Running ESX server on a VM

[bigdave146]

Hello

I know that this has probably been asked a million times, and I have searched the forums for answers for the last 45 mins and not found anything \!!!

For one reason or another (mainly to help with revision for the VCP exam!!) I want to try to install ESX server on to a VM on a powerful Workstation 6 PC environment. ESX 3.0.1 has installed, and when it starts it starts the vmkernel initialisaton, and then enables interrupts, and says it has been loaded succesfully. It stops there and goes no further.

Are there any howtos anywhere on this, or is it just not possible as the vmkernel detects that its virtual hardware not physical that its being loaded on ?

Thanks alot

Dave

[admin · Accepted solution]

Yep it is possible, here's a whitepaper with step-by-step instructions. You will require a Workstation with Intel-VT or AMD-V (SVM), but if you have that and a decent amount of RAM it works like a charm.

http://www.xtravirt.com/index.php?option=com_remository&Itemid=75&func=fileinfo&id=11

Here's a couple of follow up papers describing how to set up shared storage under Workstation as well, so you can have an entire VI3 Enterprise 'in-a-box' setup for testing VMotion, DRS, and HA.

iSCSI Enterprise Target

http://www.xtravirt.com/index.php?option=com_remository&Itemid=75&func=fileinfo&id=16

OpenFiler

http://www.xtravirt.com/index.php?option=com_remository&Itemid=75&func=fileinfo&id=18

[bigdave146]

Many thanks

Dave

[admin]

Dave - fyi - you can award people points with the helpful(6points)/correct(10points) buttons next to posts when people answer your questions.

[FrederickSmith]

I carried out xtravirts's WK6 ESX deployment.

I found that it runs ESX fine but no VMs within the ESX boxes would power on due to "Can't power on VM within a VM"

?????

[RDPetruska]

That's because the xtravirt paper does not have all the correct/appropriate settings in the vmx file. See DaveP's postings in the forum thread in the Feature Request forum instead... http://www.vmware.com/community/thread.jspa?threadID=67254&tstart=0

[admin]

This is caused by an incorrect entry in your ESX Vm's .vmx file.

Check the following line is in the .vmx file and has no typo's.

monitor.control_restrict.backdoor = TRUE[/code]

[admin]

The Xtravirt paper does have all the correct/appropriate settings, it has been updated to include the setting for AMD chipsets. Check the end of page 14 of the whitepaper.

Monitor_control.enable_svm = TRUE[/code]

[RDPetruska]

No it does not. They keep recommending virtualHW.version = "4" instead of "6"! If you read through the feature request forum postings, many people have issues with that! They need to change to state that the VM needs to be created as a Workstation 6-compatible version. Refer to p. 14 of the latest document to see the incorrect vmx file.

[admin]

Ah OK I didn't know that, I've had it working without issue on vhw version 4 on several machines so didn't think that was an issue, thank you for the update I'll get the paper updated to reflect this.

[RDPetruska]

Well, it seems to be an issue sometimes. Refer to specific posts in that long thread.

p.11 from DaveP:

"Actually they use the ESX compatibility option, which forces the correct SCSI adapter, but I agree best of using full WS6 compatible options. FWIW, I have always used these settings to make ESX work, since the time I originally got it booting and running a guest. Works for WS6/ACE2/Fusion1: "

p.13 from Ulli:

A nice default clean vmx file with comments.

[admin]

I've read the thread and seen the posts, however I'm still not sure why the virtual hardware version being 4 instead of 6 would cause problems, any idea?

[RDPetruska]

I don't really know. I think it's more just for a cleaner/less hassle VM. Unfortunately, I don't have the hardware to run any of that, so I just have one basic ESX guest I created (which took a while to install, of course, without the VT support)... I can't run anything.

[admin]

I don't see how it's cleaner/less hassle though really, I mean I've tested virtual hardware version 4 on multiple hosts without issues and it ensure the correct SCSI adapter is selected.

What I'll do is update the white paper to say "if you have problems, try changing you virtual hardware version to 6". That way we cover all bases.

[RDPetruska]

Sure it's cleaner. Why force Workstation 6 to load up a legacy mode VM when you can just as easily run a current-version one? All you have to do is make sure to use the Custom mode in the Wizard in order to pick the correct SCSI adapter... which I believe you've got to do in that paper anyway.

[bigdave146]

Performance is a bit slow on the PC and VMWare !!!! I have Vista and have put a 4Gb USB stick in and set it to be 100% used for Readyboost cache memory.

Anyone used Readyboost with VMWare Workstation and seen much of a difference, or does VMWare not take that into account ?

Dave

[RDPetruska]

>Here's a couple of follow up papers describing how to set up shared storage under Workstation as well

Alex, are there pros and cons regarding which one of these shared storage VMs are better?

[oreeh]

As always - it depends

I've found that with hosts low on memory (<= 2GB) it is best to use a NFS share in the host instead of an additional storage VM.

With iSCSI I prefer the IET approach since OpenFiler uses an older IET version which possibly leads to problems.

Another thing is - I like to tweak things myself instead pf relying on prebuilt appliances.

[admin]

Pros for IET:

Always the latest release.

From 0.4.15 no ESX reserve/release patch required.

Can choose your favorite Linux distro to run it on and install the distro as you see fit.

Cons for IET:

Requires editting the configuration file with a text editor.

Requires installing a Linux distro.

Pros for OpenFiler:

Pre-made appliance, no installtion to do as such. Linux OS is pre-built with IET.

Configuration done via a GUI.

Cons for OpenFiler:

Lags behind IET release.

Because of the above currenty requires the use of the ESX reserve/release patch.

Linux OS is built as the OpenFiler team want it, not necessarily how you want it.

Not much in it really, but people seem to prefer one or the other, personally being a Linux person I prefer IET because I can install it exactly as I want it and always the latest release.