatibility with its hosts kertnel can be a pain on Linux.
Converted all production MVhosts to ProxMox recently, (KVM + OpenVZ + webgui), I doubt we will ever ever take a look at VMware products again. Not because VM sucks all over, but free/OSS alternatives are arising and prove to be rock solid.
I’m surprised that no one has mentioned the fact that you can replace VMServer 2 with XenServer Enterprise and get some added benefits out of it. At the very least you get a better management GUI.
Of course I’m mentioning this strictly out of my own experience of using both.
I too haven’t been impressed with the change to a Web-Based GUI for v2. Sometimes the web GUI pages time-out, or not accessible at all!
I have also noticed that disk I/O from the host seems slower, and that more RAM on the host is used than with V1.x
They have also changed the command line programs, so scripts that backup the VMs need to be re-written for v2. I have written a guide to backup vmware server 2 guests here – if anyone is interested.
I have a text only version of centos installed in vmware server 2.0
why does the interface look horrible? I can hardly read the text!! Even going through the centos installation was painful in text mode. Has anyone had similar issues?