VMWare Server on Windows XP vs. VMWare Server on Linux

[her209]

Which performs better?

VMWare Server installed on Windows XP with Linux installed on a VM
VMWare Server installed on Linux with Windows XP installed on a VM

 

[Nothinman]

I would say the latter, but it's purely anecdotal.

 

[spyordie007]

It is purely anecdotal, what's most important is that your hardware has VT support, you have enough RAM and fast enough storage. In other words the hardware is far more important.

 

[Tarrant64]

Depends on what you rely on most. Your hardware will be one of the other key factors though.

 

[Nothinman]

It is purely anecdotal, what's most important is that your hardware has VT support, you have enough RAM and fast enough storage. In other words the hardware is far more important.

It's purely anecdotal but I'll stand by it because I have had to go back and forth between platforms regularly at my last job and Linux handled the additional load noticably better even if I didn't benchmark anything.

VT support is optional, I don't think any of my machines have it and it runs fine and IIRC it can even slow things down a bit.

 

[heymrdj]

I find the Windows VMWare a little more stable then the Linux VMware. I found a few issues running heavy amounts of VM's on debian that I didn't have on Windows Server 2003, XP, or Vista. But either way really is going to be just about equal. Just make the host OS the one you use most often.

 

[Brazen]

Originally posted by: Nothinman

It is purely anecdotal, what's most important is that your hardware has VT support, you have enough RAM and fast enough storage. In other words the hardware is far more important.

It's purely anecdotal but I'll stand by it because I have had to go back and forth between platforms regularly at my last job and Linux handled the additional load noticably better even if I didn't benchmark anything.

VT support is optional, I don't think any of my machines have it and it runs fine and IIRC it can even slow things down a bit.

The linux kernel has (what is generally considered uncontestable) better process scheduling and more efficient resource usage than Windows. As such, I would think having a Windows guest being managed by a linux host would be better than having a linux guest managed by a Windows host.

In the end though, I would agree with heymrdj and just make the host OS the one you use most often.

 

[quikah]

Originally posted by: spyordie007
It is purely anecdotal, what's most important is that your hardware has VT support, you have enough RAM and fast enough storage. In other words the hardware is far more important.

VT is only needed if you plan to run 64-bit guests. Otherwise it isn't even used.

The Server 2.0 beta is out now.

I would suspect that the performance difference between windows and linux hosts is pretty minimal.

 

[Red Squirrel]

Linux hands down.

I had like 3 VMs running on my AMD 2000+ server and they outperformed my 3 VMs running in windows 2003 on a dual xeon server class machine (was a poweredge 2850 I think) with more ram and scsi raid. In windows vms will tend to be more slugish I find. Though the ones running at work where a bit more intense (the vms themselves) so I really can't use those two to compare.

Also in Linux you can have up to 100 VMnets, in Windows you're limited to 10. Make that 7 if you don't want to count the specialized ones (host only, bridged, and nat). Vmnets can be very useful when creating a router infrastructures. (1 vmnet per "network")