Please assist me in picking a host OS.

[Gimper482011101]

I realize it is almost a religion what people choose as their host os for vmware workstation.  So I will give as much detail as I can about my situation and maybe this knowledgable community can help me pick a good build.

So here is my situation.

I want to be able to run esxi cluster on a laptop within vmware workstation then within that cluster windows 08 r2, linux (several distros both server and desktop), windows 7, windows xp, .   I realize this is a bit aggressive so I setup the hardware as folllows:

2760qm (quad core 2.4 ghz)

16gb ram (to start I will up to 32 shortly)

120gb ssd drive

1gb ethernet.

All on a thinkpad w520 laptop. 

So on to the requirements.

I want a host os with low resource overhead and small disk footprint, stability, and good performance.   I am very familiar with windows of all flavors.  I am a novice at linux and a total noob at BSD.  I am comfortable building on any platform as I learn fast. 

So my number one preference would be stability.  Number two would be performance.  Number 3 is low disk footprint (due to small ssd), Number 4 ease of use..   So there you have it.  I have read all the searches I have come across and they all appear to be pre2010 and vary wildly in opinions.  So I am asking this same question in a more modern realm in that laptops can now support some very nice hardware configurations.

[Gimper482011101]

Two that I have been looking at that look promising are ubuntu 10.04 lts and windows 08r2 hyper-v.  Upon further reflection winows xp 64, or windows 2003 server 64 would work too.  I have access to all windows flavors and all linux distros.  I would really like to hear some expert opinions.  So far I only have experience running vm workstation on windows 7-pro-64.

So as you guys can see I could use some help clearing up my ignorance.

[nava_thulasi39]

Hi,

Windows 7 Professional is the right option for the host Os when compared to Windows 2003, 2008 (it will be slow, because of many services) As well as it supports more RAM.

The disadvantage is you can't install vCenter on Windows 7.

So you need a VM (Windows 2003 or 2008) for vCenter & DNS, DHCP (If required)

[Gimper482011101]

That is helpful what about windows xp 64 bit.  It would seem that would be less resource intensive.  Maybe I am just plain over thinking this.  Maybe I should spend my time learning vmware workstation then I would get my own answer.  :smileyconfused:

[nava_thulasi39]

Hi,

Windows XP 64 bit supports 16GB RAM Practically (Theoritical value is different).

And if you have 4 memory slots each has 4 GB RAM, then u will show System Memory is around 14 GB. I don't see this one in Windows 7.

And incase if you are going for RAM upgradation from 16GB to 32GB, surely you need to go to Windows 7.

[continuum · Accepted solution]

if you have the choice between XP 64 and Windows 7 - pick XP 64. It will  outrun Windows 7 with out any effort.
Even better 2003 64.
In my experience the worst choice is Win 2008 R2 - it has the most problems.

Background: here at home I run win 7 - 64, 2008 R2 and 2003 32 Enterprise in dualboot on a 8 Gb RAM host
I compare performance directly since version 6.5
The 2003 EE outruns the other 2 when it comes to VMware performance significantly

[mfelker]

If you need to run a Windows host - and want performance gains with 64-bit then  by all means use Windows XP x64 (SP2 I beleive) as others  are suggesting  I haven't tried this for  quirte awhile myself but it was very satisfactory.  I' m  multibooing    Windows 8, Debian Fedora and openSUSE on this expermental machine and Windows SBS 2011 on a machine i want moire stable - all  are runninng WS 8   Windfree frfee program  to run Windows 2008 R2 as as Workstation ( http://www.win2008workstation.com/) and you could use no extra roles and features.  This wiil work better.

The determing contraints as see it (others may differ) is the amount of memory you want to reserve  on the host to run applications on that as well as guests.  That in turn is a decison   also based on how many guests you want to run at the same time and also the aplliciation memory needed (obviously a program like Pagemaker  will need quite a bit)   A great virtute of any virtualization product is that you can change the amount of memory each guest gets as needed vs physical lmemory on the host.  You can do a lot  fine-tuning  with  VMs.

You may  choose a Linux distro based on how much you want to know about them. They all  pretty much  use lees resources than Windows distros > XP.  You will have to learn about installing   the WS Linux program - which seems to be qutie a bit more difficult to  install than the Windoiws version.

And as with everything else in computing - your mileage will vary.

[Gimper482011101]

Thank you all very much.  I have found all these helpful.  I will go with 2003 64bit as that seems to be the performance king.  I will conduct my own benchmarks as I go. I may adjust that finding later.   Thanks again all.  I would use a linux distro as I can get almost anything running in linux but I have read bad things about ubuntu and others.  Mostly performance and stabilty related.  Thanks again all.  

[Gimper482011101]

Have you benchmarked your 08 system and have you ran linux and benched that?

[mfelker]

I'd be quite interested in the benchmark programs you are planning to use. it would also be interesting to benchmark guest OS's using the same program(s) - perhaps simultaneously varying the guest/host load. Benchmarks of VM's have been published in a couple of places on the Web which were very favorable to VMware vs Vitualbox and Hyper-V). There are many combinations which would be of an interest theoretically - but in practice I think factors like ease of installation, useability to tasks, networking for clients, users VAR's etc etc etc. are more important (at least to me). Naturally these are subjective. Goes without a a doubt of course that WS is the most expensive product - however you can't evaluate Hyper-V because it is bundled in expensive MS products.