Re: VMware (was Re: current bind version)

[Les Mikesell <lesmikesell@xxxxxxxxx>]

On 2/24/11 8:56 PM, Scott Robbins wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 25, 2011 at 03:44:32PM +1300, Machin, Greg wrote:
>
>
> <snip of good information>
>
>> Rather use ESXi 4.1 and get
>> up and running quickly. If your hardware is not on the supported list
>> there are other lists of tested hardware where people have it running on
>> "Unsupported" hardware.
>>
>> Player is not a solution if the Virtual machine needs to be running
>> 24/7. It's more suited to testing and demo use.
>
> Agreed--I haven't really found server, however, to be all that great for
> 24/7, so I assumed (and we know what happens when one assumes), that it
> was being used for testing.  For any sort of production use, ESXi 4.1 is
> quite good.

Player isn't good for most of my usage because most of the time I don't want the 
console display at all - I just connect to the guests remotely with 
freenx/ssh/vnc when necessary.  And I have Server 1.x setups that have run for 
years with no attention or downtime.  I agree that ESXi is better, but it wasn't 
free when I built the VMs and I'm running some native Centos stuff on the host 
along with several guests.

Anyway, my point was that the fabled library ABI stability of RHEL turned out 
not to work for VMware Server 2.0.   But CentOS did come through with 
bug-for-bug compatibility as promised, causing the same crashing behavior after 
the same minor-rev update.

-- 
   Les Mikesell
     lesmikesell@xxxxxxxxx



_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos