I'm pleased to announce an updated patch. I found some more time to work on it, and there's two big improvements:
1) It's "universal". It works for Linux 2.6.29, and Linux 2.6.30, and Linux 2.6.31!
2) Your VMware module files no longer need to be restored from backup, after a failed upgrade. The patch script is now much smarter about backing up the files that it changes. It uses checksums to make sure that it is seeing the original VMware Workstation 6.5.2 files, and when those files are found, it backs them up to a place that it uses for all future runs. The script is now idempotent: it's OK to run it more than once, it will have the same effect.
Here are 2 files, attached.
There's the shell script, and the patch file.
Download both of these files, to the same directory.
Then, run the script, as root. (Check it first, unless you REALLY trust me not to put some kind of rootkit in there!)
su <-- become root
bash ./vmware-6.5.2-newkernmods.sh <-- run the script
I tested it, and it worked, on these 3 kernels:
This is only for VMware Workstation 6.5.2. It won't work on any older version.
It's only for the host OS. It won't work on the guest OS (VMWare Tools).
It won't work on VMware Player.
It won't work on VMware Server.
Do let me know if this works successfully for you!
I'm not past the installation.
I'm looking for a response from Krellan, who should be hired by EMC/VMware to make their crap software work. He's doing a better job than the paid lumps of XXXX that work at VMware who don't even bother to even respond to this thread by offering solutions.
I'm very close to dumping VMware over this issue, and just moving on to open source solutions. I'm getting more help from people outside VMware.
What am I getting for the paid license? NOTHING.
I've actually applied several times to VMware, didn't make it in. They're pretty choosy. Although, more posts like this could help my chances. Keep it coming
I've not tried VMware 7.0 yet. I also haven't tried kernel 2.6.32 yet! Slacking, I know....
As for the problems you're having, that's really strange, and sad, that the folks at VMware didn't test their brand-new version 7.0 on all the latest kernels. They had made such good progress with 6.5.3: my patch was no longer necessary for 6.5.3, as it worked "out of the box" just fine. It's disappointing that 7.0 would be a step backward, not forward, from 6.5.3.
My recommendation: Downgrade to 6.5.3 and try that. If it still doesn't work, downgrade to 6.5.2 with my patch, and go back to that, since you already know it works for you.
The thing that irritates me is that VMware failed to fix 6.5.x for not only current kernels but older kernels before releasing 7 and forcing user/owners to buy another upgrade. If they had fixed it so that 6.5.3 worked with Fedora 11 kernels before releasing 7, then I wouldn't have had a bad feeling about VMware, but F11 was out for almost its entire cycle without ever working with 6.5.x, in spite of their being contributed patches.
I've got VMware 7 on my F11 laptop and it works fine/transparently with at least my installation -- 22.214.171.124-99.fc11.x86_64. I was thinking about flashing to F12, but if 7 is having trouble with 2.6.31 that's probably not a good idea. OTOH, my manysysadmin linux-geek friends are strongly suggesting that I try virtual box instead.
That is a bit of a shame. I've been a vmware user for years now, and am very fond of Workstation's interface. However, if VMware isn't going to maintain its products for mainstream linux kernels (and thereby forces one to freeze into an old release) then it is pretty useless to me, pretty interface or not. So it looks like F12/VB are my next order of business.
There is a larger problem with F12 than simply the kernel version. F12
ships with a cutting edge version of X11 that Vmware was not playing nice
with. I had been running F11/Vmware 6.5.3 happily, when F12 and Vmware 7.0
were released I tried to upgrade when I faced various issues related to the
X server version (sorry I've lost the thread references).
I decided to move to Ubuntu 9.10 for a while just to try something different
and I can report Vmware 7 is working fine under Ubuntu 9.10 stock kernel
releases (2.6.31-16 loaded today).
Although I've not tried VirtualBox under Linux my experiences with it under
OpenSolaris and MacOS X are positive and I can certainly recommend that you
give it a try.
In fairness, I upgraded to Fedora 12 yesterday, kernel 126.96.36.199-162.fc12.x86_64, and just installed Workstation 7 on it. Worked flawlessly out of the wrapper. I don't really like the non-RPM packed sh installation they have now, but it was simple enough.
I still plan to try virtual box, because I'm still pissed off that my perfectly good vmware 6 cash money out of pocket paid for will not work with kernels that very definitely overlapped its lifetime and they didn't and won't maitke it work so that they can screw MORE money out of me for what should be routine support of an existing product by forcing an upgrade. And it is quite a lot of money. The only reason I'm running 7 now is that I'm University faculty and they have a heavily constrained site license agreement with Duke that lets me run it for free, sort of, as long as I only use it for certain highly constrained purposes.
They don't get it. I was habitually recommending that undergraduates get vmware under the old (much more liberal) site license because it allowed them to effectively run lin under win or vice versa, because I teach programming to undergrads that only use windows and I never use windows unless I have to and teach programming only in linux or a linux-like environment. VMware makes it easy to run both, easy to transition, easy to keep win for games and lin for everything else.
Now I will be recommending something else, because I want to do more with my already existing vms than is permitted by vmware's new agreement, and I'm feeling "hostile" towards the idea of paying them more money. So virtualbox testing is still on the horizon, although I'll use workstation 7 in the short run (within the agreement) until I have time to do the full transition.
Unless you tested positive for smoking crack, and maybe even then, I can't see why you wouldn't get hired by VMware. You're the only reason I haven't dumped VMware Workstation yet. I still use ESX heavily in the enterprise, and don't have any complaints about it that don't get addressed. I understand that VMware maintains the stance that they don't officially support Workstation running on Fedora, and understand the need for support boundaries. But, come on, it's not like Fedora is a lesser desktop OS. I work for a company that has several thousand Fedora desktops deployed currently.
Every time I start to dump VMware Workstation for something else, VirtualBox and Xen previously, I've had enough problems with getting them workiong that I found one of your patches before getting them working and just came right back. In the mythical future when I get the time to figure out what I'm doing wrong with VB, or try KVM some more, I might switch. Until then, I'm patiently sitting here with FC11 188.8.131.52-102.fc11.x86_64 and Workstation 7 (which installed flawlessly to the point of shocking me). I don't have the time to try upgrading to FC12 until I hear from more people that VMware 7 working OK with it, or until I see that you've written patches to fix the installer. VMware is really missing out on some major talent in you. Maybe you should consider going to work for a large VMware partner, like a HW vendor, or really stick it to VMware and go to work for Red Hat. With you, Red Hat might be able to really blow VMware away!
Wow, thanks for the complements. I'll definitely show them this thread if I apply there again!
When I applied, though, I got the feeling that they weren't hiring any more at all for anything having to do with the VMware Workstation family. I wasn't officially told any of this (if I were, I certainly wouldn't be posting it here), so this is just my gut feelings, but I believe they're feeling the squeeze on the desktop from the free solutions such as VirtualBox and Linux KVM, and there's no more profit to be made there. The real money is in enterprise, so they're hiring for enterprise things such as virtual infrastructure (which VMware is still far ahead of all others in this area). So, VMware Workstation, being a desktop product, is somewhat mothballed.
I've been dabbling with VirtualBox. Some things about it are shockingly easy, to the point of being sublime, such as installing "Guest Additions" (the VirtualBox equivalent of VMware Tools). Other things in VirtualBox will make you tear out your hair, like opening up network settings so that one VM can talk to another VM, something VMware handles with ease. Overall, I've been very impressed with how smoothly VirtualBox works. The only feature I've missed is snapshot/restore. And, you can't beat the price of VirtualBox
Yeah, I promised a report on VB, and here it is.
I installed shiny new F12 on my Dell XPS M1530 laptop (dual core, 4 GB RAM).. As reported above, VMware Workstation 7 worked out of the bizarre shell script install routine "box", at least if the "workstation" user is a 25 year Unix geek and not Joe User (but hey, it is better than applying patches and trying to figure out where the RPM scripts were hanging a la 6.5.3). VirtualBox provided an F12 RPM (they actually have an F12 repo rpm, but I missed that the first time) . yum install, a handful of Qt dependencies, no problem.
I then TRIED to import my old VMware VM -- successfully. It is a cosmic PITA -- you have to de-install vmware tools, in vmware, get VB to find and boot it (not obvious in their menus, but muck around and it eventually "happens" -- boot into it, and then spend several happy iterations trying to get vbtools installed, a sensible network driver selected, and networking and video to work. BUT it is doable. Then it runs like a pig -- I don't think VB is "happy" (read kernel-level efficient) with vmdk, and the system used something like 1.3 processors just sitting idle in Windows plus the toplevel linux instance. Games ran like gappy pigs, music played like a gappy pig, and every now and then it would "think" for 20+ seconds after you clicked a mouse button.
I then went for a native install. XP Pro into VB's native vdi disk/file format. It proceeded pretty much flawlessly, and I've just about finished updating it into full SP3, Explorer 8 up-to-dateness. It uses around 20% of a CPU core, sustained, idle (still way too much, IMO, but that may well be Windows itself being the piggy that it is) and bumps to very close to 100% of a core when running e.g. a McAfee scan, which is good -- indicates reasonable efficiency, low overhead. I haven't reinstalled diablo II to see how a game works, but so far it is pretty smooth. The VB interface is almost as good and easy to use as Workstation's (they are very similar, actually).
I probably can't punt VMware entirely for a while, as I too have VMware server VMs out there to manage in professional settings where change is slow and deliberate and one doesn't willingly rock floating boats, but I can see why VMware is having trouble. Their proprietary source, overpriced sales strategy is not going to float, especially if they won't fix things like Workstation and indeed try the Microsoft trick of extorting another $100 out of you every year or two for "upgrades" instead of relying on feedback from a community of programmer/users to properly implement stuff like Krellen's patches.
Next on the agenda is trying KVM -- I've heard that Red Hat wants into the VM game too, and is pushing it as a mainstream solution. I still had to click through on license agreements etc to use VB, and I'm really looking for a "true" open source product (as in GPL) where all of the licensing agreements and restrictions on usage completely disappear.
Conclusion: VB is as of right now a perfectly usable, efficient, drop-in-replacement for VMware (pending verification that music and games are smooth -- that is meta-scheduler works decently). One of the notes suggested that one has to rebuild a linux kernel redefining the system clock from 1000 Hz to 100 Hz to get smooth operation -- I sincerely hope that is not the case.
Definitely give KVM a try. The only reason I messed around with VB at all was some positive comments from coworkers, but I can say good things about KVM as a virtualization solution at the enterprise level. I've used it with customers who wanted to virtualize desktops, before the Red Hat purchase of Qumranet, and was impressed with KVM and the SPICE protocol. I've just been so busy this year that I don't know whether to scratch my watch or wind my *ss. So, really learning KVM is on the back burner like trying to make VB work. I'm hoping early Jan will be slow so that the period after Christmas really lets me get to work on these things. I'm not sure on the current KVM licensing, but am guessing it might not be true GPL. The only time since the RH purchase that I've worked with it was when a Red Hat engineer set it up on a server he shipped to the site we were going to do the testing.
Your analysis about VMware starting to withdraw development for Workstation seems sound lto me. Competitiion with VirtualBox may have been the deciding factor in creating the VMware Player 3.0.0 free standalone that can now create virtual machines as well as playinkgl them. This is one of the reasons it doesn't make sense for me to upgrade to WS 7.0.
Because of the snafu ) regarding VMware's discount offer for beta atesters I just received an apology gift email ntoice of a 2GB Flash drive which is more usueful to me than a discount for a product I won't be buying. Thanks VMware!
The one experience I've had recently with Virtualbox running a .vmdk file (VM) directly wasn't verry pretty. But the comparision with installing Ubuntu Lucid 64 on serval host OS's (I'm going to try the trail for Windwos soon) was completely in VB's favor. VB worked out of the box. VMware could not enable lany video for Lucid and when booting it after a blind install (listening and watching for no disk activity) presented a menu complaining about using a one time Low Graphics mode - which I haven't gotten a workaround in anoather thread.
I will defintely try using KVM or even Xen sometime in the future. My non-existant company doesn't use it at thsi time <grin>