I enjoyed a lot of ESXi concept, but currently our company is unable to evaluate - since our IT policy is accepting only linux hosts and VI Client seems to be available only for Windows.
So, is there a way to utilize ESXi without windows?
Welcome to the VMware Community forums. At this point you would require a Windows PC on which to install the Virtual Infrasture client. There have been many requests for a VI client for Linux, but at this point there is no release date for that. See this thread - http://communities.vmware.com/thread/49061
And to quote a VMware Product Manager (posted 05/08/2008):
>Hey folks, as I mentioned in my previous post, we have heard this request loud and clear.
>Unfortunately, I cannot give specific timelines but I will post a note to this thread just as soon as I have news to share publicly.
>Thank you for your patience. Your feedback is important to us so please keep it coming!
>-Srinivas
you can initially setup a windows box e.g a laptop as a standalone machine and connect to the ESX host through a crossover cable on the SC NIC. This can therefore be a standalone machine and by installing the VI client you will be able to do the initial configuration (which may get round your company policy )but as Dave says there is no Linux client yet.
Thanks for quick update on subject! Unfortunately I would not like to evaluate windows to be able evaluate ESXi. I certainly see that linux support should be there, it limits a lot currently without it.
So, we stick in vmware server!
This is a very funny situation, Vmware says that ESXi is OS-independent hypervisor, but obviosly it is not.I have been reading old post from this forum and VIC for Linux has been an big issue for severel years. Simply - what's the problem whit Linux VIC? You have the same but even bigger problem in VC where MSSQL server is only supported database. I haven't yet seen any installation pacages for Linux from Microsoft to deploy MSSQL server. VC whit Postgresql support should be used by default rather than expensive and unnessesary proprietary sql implemantations.
The Big Question is obvios: Why use Vmware instead of Microsoft Virtual Server if you anayway have to spend money to MS OS? You see my point here? OS-independent means really true OS-independent - othervise it's a hoax!
You hit the point in there! It's pretty wierd to compete against m$ and require their products to deploy yours. (My IT management thesis has always been that gaming consoles and IT systems should be bought from different vendors).
But until we see proper solutions from vmware in this issue, ESXi is waiting and deployments of vmware servers shall continue.
You have the same but even bigger problem in VC where MSSQL server is only supported database
You can use Oracle and while still a MS product you can use SQL Express for small installations (up to 5 hosts / 50 VMs). "OS-independent hypervisor" means that there is no OS running under the hypervisor level but rather the hypervisor runs on bare metal. I'm not sure that would be a hoax to require a specific OS for the management workstation. If you'd like to see a Linux client (and you're certainly not alone in that desire) then I wolud suggest a post on the thread I mentioned above or a new one in the Product Suggestions forum. The more people that ask for it, the more like it is to happen.
Download vmware server then get a windows VM running? you can only use it when you need to manage your ESX server. use NAT so you don't even need an IP
No, I don't want to use gaming platform in my server room, not real or virtualized. Seriously, we play only with Linux and therefore we cannot deploy windows, it's waste of money in our operations. I seriously think that vmware should consider this as an heavy opinion, since as long as our eyes are not in ESXi, they keep scanning deployable virtualization solution and I think we are not alone in this situation.
You have the same but even bigger problem in VC where MSSQL server is only supported databaseYou can use Oracle and while still a MS product you can use SQL Express for small installations (up to 5 hosts / 50 VMs). "OS-independent hypervisor" means that there is no OS running under the hypervisor level but rather the hypervisor runs on bare metal. I'm not sure that would be a hoax to require a specific OS for the management workstation. If you'd like to see a Linux client (and you're certainly not alone in that desire) then I wolud suggest a post on the thread I mentioned above or a new one in the Product Suggestions forum. The more people that ask for it, the more like it is to happen.
OK, haven't yet seen MSSQL Express for Linux either... Oracle is too expensive and there is more suitable database solutions for *nix users/organisations. I prefer Postgresql - their license is very clear:" Permission to use, copy, modify, and distribute this software and its documentation for any purpose, without fee, and without a written agreement is hereby granted"
- Hypervisor might run on bare metal, but it's just a dummy software if you just dont have M$ OS to manage it. If Vmware ships free license of M$ Enterprise /SQLServer it's fine for me, the problem is solved. Anyway, this OS-independent issue is hoax.
I Posted on your thread - but the thread seems to be allmost three years old.We just don't have the time on us to wait an another three years. On Russia they used to have similar kind of system to cueue everything for years and they (people) might be even lucky to have it. Is this your method also? This is so sad that you are so close to be perfect, but now it's disaster - simply idiotic. Your strategy on this has gone too far and too fast to the woods that you can't solve this anymore. Who ever is responsible of this needs to go...really! ...and someone should say when and if the VIC is coming for Linux or not. Companies don't wait when and if the "Santa Claus" remembers *nix user - they make plans based on pure facts. Fact is that we don't know how many people has to ask for it to get it.Could you tell even this for us? Is the propability for Linux VIC less than 0.5 or closer to one? The more people becomes frustrated to Vmware more like they start to use XEN or M$ Virtual Server ! Propability for that is very close to 1(one) !
If I wan't to use M$ I also can use their hypervisor:
- - Sorry, I'm a bit frustrated on Vmware now...... - - -
Just to clarify, I don't work for VMware and am just a customer. I'm not privy to their development plans and if I were it would be under a NDA.
With MS's Hypervisor, the parent partition is still running Windows 2008 and you won't get away from Windows with that. Likewise for Citrix Xenserver, the requirements page lists only a Windows client. If you're a pure *nix shop then you'll have to go with plain Xen, perhaps Oracle VM or something else.
The thread is a bit old, but the more people that post to it, the more likely we're to see a Linux client. If you're deal with a VMware sales rep, it would be good to let them know your needs.
Ah. The Hypervisor is independent. The desktop management software (currently available) is not. Think how much time the developers would have to waste (and how much more expensive ESX would be), if they needed to port the VI client to every single OS that you could run on the hypervisor -- Solaris, FreeBSD, Linux, etc.
In enterprise environments, you're guaranteed that the desktop OS is Windows, Linux/others are pretty much unanimously considered server OSes, not desktop OSes; it makes sense for them to develop the VI client for the predominant OS (use the right tool for the job).
For the few one-off organizations that don't have a single Windows Desktop, it should be trivial and inexpensive to set a Windows desktop up for that sole purpose (compared to the cost of hardware and the cost of developer time to port the management application)
I'd much rather VMware concentrate their development efforts on making VI superb for its one platform, and for maximizing performance, so I can run as many VMs per physical machine as possible.
If I need to run 40 VMs, and they increase the amount of VMs I can comfortably run on a given machine from 15 to 20..
Now I only need 3 machines, instead of 4 (assuming I want to be able to guarantee I can still run all VMs, if a server dies).
Guess what, for $6k+ in hardware savings using ESXi instead of VMware server could more than offset the small $600 cost for Windows server + SQL Express... but just for the VI, XP Pro, or even Home may suffice.
A few random thoughts after scanning this discussion:
It's not about platforms, it's about solutions. Use what works. Get the job done.
Your IT policies may not include supporting Windows, and you may have a bias against itbut what is your desired end goal? ESXi is a very solid virtualization solution. You perhaps are limiting yourselves by not "deploying a stupid XP workstation to run the client". Keep complaining to VMware thoughthey do need ot hear it.
I haven't seen benchmarks but ESXi should blow the pants off of VMware Server in terms of performance. That could be a HUGE reason to make ESXi work.
Companies like Microsoft and EMC/VMware are so big and have so many different products that they don't really compete in a black & white fashion like you may think. Where do you think VMware would be without desire for virtualizating Windows OS's? Where would MSFT be without the hardware on which to run their software? And most if not all of the hardware vendorsmake their own management products which compete with MSFT's management products. And so on.
Author of the upcoming book: Managing VMware Infrastructure with PowerShell
Co-Host, PowerScripting Podcast ()
No offense, but you sound like one of those linux fanatics talking about Windows being only a gaming platform or something.
Indeed, there should be a Linux client, and it's understandable that your company has only a single standard, but all companies I know of have exception policies for unique situations where there is no other choice. I'd wager your company has the same, you just aren't willing to admit it (and I'd also wager your company isn't as anti-Windows as you claim, unless your "company" is your parents basement).
VMWare currently provides the best product in the virtual server space. ESX provides a lot of benefits that you don't get with VMWare Server. If you want to deprive yourself of those benefits solely because you want to be an OS biggot, well... it's really your own fault.
No offense, but you sound like one of those linux fanatics talking about Windows being only a gaming platform or something.
Indeed, there should be a Linux client, and it's understandable that your company has only a single standard, but all companies I know of have exception policies for unique situations where there is no other choice. I'd wager your company has the same, you just aren't willing to admit it (and I'd also wager your company isn't as anti-Windows as you claim, unless your "company" is your parents basement).
VMWare currently provides the best product in the virtual server space. ESX provides a lot of benefits that you don't get with VMWare Server. If you want to deprive yourself of those benefits solely because you want to be an OS biggot, well... it's really your own fault.
Non taken - I'm not a Linux fanatic and neither anyone else here. I'm just a regular user who want's to keep things simple and cost-effective as possible. I don't think Windows is capable to be even gaming platform, thats too much for Windows anyhow. You might be able to write some Wordpad documents and surf the Internet but thats it. All the closed-source software are riskfactor so why take one and even pay for it?
All we need is just VIC and VC for *nix platform. We don't need M$ for anyhting. It's useless and undocumented software.
VI Managment is solved on Vmware Server 2 whit WebUI plugin for browsers - so why not support Firefox which is truly cross-platfor supported. Then I also could agree that ESXi is OS-independent, but now it is not. Now it's just useless whitout M$. Vmware might be currently the best product in the market, but this will change fast if the architecture lays on M$ only. Customers wont tolerate the ignorance of their needs - Vmware starts to be a true and serious riskfactor. What happends if M$ makes changes (via updates) to OS and VIC and VC stops working correctly? How Vmware can secure customers from this disaster which will happend sooner or later?
ESX might provide a lot of features but those features are just unreacheble for me and all of those who don't have any M$ OS - Unusuable features whitout M$ and thats really not my fault.
Simply a bad post full of over-exaggerations.
Your non-MS policy obviously stops you from reaching your business goals. Change it.
/Henrik
Non taken - I'm not a Linux fanatic and neither anyone else here. I'm just a regular user who want's to keep things simple and cost-effective as possible. I don't think Windows is capable to be even gaming platform, thats too much for Windows anyhow. You might be able to write some Wordpad documents and surf the Internet but thats it. All the closed-source software are riskfactor so why take one and even pay for it?
All we need is just VIC and VC for *nix platform. We don't need M$ for anyhting. It's useless and undocumented software.
Well, you must be the one company in the entire world, then. 99.99% of all software used by businesses around the whole world run on Microsoft Operating Systems.
(These religious wars can be fun.)
I don't know about others, but I was not arguing that the lack of a Linux VIC/VC was good or even Ok--merely that it is realistic. Companies with zero Windows "tolerance", that I would consider to be unrealistic IMHO. But hey, you make your choices and well, you have to miss out on the fine management products available in this space. Best of luck to ya.
IBM has VMware support in their Director product, that might be something to look at. It'll run on anything with a CPU. But to get the most out of it--requirse that you have a VirtualCenter install.
Author of the upcoming book: Managing VMware Infrastructure with PowerShell
Co-Host, PowerScripting Podcast (http://powerscripting.net)
This issue (VIC not running on Linux) is not only a Linux/Windows discussion. Also, there's a growing market share for Mac OS, which is clearly not targeting low-budget customers nor home users (as Macs are a "bit" more expensive than comparable PCs/Laptops).
Still, the Hypervisor is platform-independent, the software which enables us to control it is not. VMware could develop their client software in Java. Then the whole system would really be independent from any platform whatsoever. Just a suggestion and my 2 pence/cents.
Btw, even IPMI and KVM-over-IP viewer (like Peppercon, Supermicro etc.) are available in Java, although operating close to the hardware layer would suggest using C/C++.