VM Ware for HTPC

[yugaaa]

great. I think you could have tried sound card/ video card setup and figured out to turn them off when not in use.

I had planned to keep the pc in my attic or some location where it would not be accessible . Plus I bought some really oversized heatsink for the processor and an oversized fan for the case to cool it off . I did not want to be noisy , on the contrary the PC makes no noise .

I wanted something dedicate to control the audio and the video and did not want to play around with the PC everytime . That is why I took the squeezebox route and the WD route .

With the squeezebox and the WD player i can have controls at my finger tips and with built in hardware decorders and DAC specifically for the purpose it made sense for me to use the pc as a NAS rather than a fully blown HTPC .

 

[Thad E Ginathom]

If you must run Windows and Linux then this seems to be a valid way to do it. How would it compare with running Windows in a Linux VM?

I'm guessing you are stuck with proprietary software for billing and cctv, and there are printer functions you can't easily access with Linux, hence Windows is required.

(have to admit that I have not set up a print server in Linux, yet, although I've done it in Unix/AIX on a commercial scale.)

I still can't understand 1+1=3.

Windows + Linux = 2 --- that's fine... but what's the advantage in duplicating one of those?


General thoughts still pertinent:

--- Windows shares files too

--- Squeezebox server is available for either Windows or Linux

Bottom line: you are time-sharing the computer components, whether you do it in a Windoze way or in a more refined Linux/Unix way. One pint is still one pint.

 

[yugaaa]

For the billing and cctv ,printer /scanner sharing windows is a must for me . For file share I use free NAS . For torrent downloads I use linux . The reason for going with freenas is that I wanted something dedicated to only that purpose and nothing else . same thing applies for torrents as well .

1+1 =2 , it can never be 3 , but 2 is a subset of 4 and 4 is a subset of 8 .
simply put the VM ware pc = 8 and 4 which is a subset can be linux or windows and 2 which is still as subset can again be a windows or linux machine . Hope this solves the equation .

Instead of buying 3 small pizzas , just buy 1 big pizza and share ??

 

[asliarun]

If you must run Windows and Linux then this seems to be a valid way to do it. How would it compare with running Windows in a Linux VM?

I'm guessing you are stuck with proprietary software for billing and cctv, and there are printer functions you can't easily access with Linux, hence Windows is required.

(have to admit that I have not set up a print server in Linux, yet, although I've done it in Unix/AIX on a commercial scale.)

I still can't understand 1+1=3.

Windows + Linux = 2 --- that's fine... but what's the advantage in duplicating one of those?


General thoughts still pertinent:

--- Windows shares files too

--- Squeezebox server is available for either Windows or Linux

Bottom line: you are time-sharing the computer components, whether you do it in a Windoze way or in a more refined Linux/Unix way. One pint is still one pint.

Very valid points. The only reason that this would be compelling for me would be PC gaming (love strategy games).

Answering your other previous post, I actually feel that virtualization makes more sense in an enterprise environment, in the kind of setup you were describing. This is not about process isolation or even maximizing hardware resources, this is about having more flexibility and control over the software deployments. With a virtualized setup, you can reboot your print server without needing downtime for your mail server and your database server as well. In addition, you can selectively install OS upgrades, patches, services/daemons, etc. while keeping the impact isolated.

You probably don't feel this as much because you run a much more stable and robust OS (a true server OS), but people who have to deal with multiple windows servers and images feel the pain A lot of downtime in Windows OSes, even server OSes is often due to patch installs that ends up causing some arcane issue in some other software, not because of hardware failure.

Anyway, I digress.

A prediction, if I may: Almost all of us will be running virtualized OSes on our mobile phones in say, 5 years from now.

 

[Thad E Ginathom]

I ought to say that, in this conversation, you are the man who has done it, while I am just expressing opinions. For all my shooting off at the mouth, I do recognise that!

I was lucky (and also incredibly bloody-minded and obstinate, in so far as my position in the business allowed, which, apparently it did, because I got away with it ) to never have to deal with microsoft as a server platform. It was bad enough on the desktop. I can certainly appreciate your points where that is concerned. It was a rare event to have to take a machine down for any other reason than hardware failure or upgrade. One had control over all those various processes; database engines, print servers, and much more without having to do that.

Anyway, good luck with your system. If you ever do have the time and the curiosity to compare different configurations, especially using or not using VM, the results would be interesting to hear. Windows running under Linux (in a VM, not an emulator) really would be an interesting possibility.

However, having built something that works, there is a certain reluctance to take it to pieces again...

 

[yugaaa]

The first thing that prompted me to go in for a VM environment is basically because i like Linux , but at the same point of time windows is essential for me .
The windows VM does not need any internet updates , as I use it only for billing and cctv .The chances of failure due to updates , patches , virus etc do not pose so much of a threat to me , that is why I have the torrent downloads on Linux and I can always scan the downloaded torrents for virus on another machine before i put it on my VM .

 

[macdip]

Hello,
Interesting thread...I am also trying to come up with similar concept and searching through net has landed me on this page. @yugaaa were you able to do any further progress on this?

Thanks,
Mak

 

[Thad E Ginathom]

The first thing that prompted me to go in for a VM environment is basically because i like Linux , but at the same point of time windows is essential for me .

Just a thanks for getting me interested in Virtual machines at all. I installed VM Virtual Box today, and now have a virtual Windows XP SP3 environment.

It looks like it is going to be a lot easier to "power it up" than it is to reboot into my WinXP partition --- for those occasional visits to WinXP that remain necessary. The basics proved a lot easier than I expected, and one of the first interesting points was that it played sound "out of the box". I installed CoolEdit-Pro: it runs, it plays, which is more than can be said for Wine.

On a side-by side test between CEP/WinXP and VLC/native Ubuntu, there is a difference in quality, but still, CEP is such a great tool I'm delighted to have it there.

Networking, also no trouble out of the box. Interesting that what it does, by default, is an extra level of NAT, setting up a another private-IP-range net within the host machine. Two levels of NAT between me and the world: I installed Windows Security Essentials, wondering if I needed to bother!

My usage is going to be quite different to yours. I'm just going to fire up the one VM for specific tasks, but, technically, it is an interesting game to check out.

One VM? Heck, I've got copies of W2000, W98, W95. Why not? Just for old time's sake!

Err, no... I really am joking there :lol:

 

[Thad E Ginathom]

Just a general point about VM. Disc access is slow.

One thing I tried was slip-streaming SP3 into XP, along with various other exclusions/customisations using Nlite. It took ages, (and failed in the end, but I'm not blaming VM for that!) whereas, directly booting into XP and repeating the tasks took just a few minutes.

 

[Thad E Ginathom]

It's been a few months. there has been an interesting series of articles about the history, present and future of virtualisation on the IT news site The Register.

This recent article explains very well why the original proposition of this thread is not a good idea

Cheap as chips: The future of PC virtualisation

For instance, compared to mainframe partitioning, if you use a full PC server OS to run full-system VMs containing other full server or client OSs, the result is horribly inefficient.

Whole layers of the software stack are duplicated on both host and inside multiple VMs. It doesnt even make a huge difference if the host runs Linux and the guests Windows, or the other way round either way, there is functional duplication in the stack.

On an x86 server with guest OSs running under a hypervisor, a full copy of Windows (say) is running on an emulated chipset connected to emulated disk drives (formatted with a normal filesystem), and talking through emulated Ethernet cards to another real operating system which is storing the VM images in another filesystem running on a real disk.

(The Register)

 

[cmsajith]

I dont understand the logic of havng VM for doing the HTPC, Music PC, NAS in a single m/c for the sake of running them as separate or reduce the power consumption. Isnt the base PC running at high power to accomodate these VMs and consume more power? Also the latency will get badly affected.

Just a thought for this situation, not sure about the feasibility...but it should work.

Requirements : General PC, Music PC, HTPC, NAS

For NAS, its always better having a separate low power consuming PC / a NAS itself. But I would be going for a different approach.

Why cant we think of having 3 separate small HDDs (250 / 500 GBs) just for OS for each purpose and using a selector switch (similar to a source selector in DACs/PreAmps) use the desired HDD to bootup either as a general/Music/HTPC? (need some DIY). For the same h/w, configure each HDDs with desired OS for each purpose. The files can be either accessed from the n/w or local HDD. If it is from local HDD (assuming those are hot swappable SATAs) use a remote controlled switch to switch on the desired backup HDD (need some DIY). Also the heating requirement will not get doubled as the required components are only being used at a time. Only drawback is that the case will be like a big power amp. But I like the look of a big power amp with huge heatsinks eventhough I am having Quad 909

For internet access, VM can be used in General setup to reduce the risk of viruses, if General setup is used for some other purposes.

 

[Thad E Ginathom]

I dont understand the logic of havng VM for doing the HTPC, Music PC, NAS in a single m/c

There isn't any!

Why cant we think of having 3 separate small HDDs (250 / 500 GBs) just for OS for each purpose and using a selector switch (similar to a source selector in DACs/PreAmps) use the desired HDD to bootup either as a general/Music/HTPC?

Not, I don't think, in the physical sense of a switch --- but you can load numerous OSs on your machine, and choose which you want to boot at startup.

Basically, a general machine will do everything. Otherwise, one might want to build separate machines that might be, for instance, low-power, low-heat audio players or graphics-oriented htpcs. The general PC will do all: the specific-purpose PC may not do all, but should be very good at doing what it has been built to do. Hardware figures as much as software in this, which is another reason that VMs is not the answer.

Yes, a VM can be used to protect against virus/etc infection, although I would say this would only be worthwhile if much high-risk browsing is done. A snapshot should be made so that the VM can be quickly restored, in case of infection, to a healthy state.

 

[cmsajith]

There isn't any!
Not, I don't think, in the physical sense of a switch --- but you can load numerous OSs on your machine, and choose which you want to boot at startup.

Can we install multiple Windows 7 in the same PC and configure easily?

Basically, a general machine will do everything. Otherwise, one might want to build separate machines that might be, for instance, low-power, low-heat audio players or graphics-oriented htpcs. The general PC will do all: the specific-purpose PC may not do all, but should be very good at doing what it has been built to do.

Requirement is low-power, low-heat audio players or graphics-oriented htpcs. So I am trying to build separate PCs for each in a single cabinet but sharing the resources as much as possible.

 

[Thad E Ginathom]

My life with Windows ends with XP. Thus I can't answer Vista or 7 questions. I expect Google can be more helpful.

Requirement is low-power, low-heat audio players or graphics-oriented htpcs. So I am trying to build separate PCs for each in a single cabinet but sharing the resources as much as possible.

Gut response: build two machines (hey, you don't expect to watch TV on the CD player! ) or go for general purpose which will do both. You can't buy a 2-seater sports car and then have seating for the family of seven to switch on or off. Work with what the machine is!

 

[cmsajith]

My life with Windows ends with XP. Thus I can't answer Vista or 7 questions. I expect Google can be more helpful.
Gut response: build two machines (hey, you don't expect to watch TV on the CD player! ) or go for general purpose which will do both. You can't buy a 2-seater sports car and then have seating for the family of seven to switch on or off. Work with what the machine is!

Who told two m/cs, only one pc. Different pcs in a box configured for each purpose, sharing same MB,Proc etc, only the booting HDDs and OS are different. Main intention is to make it more family friendly similar to a DVD player but with the merits of having dedicated pcs with low energy consumption.

Why cant I assemble a car with Merc body and suspension (for comforts) and use cheap suitable engine (for mileage)?

 

[Thad E Ginathom]

only the booting HDDs and OS are different.

That, in itself, is easy to achieve. Even within Windows you can define hardware profiles.

But, given the same mb, you will only be able to do some tweaking: you can't achieve the major difference you mentioned in the previous post. You just can't turn one machine into two!

 

[sam9s]

errrr how did this thread missed my tech eyes .... . To address the OP. No you can not have an HTPC or NAS running on VMWare. I think enough has already been said for the same. But to add, the A/V segment is the main aspect of an HTPC and VM is poor on those results. The audio decoading, the video acceleration, all this is not possible on a VM Ware. Trust me I am using VM Ware for ages...... Its kind of my bread and butter. The profession I am in demands me to be on VMs almost all the time.
My home machine (in my sig) has 16GB of memory! why coz I have a dedicated SSD partition that I only use for my VM experiments (and abundant RAM is what VMs need in order to run efficiently). Anyway, VM potential lies in the fact that it gives you independent OS/machines to experiment on. Its best usage is to be able to experiment the different platforms, technologies and best of all networking the field of IT has to offer. How different domains can be configured. How different platforms can be networked. How server client architecture can be created and optimized, how migration and its tools works. How packaging works over SCCM (which is a tool for the same), how imaging works and how it is deployed over a network ........... etc .ect etc ..... that said this is just a tip of the ice berg of what Visualization offers. But sad to say not the kind of purpose you are looking for. At the best you can do is to install VMware and have, Linux or Free NAS installed and learn how it works, is configured and deployed. But you can not expect your host machine to start behaving like a NAS for which the OS is installed over a VM Ware ......