Difference between cloning a machine and copying files

[fernandoch]

I cannot see the difference between cloning a virtual machine and copying the files that make up the virtual machine to another destination.

Can someone please tell me the difference?

[admin]

Cloning the virtual machine will create a new MAC address and UUID for the VM.

In the case of linked clones, they also save a lot of disk space since they re-use the virtual disk files from the source VM.

[fernandoch]

But if you copy the files, you get a warning message the first time and the second time you get nothing...

[admin]

Right. I don't remember offhand if that will create a new MAC address for you.

Anyway, you can copy the VM manually if you want (and that's what people did before we added the cloning feature), but creating a full clone is meant to be more convenient.

[RDPetruska]

I believe Cloning also renames all the appropriate files for you, instead of you having to manually rename (and edit config+descriptor files) them.

[dhutson]

I've noticed it renames the cloned disk files - They usually end up looking something like the example below:

WS2003EE (R2) Base Image-cl3-s002.vmdk

I guess cloning a VM must generate both a new UUID and a new MAC address - I have an activated Vista base image and cloned it as preparation for playing around with the automated installation kit and now get a message that my machine's hardware has changed significantly and that I have 3 days to re-activate Vista. The base image is fine and still shows Windows as having been activated.

Cloning a Base image works fine for Windows XP and Windows Server 2003 and does not throw the activation code - I guess Vista must be very sensitive to the new MAC address(es)/UUID generated when the image is cloned.