VM Ware for HTPC
- Thread starter yugaaa
- Start date
Haven't tried it on an HTPC (but on servers), but I actually think this is a great idea. The performance penalty of a VM is negligible nowadays, especially if you go for a CPU that has native VM support. I think some of the desktop CPUs that Intel sells do not have VM extensions enabled, so you should watch out for this.
One more thing: If you plan to simultaneously run more than 1 VM at a time, focus on system bandwidth rather than pure performance. For example, in this case, a high rpm hard drive (or a fast SSD or RAID) will be a much better choice instead of a more powerful CPU or even GPU. Most modern multi-core CPUs will easily be able to run at least 2 VMs. However, if you will run your VMs one after another (you probably won't be web surfing while watching a movie), this might not be a major issue.
The more I think about this, the more I realize that this is actually an excellent idea.
Thanks, didn't realize there were complications with VMWare as a HTPC.
By the way, does this make a difference? :-
VMware Communities: VMware VMDirectPath I/O
For this to work, you need to dedicate a graphics card to VMWare. That means you need two card or you need to run host headless.
The base OS can be windows/linux so that the pc has all audio video capabilities . And in the base OS we can use NAS VM for storage , another VM for browsing etc .. etc .
The reason for VM is a good possibility of saving money for NAS boxes , etc . etc .
Now , I am looking at some possibilites of using the VM so that the total investment is put to a lot of uses .
may some of you can suggest requirements of using VM and we can try it out .
The reason for VM is a good possibility of saving money for NAS boxes , etc . etc .
Now , I am looking at some possibilites of using the VM so that the total investment is put to a lot of uses .
may some of you can suggest requirements of using VM and we can try it out .
Thad E Ginathom
Well-Known Member
I am baffled by this thread!
) has come a hell of a long way from the days when two simultaneous copy commands brought a machine to a halt.
Seems to me that virtualisation can be an answer if there is a need to isolate processes, or if there is a need to combine the incompatible on limited hardware. So far, in this context, I'm seeing it as a solution to a problem that does not exist.
Now... let me admit that I don't know anything about virtualisation, and so I'm learning here
But... Even Windows, these days, is a multi-tasking environment (and Linux is "descended" from Unix, which was multi-user and multi-tasking before Windows was born) so, there you have it: a machine serving files, streaming audio to your hifi, running a browser, all at once. Even Windows (excuse me saying that again
) has come a hell of a long way from the days when two simultaneous copy commands brought a machine to a halt.If your machine is not up to doing all those individual things at once anyway, Virtualisation is not going to change that.
Seems to me that virtualisation can be an answer if there is a need to isolate processes, or if there is a need to combine the incompatible on limited hardware. So far, in this context, I'm seeing it as a solution to a problem that does not exist.
Now... let me admit that I don't know anything about virtualisation, and so I'm learning here
Well, you are mistaken . Virtualization is a real cost effective method .
1. If the sound card and graphic card can be made to work under Vm then i think it is the best out there .
2. If the sound and graphic card cannot be run under VM then a base windows OS with other VM can be installed .
3. The reason for VM is simple . A typical standalone NAS box costs min of 8k .so running freenas on your PC saves a lot of money than buying individual NAS boxes .
4. For browsing I can use linux rather than windows so that I do not get that much of virus .
5 . Files are stored in linux format rather than windows format , thereby reducing the risk of virus .
6.I can choose to run Linux only reliable applications on a windows machine .
The cpu today consists of only dual cores . And most of intel cpu have Hyperthreading facility . so for a dual core based machine you can actually have 4 concurrent threads running on the same processor which is excellent processing power .
Rather than buying a HTPC case a server case can easily hold a minimum of 8-10 HDD which makes it ideal for huge file storage .
So i am certain there are benefits . I am just looking for interesting applications that i can run from my HTPC .
1. If the sound card and graphic card can be made to work under Vm then i think it is the best out there .
2. If the sound and graphic card cannot be run under VM then a base windows OS with other VM can be installed .
3. The reason for VM is simple . A typical standalone NAS box costs min of 8k .so running freenas on your PC saves a lot of money than buying individual NAS boxes .
4. For browsing I can use linux rather than windows so that I do not get that much of virus .
5 . Files are stored in linux format rather than windows format , thereby reducing the risk of virus .
6.I can choose to run Linux only reliable applications on a windows machine .
The cpu today consists of only dual cores . And most of intel cpu have Hyperthreading facility . so for a dual core based machine you can actually have 4 concurrent threads running on the same processor which is excellent processing power .
Rather than buying a HTPC case a server case can easily hold a minimum of 8-10 HDD which makes it ideal for huge file storage .
So i am certain there are benefits . I am just looking for interesting applications that i can run from my HTPC .
On board graphics and seperate graphics card ??? would that be fine ?
Thad E Ginathom
Well-Known Member
So, apart from concurrently running Windows (why?) what's there that you can't do on a Linux machine?
(and you could probably swap Linux/Windows in that sentence and it would still work)
If you really really want to run Windows and Linux concurrently on the same machine, yes... it is the answer.
If this was a commercial decision, I'd be, so far, completely unconvinced. If you were a salesman come to my office, I'd take you into my computer room and introduce you to a machine running an accounting system, a complex insurance and underwriting system based on an Informix database engine, and acting as a file server for office productivity files for a staff of over 40. Oh, it was a print server for all those people, too. The separate mail server was separate, partly for security, and partly because it was an old machine, and why throw it away, oh, and yes, that is another Unix sever over there, yes, again, that's really old, but it still runs so let it host some more files.
I looked at VMware's site, and they are saying peple are using one machine for one application! If true: crazy! I'm glad I'm retired from all that.
But hey, we're not talking offices and corporate spending, but doing what we want with our own machines,so it'll be interesting to hear your results.
Be nice if you try it all without VM too, though.
(and you could probably swap Linux/Windows in that sentence and it would still work)
If you really really want to run Windows and Linux concurrently on the same machine, yes... it is the answer.
If this was a commercial decision, I'd be, so far, completely unconvinced. If you were a salesman come to my office, I'd take you into my computer room and introduce you to a machine running an accounting system, a complex insurance and underwriting system based on an Informix database engine, and acting as a file server for office productivity files for a staff of over 40. Oh, it was a print server for all those people, too. The separate mail server was separate, partly for security, and partly because it was an old machine, and why throw it away, oh, and yes, that is another Unix sever over there, yes, again, that's really old, but it still runs so let it host some more files.
I looked at VMware's site, and they are saying peple are using one machine for one application! If true: crazy! I'm glad I'm retired from all that.
But hey, we're not talking offices and corporate spending, but doing what we want with our own machines,so it'll be interesting to hear your results.
Be nice if you try it all without VM too, though.
ukjeyaraj
Well-Known Member
Though running VM for multiple needs is a good idea, MHO is not to mix it with HTPC. For me HTPC should be something similar to a media player, which even my granmom should be able to switch on and use remote to play whatever she wants. Having VM in HTPC makes it more complicated. It become a multi-functional pc/server box.
For anyone still thinking this is a good idea, it is NOT.
Virtualization does not expose your real hardware to the guest OS. Only the unprivileged CPU instructions are run directly by the real CPU. For Everything else, the virtualization layer emulates a generic hardware in the "guest" os that then runs on real "host" os hardware. This includes HDD controller, CD Controller, Audio, Video, Network, etc.
Technical goobly-gook translated:
Virtualized OS cannot use your actual hardware, except CPU. So your Video/GPU hardware is useless and so is your on-board soundcard.
If that didnt raise red flags, then you should go to a Pentium II computer, and see how well it runs your "HTPC" :indifferent14:
Virtualization does not expose your real hardware to the guest OS. Only the unprivileged CPU instructions are run directly by the real CPU. For Everything else, the virtualization layer emulates a generic hardware in the "guest" os that then runs on real "host" os hardware. This includes HDD controller, CD Controller, Audio, Video, Network, etc.
Technical goobly-gook translated:
Virtualized OS cannot use your actual hardware, except CPU. So your Video/GPU hardware is useless and so is your on-board soundcard.
If that didnt raise red flags, then you should go to a Pentium II computer, and see how well it runs your "HTPC" :indifferent14:
anm
Well-Known Member
OP - I think its a nice idea - why? Because I was too thinking of the SAME
Due to hardware support etc, your base OS needs to be the one that plays blu-ray etc. If you also want it to be a gaming machine, then the base OS has to be the one which has most games releases, and I think it is none but windows.
Now we need to optimize base WIN OS so that it consumes minimum resources when acting as NAS.
We would like it to produce minimum heat when running as NAS, or NAS+music player. So there should be some way to shut off high-end graphics card/ sound card etc.
Do you also want this to be your reference music player? May be a very optimized VM for music only.
PS3 is a strong machine that can do almost everything. Too bad it is not an open system. The yellowdog linux doesn't use all its cores.
Due to hardware support etc, your base OS needs to be the one that plays blu-ray etc. If you also want it to be a gaming machine, then the base OS has to be the one which has most games releases, and I think it is none but windows.
Now we need to optimize base WIN OS so that it consumes minimum resources when acting as NAS.
We would like it to produce minimum heat when running as NAS, or NAS+music player. So there should be some way to shut off high-end graphics card/ sound card etc.
Do you also want this to be your reference music player? May be a very optimized VM for music only.
PS3 is a strong machine that can do almost everything. Too bad it is not an open system. The yellowdog linux doesn't use all its cores.
Thad E Ginathom
Well-Known Member
You are trying to add six, six, six and six, (numbers purely figurative) to come up with six --- but it doesn't, it comes to twenty-four, and you cannot make it it equal to six with four virtual machines.
You want a files server that doesn't produce heat from the video card, while you are producing plenty heat from the video card by gaming (your file serving will be producing heat from the HDDs, by the way). You want the machine to be optimised for a reference music player, while you are using the hardware for all sorts of other stuff (never mind the problems of addressing a sound card from a VM).
None of this really makes sense.
An NAS, by the ay, by definition, is off any PC: Network-accessed-storage.
Trying to tailor the problem to fit a solution --- and reality, there wasn't a problem in the first place, because a PC (especially running Linux) will just do all this stuff anyway.
You want a files server that doesn't produce heat from the video card, while you are producing plenty heat from the video card by gaming (your file serving will be producing heat from the HDDs, by the way). You want the machine to be optimised for a reference music player, while you are using the hardware for all sorts of other stuff (never mind the problems of addressing a sound card from a VM).
None of this really makes sense.
An NAS, by the ay, by definition, is off any PC: Network-accessed-storage.
Trying to tailor the problem to fit a solution --- and reality, there wasn't a problem in the first place, because a PC (especially running Linux) will just do all this stuff anyway.
I tried to experiment with the VM and my requirements were
1. NAS box
2. CCTV cam
3. system for torrents
4. print server
5. My billing server .
The requirement was very varied as I needed Windows for my cctv cameras ,billing and print server . LInux for my NAS software , torrents . The idea was to buy a squeezebox for my audio purposes and connect it to the NAS or run the squeezebox server software .
For my video purposes I might go in with the WD player .
Now coming to the point , I wanted everything on 1 system to save on power , plus I did not want to clutter my home with 2-3 machines running 24/7 and the additional power back up scenarios .
After a long consideration , I decided to not go with the graphics card setup as I wanted everything to be controllable in the sense the squeezebox will have its own remote and the WD player will have its remote and I dont need to control anything from my pc .
The pc runs headless , meaning that i use a laptop to control the downloads on torrent and the CCTV cam .Plus when i need to do printing or billing I use the print /scanner server feature as the printers are connected to the PC and the other machines can connected through RDP and local lan .
After much consideration btwn an atom and a dual core system , i went with the dual core system as I needed to buy atleast 3 atom systems for the same job . With just 1 dual core i can run 3 different OS all on the same machine .
Another consideration for buying a dual core system was that the current gen processors support enhanced sleep states . That translates into very low idle power consumption and when the system is not doing anything the system just consumes about 30w which is comparable to the Atom . so , i have the flexibility of leaving the system switched on for 24/7 without having to worry on the power bills and wasting energy .
1. NAS box
2. CCTV cam
3. system for torrents
4. print server
5. My billing server .
The requirement was very varied as I needed Windows for my cctv cameras ,billing and print server . LInux for my NAS software , torrents . The idea was to buy a squeezebox for my audio purposes and connect it to the NAS or run the squeezebox server software .
For my video purposes I might go in with the WD player .
Now coming to the point , I wanted everything on 1 system to save on power , plus I did not want to clutter my home with 2-3 machines running 24/7 and the additional power back up scenarios .
After a long consideration , I decided to not go with the graphics card setup as I wanted everything to be controllable in the sense the squeezebox will have its own remote and the WD player will have its remote and I dont need to control anything from my pc .
The pc runs headless , meaning that i use a laptop to control the downloads on torrent and the CCTV cam .Plus when i need to do printing or billing I use the print /scanner server feature as the printers are connected to the PC and the other machines can connected through RDP and local lan .
After much consideration btwn an atom and a dual core system , i went with the dual core system as I needed to buy atleast 3 atom systems for the same job . With just 1 dual core i can run 3 different OS all on the same machine .
Another consideration for buying a dual core system was that the current gen processors support enhanced sleep states . That translates into very low idle power consumption and when the system is not doing anything the system just consumes about 30w which is comparable to the Atom . so , i have the flexibility of leaving the system switched on for 24/7 without having to worry on the power bills and wasting energy .
anm
Well-Known Member
great. I think you could have tried sound card/ video card setup and figured out to turn them off when not in use.
OP - I think its a nice idea - why? Because I was too thinking of the SAME
Due to hardware support etc, your base OS needs to be the one that plays blu-ray etc. If you also want it to be a gaming machine, then the base OS has to be the one which has most games releases, and I think it is none but windows.
Now we need to optimize base WIN OS so that it consumes minimum resources when acting as NAS.
We would like it to produce minimum heat when running as NAS, or NAS+music player. So there should be some way to shut off high-end graphics card/ sound card etc.
Do you also want this to be your reference music player? May be a very optimized VM for music only.
PS3 is a strong machine that can do almost everything. Too bad it is not an open system. The yellowdog linux doesn't use all its cores.
Most of the current gen graphics cards can shut off , if they are not used . I have not tested the feature on a VM , but on a normal desktop , they can be shut off . That is what CUDA and FERMI tech from NVIDIA can do .
Buy from India's official online dealer!
Similar threads
