Re: [CGUYS] Physical vs. Virtual
Thank you all for various options and suggestions. This is sort of a
(long) summary of my tests. Hopefully, someone else may find this useful.
> Option 1: Run 64-bit Ubuntu on the physical machine ...
I installed 64-bit Ubuntu 9.10, nVidia module for my video card on the
physical HW. Then installed VirtualBox-OSE and VMware Player. In each VM
software package, I created a virtual machine with 1024M memory and 40G
hard drive. Installed Win7 and the toolkit for each of the VM software.
Yup, the streaming video via IE sucked. Basically, I can see the large
pixels. Clearly, it is a display driver issue. For each of the Win7 VM,
the video card is a virtual one from VirtualBox or VMware. While it is
good enough for static apps, real-time video doesn't look good.
Another draw-back for my case: On ubuntu, the two monitors are in "Twin
View" config. I wasn't able to run a separate X instance for each
monitor. This made both screens a single desktop. Normally, this is a
good thing, but I like to make 4x4 virtual desktop. That means, when I
switch to another virtual desktop, my Win7 screen (sitting in the
second monitor in full-screen mode) goes away. Not a good thing.
In VMware player or VirtualBox, I wasn't able to find a way to directly
attach a video card to a VM (perhaps, I didn't look hard enough, but ...)
That means, even if I add another video card, I won't get good steaming
video output.
> Option 2: Run 64-bit Windows 7 on the physical machine ...
Installed Win7 and nVidia driver on physical HW. Then installed VMware
player and Sun VirtualBox, in turn. In each VM software, I made a VM with
1024M memory and 20G disk and installed 64-bit Ubuntu 9.10, and installed
each VM software's toolkits. Each Ubuntu installation behaved exactly
like the one created previously on physical HW. So, running Ubuntu as a
VM gave no drawbacks. Running real-time steaming video via IE on Win7
gave much better results.
Drawback 1: Win7's power settings (I haven't played with them yet) puts
the machine to hibernation when inactive. That means my Ubuntu VM goes to
deep sleep also, disconnecting all my remote ssh sessions. I have to
think about if this minor inconvenience worth the power savings.
Drawback 2: Time gets messed up in the Ubuntu VM. If it gets more than 5
mins out of sync, my Kerberos ticket doesn't work. I'll play with NTP
and/or rdate.
> Both Virtualbox and VMware also support some sort of direct integration
I haven't been able to figure this out yet. I'll keep looking. But, even
if I can, IE/steaming media as a direct app on Ubuntu won't give good
video, methinks.
> Wine can run your IE video ...
In the "Ubuntu on physical machine" instance, I installed WINE. Then
installed IE 7 and IE 8. Both IE installations were a bit broken. I
wasn't able to get IE to run properly. I think IE is bit too tied to the
Windows OS. When IE ran, it lacked menus and the navigation bar, and the
static output looked quite bad. I decided not to spend too much time
trying to fix IE because even the static output wasn't up to par.
> BTW, what is it about IE that is required? Is it a CaptiveX thing?
> Silver Light, or whatever it's called, runs in Firefox.
Yes, it uses Silverlight and MMS/Windows Media Player for the steaming
video. Even on a Windows running on a Physical machine, if I run this via
Firefox, the video looks a bit worse than that of IE. I can't explain it.
I did install Mono/Moonlight (see this article in ARS Technica:
http://arstechnica.com/open-source/news/2009/12/moonlight-2-brings-silverlight-2-and-parts-of-3-to-linux.ars
) plugin for Ubuntu/Firefox. The website opened the plugin, but it only
displayed a big "Loading ..." text and nothing more. Yeah, MS proprietary
things never work seamlessly with open source alternatives.
> MPlayer can play almost all videos ...
> better luck using Xine to play DVDs on Linux ...
Yes, almost all. This particular site with Silverligt and MMS doesn't
seem to work in Linux. Playing DVDs in Linux is not an issue.
> As for 64-bit, that might be wise in general, but if you're worried
> about compatibility, you could use the 32-bit/PAE kernel.
Ubuntu is available in 32 or 64 bit images. And, all of their packages
are available via "Synaptic Package Manager" for both versions. I suppose,
I can roll my own kernel with PAE stuff, but that would be like bringing
work home. :-) At home, I just want to run a distro that just works.
> you could have a pure Windows machine, with Putty for SSH and
> Xming (http://www.straightrunning.com/XmingNotes/) for X display.
I've set-up Windows systems for other people with Putty + Kerberos for
Windows + {XWin32 or Cygwin}. (Kerberos, because on the server-side we
support GSSAPI credential passing, and use that to obtain another token to
mount a network filesystem.) That works. I've never tried Xming. I'll
give it a try another time. As for having a pure Windows machine, I'm
used to the Unix/Li
Re: [CGUYS] Physical vs. Virtual
?? Using 32 bits gives you the ability to directly address up to 4 GB of memory. Many OSs will do the same thing that Windows does - namely, reserve address space for graphics, BIOS, etc. Not that you couldn't use all 4 GB, but not directly. But my experience so far is that you might need to do a little more work with the 64-bit OS, but you aren't prevented from doing everything you want. Unlike a year ago. On Sat, Dec 19, 2009 at 8:10 PM, Tony B wrote: > No, 4g is the limit for 32 bit Windows. To use most versions of > Windows with more than 4g you need to go 64 bit. This is not a hard > limit, it's a business decision by MS. > > On Sat, Dec 19, 2009 at 2:02 PM, Michael Fernando > wrote: > > (I must run 64-bit OSes, at least as the host OS, to take advantage of > all > > 4Gigs of memory, correct?) > > -- John DeCarlo, My Views Are My Own * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Physical vs. Virtual
I thought it was limited to 3.5 gigs? On Sat, Dec 19, 2009 at 6:10 PM, Tony B wrote: > No, 4g is the limit for 32 bit Windows. To use most versions of > Windows with more than 4g you need to go 64 bit. This is not a hard > limit, it's a business decision by MS. > > On Sat, Dec 19, 2009 at 2:02 PM, Michael Fernando > wrote: > > (I must run 64-bit OSes, at least as the host OS, to take advantage of > all > > 4Gigs of memory, correct?) > > > * > ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** > ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** > * > * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Physical vs. Virtual
No, 4g is the limit for 32 bit Windows. To use most versions of Windows with more than 4g you need to go 64 bit. This is not a hard limit, it's a business decision by MS. On Sat, Dec 19, 2009 at 2:02 PM, Michael Fernando wrote: > (I must run 64-bit OSes, at least as the host OS, to take advantage of all > 4Gigs of memory, correct?) * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Physical vs. Virtual
On Sat, 19 Dec 2009, Reid Katan wrote: Quoting Michael Fernando : Option 3: Please suggest. (I must run 64-bit OSes, at least as the host OS, to take advantage of all 4Gigs of memory, correct?) Thanks in advance for suggestions/opinions. Other than the "streaming video that requires IE" can you do all your other video watching in Ubuntu? I guess I'd suggest you virtualize Windows for the few(?) times you need IE. Then complain like a mutha' to the offending site(s). They shouldn't be dictating your browser choices like that (which, I guess, you already know :-). I've found MPlayer can play almost all videos I need to play including downloaded flash videos from Youtube. And since he mentioned VLC, he shouldn't forget that VLC is available on Linux as well as Windows, though I personally have had better luck using Xine to play DVDs on Linux. The only times I've run into places where I couldn't play video on Linux is the ABC website which must be using their own player, which refuses to install if it doesn't detect Windows. So, I suppose a Windows VM would work there. As for 64-bit, that might be wise in general, but if you're worried about compatibility, you could use the 32-bit/PAE kernel. Not sure if Ubuntu has one, but I'm using one on my old Fedora 8 machine with 4GB of RAM. On the other hand, if all you need Linux for is administrating remote servers, you could have a pure Windows machine, with Putty for SSH and Xming (http://www.straightrunning.com/XmingNotes/) for X display. -- Vicky Staubly http://www.steeds.com/vicky/vi...@steeds.com * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Physical vs. Virtual
On Sat, 19 Dec 2009 15:30:25 -0500, Michael Fernando wrote: >> They shouldn't be dictating your browser choices like that (which, I guess, >> you already know :-). > >Yeah, what's worse, I'm paying for the content (international sports). They >said that they will fix, but I'm not holding my breath. When you want >something bad enough, I guess, you are willing to put up with all sorts of >requirements. :-) Hmm. I guess they got you by the. . . BTW, what is it about IE that is required? Is it a CaptiveX thing? Silver Light, or whatever it's called, runs in Firefox. -- R:\katan - SOYLENT GREEN IS PEOPLE!!! * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Physical vs. Virtual
> Other than the "streaming video that requires IE" can you do all your other > video watching in Ubuntu? > Yes, for instance, flash or watching DVDs works from Ubuntu. > They shouldn't be dictating your browser choices like that (which, I guess, > you already know :-). Yeah, what's worse, I'm paying for the content (international sports). They said that they will fix, but I'm not holding my breath. When you want something bad enough, I guess, you are willing to put up with all sorts of requirements. :-) * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Physical vs. Virtual
> a. Another option is to look at VMware. The newest Virtualbox (3.0?) is > very nice, but you can also do a lot with free VMware products like > vmplayer. One or the other will have some feature you like better. I am > pretty darn sure VMware can give a VM direct access to hardware. I have > only done this with like an EVDO modem or the like. > Thanks for reminding me that VMware has free options also. I've played with VirtualBox because it is available as an Ubuntu package via Synaptic Package Manager (VirtualBox-OSE). I'll look at VMware options. b. Both Virtualbox and VMware also support some sort of direct integration, > where you don't have to be "in the VM", Any pointers for how to do this? c. Have you ever tried to see if Wine can run your IE video streaming? > That might be the best performance overall. > A couple of years ago, I tried running another video app (TVants) via WINE and the video quality was pretty bad. But, that was on another machine, another video card, etc. etc. So, I should give this another go ... Thanks for your suggestions. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Physical vs. Virtual
Quoting Michael Fernando : Option 3: Please suggest. (I must run 64-bit OSes, at least as the host OS, to take advantage of all 4Gigs of memory, correct?) Thanks in advance for suggestions/opinions. Other than the "streaming video that requires IE" can you do all your other video watching in Ubuntu? I guess I'd suggest you virtualize Windows for the few(?) times you need IE. Then complain like a mutha' to the offending site(s). They shouldn't be dictating your browser choices like that (which, I guess, you already know :-). * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Physical vs. Virtual
I agree with Mike. I do all my Windows stuff in a VM inside Ubuntu, and it works much nicer in 64-bit, IMHO. But here are some other thoughts. a. Another option is to look at VMware. The newest Virtualbox (3.0?) is very nice, but you can also do a lot with free VMware products like vmplayer. One or the other will have some feature you like better. I am pretty darn sure VMware can give a VM direct access to hardware. I have only done this with like an EVDO modem or the like. b. Both Virtualbox and VMware also support some sort of direct integration, where you don't have to be "in the VM", but just running an application from the VM on your Ubuntu desktop. This seems just right for running one key application like video streaming with IE. c. Have you ever tried to see if Wine can run your IE video streaming? That might be the best performance overall. -- John DeCarlo, My Views Are My Own * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Physical vs. Virtual
Should work with ubuntu as the main box. I think they are talking about more intensive video applications like gaming, because the VM os doesn't have direct access to the hardware, but this should work for just streaming video over IE..although I have not done it myself. I have my main machine dual booted with ubuntu and 7 atm. On Sat, Dec 19, 2009 at 12:02 PM, Michael Fernando wrote: > Looking for list opinions. Yes, I know that it will be all over the place, > but that's what I'm looking for, I guess. > > Currently I have two old Dell boxes. (1) Primary: Optiplex GX270 running > Ubuntu Linux. Yes, it is my primary as I'm a server admin and work with > remote servers all the time. Most used apps are Terminal (for ssh sessions > with X, ie: ssh -Y), Firefox, audacious (to listen to mp3s in the > background). (2) Secondary: Dell Dimension 8200 running Win XP. Used most > of the time to watch streaming video that requires IE. This is the reason > I > have to have a Windows machine. Also used to watch DVDs w/ VLC media > player > or watch sites like pbs.org (occasionally). Two machines have two > monitors, > but I use a KVM switch to share kbd/mouse. > > I've finally received a Dell Optiplex 960 w/ 4Gig of memory. I'm thinking > of replacing both machines with this single box. > > Option 1: Run 64-bit Ubuntu on the physical machine, install Sun VirtualBox > and create a virtual machine to install either Win XP or Win7. People say > that video will suck on the virtual Windows machine since it will use the > video driver from VirtualBox. Anyone doing this? (watch steaming video on > a virtual Windows machine?) Does anyone know if VirtualBox can assign a > physical video card to a virtual machine? (If so, I can purchase another > video card.) If I go this route, I will connect two monitors to the two > video outputs and run the virtual machine in full-screen mode in one > monitor. I can get rid of the KVM switch. > > Option 2: Run 64-bit Windows 7 on the physical machine, install Sun > VirtualBox software and create a virtual machine to install Ubuntu. > Streaming video won't suck since Win7 will use the correct drivers for the > physical video card. But, now my primary machine--the linux one--will > depend on a Windows machine with all that implies. I'm a Unix/Linux guy, > so > by definition, I'm not a WFB. So, putting all my eggs in a single Windows > basket doesn't appeal to me all that much. Other than that, any other > pitfalls I'm likely to encounter? Yes, this will also mean running the > virtual machine in full-screen mode in one monitor and I can get rid of the > KVM switch. > > Option 3: Please suggest. > > (I must run 64-bit OSes, at least as the host OS, to take advantage of all > 4Gigs of memory, correct?) > > Thanks in advance for suggestions/opinions. > > > * > ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** > ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** > * > * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
[CGUYS] Physical vs. Virtual
Looking for list opinions. Yes, I know that it will be all over the place, but that's what I'm looking for, I guess. Currently I have two old Dell boxes. (1) Primary: Optiplex GX270 running Ubuntu Linux. Yes, it is my primary as I'm a server admin and work with remote servers all the time. Most used apps are Terminal (for ssh sessions with X, ie: ssh -Y), Firefox, audacious (to listen to mp3s in the background). (2) Secondary: Dell Dimension 8200 running Win XP. Used most of the time to watch streaming video that requires IE. This is the reason I have to have a Windows machine. Also used to watch DVDs w/ VLC media player or watch sites like pbs.org (occasionally). Two machines have two monitors, but I use a KVM switch to share kbd/mouse. I've finally received a Dell Optiplex 960 w/ 4Gig of memory. I'm thinking of replacing both machines with this single box. Option 1: Run 64-bit Ubuntu on the physical machine, install Sun VirtualBox and create a virtual machine to install either Win XP or Win7. People say that video will suck on the virtual Windows machine since it will use the video driver from VirtualBox. Anyone doing this? (watch steaming video on a virtual Windows machine?) Does anyone know if VirtualBox can assign a physical video card to a virtual machine? (If so, I can purchase another video card.) If I go this route, I will connect two monitors to the two video outputs and run the virtual machine in full-screen mode in one monitor. I can get rid of the KVM switch. Option 2: Run 64-bit Windows 7 on the physical machine, install Sun VirtualBox software and create a virtual machine to install Ubuntu. Streaming video won't suck since Win7 will use the correct drivers for the physical video card. But, now my primary machine--the linux one--will depend on a Windows machine with all that implies. I'm a Unix/Linux guy, so by definition, I'm not a WFB. So, putting all my eggs in a single Windows basket doesn't appeal to me all that much. Other than that, any other pitfalls I'm likely to encounter? Yes, this will also mean running the virtual machine in full-screen mode in one monitor and I can get rid of the KVM switch. Option 3: Please suggest. (I must run 64-bit OSes, at least as the host OS, to take advantage of all 4Gigs of memory, correct?) Thanks in advance for suggestions/opinions. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
