Does anyone know if the vmware stuff, allows "ba xxx w4" in the windows debugger (obviously running on windows guest VM)?
ba xxx w4 = means break on address write w/in 4 bytes of the xxx, which is a pointer. This kind of bp is set through a register directly on the CPU. I know for a fact VS doesn't support it ... not sure if its impossible to support, switching machines would mean you simply have to swap out that set of registers as well, I guess ... just curious. Cheers, BrettSh [msft] posting "as is" On Thu, 18 Jan 2007, Akomolafe, Deji wrote: > >>> one runs on bare metal and other runs under a host OS > > Actually, that's a sleight of hand. ESX runs on a VMware-cooked Linux Kernel. > So, one can argue that, because it is bundled with its own "OS", ESX does not > really "run on bare metal" in the way some people describe it. > > > Sincerely, > _____ > (, / | /) /) /) > /---| (/_ ______ ___// _ // _ > ) / |_/(__(_) // (_(_)(/_(_(_/(__(/_ > (_/ /) > (/ > Microsoft MVP - Directory Services > www.akomolafe.com - we know IT > -5.75, -3.23 > Do you now realize that Today is the Tomorrow you were worried about > Yesterday? -anon > > > > From: Noah Eiger > Sent: Thu 1/18/2007 4:53 PM > To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org > Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Remote DC's on Virtual Server > > > I realize this is now getting a bit OT, but. > > Deji, I think the fruit distinction is based on the fact that one runs on > bare metal and other runs under a host OS. (Or at least that is how I have > always thought of them.) Beyond that, I agree there are simply feature > comparisons. > > That said, (and with the caveat that I have not worked with ESX) I find the > MS product to be much simpler than VM Server (nee GSX). I started halfway > down the path of migrating my MS VMs to VM Server and found it overly complex > and the video emulation performance using the VM Ware client was so bad as to > be unacceptable. > > And as to the OP, I have DCs running on MS VS2k5 R2 and have not had any > problems. In the situation you describe, Justin, it seems like performance > and cost would be the deciding factor. > > --- nme > > > > > From: Akomolafe, Deji [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2007 3:44 PM > To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org > Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Remote DC's on Virtual Server > > :) > > Interesting points, again. Did I remember to say that I am biased? I think > so. I expect that I'm going to catch some flaks for what I'm about to write, > but ..... > > These do not make VS and ESX "apples and oranges". VMotion, Host clustering. > Different nomenclature, different capabilities, same purpose, Resource > allocation guarantee, CPU Resource allocation weight. > > Superior Networking capabilities. Sure. Does VS have networking capabilities? > Of course. Does ESX integrate with AD as well as VS? Does it run on Windows? > Support software iSCSI? Live backup and Shadow Copy? (OK, if you count VCB > and its proxy). > > Administration - show of hands, quick - ESX or VS, which is easier and less > complex to deploy and administer? Which has easier and faster client > deployment option? > > I swear, I have NOT drunk any kool-aid, but I think people's perceptions of > the superiority of ESX over VS is largely driven by a combination of > historical trends, myths, marketing and the unavoidable "Winblows Sux" > mentality. Since we are on a Windows-centric list here, I do not mind > admitting that I do not subscribe to the notion that if it's not Windows, it > must be better than Windows. Mind you, Hunter, I am NOT implying that this is > where you are coming from, but the reason I asked you to enunciate the > reasoning behind your thinking was because I was hoping to hear something I > haven't heard before on this issue. > > VS certainly wasn't as feature-rich as ESX a couple of revs back. The gap is > considerably narrowed with what's currently going into VS and what ESX 3.0.1 > has today. Will VS catch and surpass ESX in a few months, no. Will it ever > catch up, maybe. But, today, if we factor in the cost overlay (in licensing, > hardware and administrative values), and discount our preconceived (or > received) notions of ESX superiority, and give VS (as of SP1 Beta 2) a fair > shake, one would be pleasantly surprised at how narrow the gap really is. > > To me, these 2 products are all bananas - one is a "just banana" and the > other is "organic banana". They are certainly not more "apple and orange" > than your convertible and my jalopy are "apple and orange". They are both > virtualization tools, and they each serve the same purpose. One is cheap > (like, FREE cheap, while giving you liberal Windows licensing terms and > flexibility to boot), the other is not. > > Now, I'm off to find my Teflon :) > > > Sincerely, > _____ > (, / | /) /) /) > /---| (/_ ______ ___// _ // _ > ) / |_/(__(_) // (_(_)(/_(_(_/(__(/_ > (_/ /) > (/ > Microsoft MVP - Directory Services > www.akomolafe.com - we know IT > -5.75, -3.23 > Do you now realize that Today is the Tomorrow you were worried about > Yesterday? -anon > > > > > From: Coleman, Hunter > Sent: Thu 1/18/2007 2:21 PM > To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org > Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Remote DC's on Virtual Server > On the Virtual Infrastructure side: Moving running guests across hosts > (vmotion), the network configuration options, lower host overhead, grouping > hosts into resource pools and allowing guests to automatically migrate based > on allocation guarantees, 4-way SMP guests, 64-bit guests :-> > > Nothing wrong with Virtual Server, but I see it more on par with VMware > Server than ESX/Virtual Infrastructure. > > > > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Akomolafe, Deji > Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2007 2:40 PM > To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org > Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Remote DC's on Virtual Server > Interesting points, Hunter. > > Not to engage in a holy war or something, but would you mind mentioning what > makes one of these Orange and the other Apple (the fruit)? No, don't mention > 64-bit Guest, thank you very much :)[1] > > > [1]<Grumbling> I wish MS will hurry up on this front already. </grumbling> > > Sincerely, > _____ > (, / | /) /) /) > /---| (/_ ______ ___// _ // _ > ) / |_/(__(_) // (_(_)(/_(_(_/(__(/_ > (_/ /) > (/ > Microsoft MVP - Directory Services > www.akomolafe.com - we know IT > -5.75, -3.23 > Do you now realize that Today is the Tomorrow you were worried about > Yesterday? -anon > > > > > From: Coleman, Hunter > Sent: Thu 1/18/2007 1:24 PM > To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org > Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Remote DC's on Virtual Server > IMHO, ESX/VM Infrastructure and Virtual Server are like apples and oranges. > Yes, they are both virtualization environments, but have vastly different > capabilities. VM Infrastructure has a much broader and deeper feature set > that does come with added cost and complexity. > > Regardless, in the context of the original question I'd be concerned about > the load Exchange is going to place on the host hardware. How many Exchange > users are in the 8 domains, and how many of these would potentially be > connecting to the alternate site? Are you going to have GC availability to > support Exchange? What other resources at the hotsite might be looking for > DC/GC services? > > I would also be careful about having a configuration at my hotsite that is > significantly different from my normal production environment. When things > have melted down to the point of failing over to the hotsite, it's not a good > time to be pulling out the manuals for your infrastructure because you don't > work with it day in and day out. > > > > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Akomolafe, Deji > Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2007 1:22 PM > To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org > Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Remote DC's on Virtual Server > ESX (VMWare) is good - and pricey. And very strict as to hardware specs. And > complex to setup and administer. And, I could be wrong on this, NOT > (MS)-supported for virtualizing DCs. > > Virtual Server, on the other hand, is good, not pricey, less picky, more > supported (I believe it's actually validated) for DCs virtualization. Plus, > the liberal OS licensing scheme is very attractive to me. > > Yes, I know, VMWare rules the market. Yes, I am biased. > > > Sincerely, > _____ > (, / | /) /) /) > /---| (/_ ______ ___// _ // _ > ) / |_/(__(_) // (_(_)(/_(_(_/(__(/_ > (_/ /) > (/ > Microsoft MVP - Directory Services > www.akomolafe.com - we know IT > -5.75, -3.23 > Do you now realize that Today is the Tomorrow you were worried about > Yesterday? -anon > > > > > From: Salandra, Justin A. > Sent: Thu 1/18/2007 11:57 AM > To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org > Subject: [ActiveDir] Remote DC's on Virtual Server > What would you recommend for the following situation. > > We are thinking of having a hot site where Exchange will be replicated to a > remote location. Since Exchange will be remote over the Internet, we will > need to have DC's for each domain available in that remote site. (This would > all be going across a VPN) > > I was thinking about placing 8 DC's on a VMWare Infrastructure 3 server > Enterprise edition. These DC's would really only be used in the event of a > disaster and people started connecting to Exchange up in the remote site. > > Is VMWare Infrastructure 3 good? What would you use? > > Justin A. Salandra > MCSE Windows 2000 & 2003 > Network and Technology Services Manager > Catholic Healthcare System > 646.505.3681 - office > 917.455.0110 - cell > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx List archive: http://www.activedir.org/ma/default.aspx
