ScriptUO
Casa de TrailMyx => Programming / Operating Systems => Virtualization => Topic started by: TrailMyx on November 06, 2008, 09:27:46 AM
-
Ok, so if you haven't tried to run a virtual machine yet with UO, I suggest you try. You can easily get 4 instances of UO running on an average desktop computer. The best thing about doing this is the VM instances don't interact with one another like they might if you try to use multiple clients on the same OS.
I'll try and go through the setup procedure for several popular VM software suppliers and you can come here to have some of your questions answered when you run into problems. To get you started, here's some links for several popular VM clients:
VirtualBox (http://www.virtualbox.org/) Sun Microsystems
Virtual PC 2007 (http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyId=04D26402-3199-48A3-AFA2-2DC0B40A73B6&displaylang=en) Microsoft Corporation
VMWare Workstation (http://www.vmware.com/products/ws/) VMWare (the one I use mostly)
VMware Player (http://www.vmware.com/products/player/) VMware
Fedora Virtualization (Xen) (http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Virtualization_Quick_Start) Redhat
Also, here's a nice link describing the differences between the various Virtualization offerings:
http://virt.kernelnewbies.org/TechComparison
A word here about VMWare:
You'll find that I have a bias toward VMWare. There's a few reasons for it:
1) Virtual machines will run from both Linux or Windows clients. So I copy my "master" VM from my Windows world and linux, and it just "works".
2) VMware multithreads very well. There are problems with some VM managers where they work fine with a single thread, but when you try to use more than one application, they will bog down. VMWare handles this very well.
3) VMWare tools are fast. Installing the video/USB/mouse drivers makes the machine very snappy. Better than the others (and non existant in ZEN)
4) VMWare handles multiple CPU very well
5) Virtual machine cloning
6) VM snapshot capability and movie creation.
7) Lots more... I just can't remember them all now.
-
I've always wanted to set this up, yet never really understood the procedure.
Anxiously awaiting a walk thru.
-
I will probably start with VirtualBox since that one is free to anyone and you can create your own virtual images. (and it doesn't have anything to do with MS).
-
I heart VMWare. I have alot of licensed copies of it from work that I use at home for UO, makes heartwood running soo much easier because I can still use my computer while it is running ;)
-
I've used mostly Virtual PC for my desktop stuff with great success but haven't spent much time with VMWare Server. I do manage about 30 or so ESX hosts at work and I am a VMWare lover for sure. Of course you don't get the awesome enterprise ESX features with VMWare Server but considering ESX isn't free I wouldn't expect anything more.
Where I'm at is wanting to have a firm base of understanding for chosing MS Virtual PC or VMWare Server other than not wanting to us a MS product. Both are free. Both are easy to install and use. Both are well supported. Why then chose VMWare Server over Virtual PC 2007?
So, I decided to spend some time today setting up VMWare Server on my HP Workstation class PC here at work where I have Virtual PC 2007 running and see how things go. While I'm at it I figure I'll do some playing around with a Linux image.
Thanks for keeping the topics fresh TM!!
XII
-
Ok, just getting ready to install it after a 580 meg download!?!? Compare this to MS Virtual PC 2007 at about 32megs. I'll assume for now that the reason will become clear to me eventually! ::)
XII
EDIT - Holy crap, this includes a full Apache install?!?! Woah, the reason for the DL size is certainly becoming clear!
EDIT 2 - Ok, so there has got to be a huge difference with the VMWare Workstation product because VMWare server is certainly not competition for Virtual PC 2007 since VPC is directed at a general user market thus is much simpler than VMWare Server which is really a step toward ESX (a lot like GSX really). So my guess is that VM Server is not going to find it's way into the general consumer market whereby VPC most certainly will. TM, is VM Workstation simpler to use (ie, no web management etc)? I'll have fun playing with this but your general UO player and part-time scripter is going to be lost with Server.
-
TM, is VM Workstation simpler to use (ie, no web management etc)? I'll have fun playing with this but your general UO player and part-time scripter is going to be lost with Server.
VMWare Workstation is much simpler to use because each instance includes it's own UI in its own application. In that respect, VMWare Workstation and VirtualBox are similar. I just got done with a fresh installation of VirtualBox and have been running the quester with it over the weekend. I think it's still a tad slower than VMWare, but the price is right. Free is good. For the casual hobbyist wanting to play around with virtualization, it works well enough.
Here's a pic of the VMWare Workstation UI (I'm only running v5.5):
(http://img185.imageshack.us/img185/7323/virtualizationvmwareyj2.jpg)
-
VM workstation is a much more user friendly interface especially when compared to ESX and VM Server. I do have to agree that the VirtualBox software is a tad slower but if your looking for free VirtualBox is well worth it.
-
Yep that UI is much simpler.
Also, just want to point out since it has already been mentioned that VB is free, so if VMWare Server 2 and Virtual PC 2007. Looks like I might have to cough up the $189 to get VMWare Workstation though if I want to test, nobody at work will let go of any 6.0 licenses (nobody has 6.5) even though they aren't using them LOL.
Man, $189 is a little steep IMO when VB and MS VPC are free! With Server it seems like they are giving it away only to get Enterprise level users hooked into the idea of going to the full ESX environment rather than looking to compete with the general consumer products.
-
Man, $189 is a little steep IMO when VB and MS VPC are free! With Server it seems like they are giving it away only to get Enterprise level users hooked into the idea of going to the full ESX environment rather than looking to compete with the general consumer products.
Yeh, I agree. However, the performance of VMWare seems to be faster, and faster still when you have multiple instances of Workstation running on a single CPU. So I guess it's a matter of getting what you pay for.
Personally, I haven't used the ESX offering or any of the enterprise stuff. I'd like to have all the system resources managed by a server; that sound more efficient!
-
I haven't gotten any 6.5 licenses yet but I might (no guarantees) be able to get you a 6.0 license. Might be a couple of days before I know for sure as I gotta dig through and see what we have left ;)
-
I haven't gotten any 6.5 licenses yet but I might (no guarantees) be able to get you a 6.0 license. Might be a couple of days before I know for sure as I gotta dig through and see what we have left ;)
Are you effing serious?!?!?! That would be awesome!! From what you guys are saying I will be much happier with VMW than VPC. Today is starting to look like a much better day than it started out looking!!! :P
On the ESX front TM, I think one of the coolest features IMO is the way shared memory is handled by the host in that guests running on the same host with the same code in memory will share applicable memory rather than loading the same code over and over for every guest. This obviously allows for more efficient use of the hardware resources and for loading more guests on a single host, especially when you start organizing guests to take advantage of this ability.
We're running Enterprise here so of course the HA features and VMotion are the icing on the cake. Nothing like moving guests from one host to another with zero downtime! Of course nothing too exciting for your general UO scripter but for critical system business continuity there's no other option IMO.
XII
-
One of these days I will play with it. Limited brain bandwidth at the moment. :) But ESX did look cool.
I haven't even run Virtual PC yet, mainly because it's a Microsoft offering and I've been trying to get away from MS. Trying is the operative word because I have a pretty deep dependence on .NET now with SUO. Ugh.
-
ESX is very cool, we run it on our security suite and host 4 servers on it which has saved a ton of cost :)
Yeah I am serious about the license, just gotta see what we have, my team has access to alot of Volume licensing goodness ;)
-
ive used vmware for years... ive tried a few of the other virtualization systems out there and still find that vmware has to be the best one ive ever ran across...
-
I use Virtual PC 2007 mainly. Right now I run Windows XP 64-bit as my main operating system. Then I use Virtual PC to run a Windows 7 beta, Windows Vista, Ubuntu, and Fedora. It just sucks that you can only use the 32-bit version in VPC. I would love to play around with 64-bit version of Ubuntu and Fedora on there, but oh well!
-
VMWare workstation and you can do whatever you want ;)
-
Can i look for another copy to run on an overclocked 900 Mhz AMD Tbred with 384 meg of ram with the use of vmware?
-
I dunno if that would even run VMware or any virtualization software really.
-
Masscre, you're issue is mainly going to be your RAM. 384 is barely enough for a host OS TBH. The guest really doesn't need much, hell you can run UO on a Windows 98 image last I knew, but 384 is pretty low. The proc is probably fine, you wouldn't be able to run dozens of guests or anything but memory is key.
I would upgrade to a gig of cheap memory and give it a shot. You could probably pull two low-end guests with that host with a gig of memory, won't be great but it will work and will be a hell of a lot cheaper and more convenient then running three seperate physical devices!
XII
-
Yea memory is definitely the key to success with virtual machines...I have 8GB on my main system, and I allocate 2GB for each of my 2 virtual machines.
-
It also really matters what your VM OS will be. If you are trying to do a bunch of Win7 VMs, then 2GB is good, but if you just have a few Win2000 VMs, then you can easily live with 512MB. Actually, I ran a whole bunch of VMs at 384MB under Win2K.
-
I would also suggest that VMWare handles memory a little better than Microsoft Virtual PC 2007 so if you are scrapped for memory you may want to keep that in mind. I tend to use MS VPC07 because it's free and extremely easy to setup and manage however VMWare products aren't really that difficult either.
TM, I'm not sure I understand what you are saying. Are you saying 384 megs of RAM is enough to effectively run multiple guest OS's or are you saying 384 assigned to each guest on a host that has a couple of gig? I would agree with the latter but I would hate to be running with shared 384!! :P
XII
-
I'm just saying that I was successful at running a VM client with 384M dedicated to it. You do require more memory for the host of course, but each client under Win2K runs well with only that much.
-
Thanks for the info guys I also have a dell 3 GHZ with a gig of ram i can work with so it would be easy to do 2 guest os lets say win2000 and possibly a 3rd with this system. These are all computer by the way that i had left over from my store when i closed it most are trade in after i upgraded them I have prolly like 5 or 6 desktops and 10 laptops :)
-
I've been running my VM for a few weeks now.. just about every day, I duno if this is a Client Problem, VM Problem, or what.
but My UO Client Crashes almost Every day. I duno if I have to add more memory to the VM or what?
-
I do get more client crashes on the VM, not daily but every once in a while. What VM software are you using?
-
Sun VM
-
Oh, VirtualBox. I dunno, I have been testing the new MIB Farmer on it for hours at a time without problem. The 3.0 version is a bit touchy, you might try going back to version 2.2.4
-
Wow, VM Workstation was easy to setup. Installed, internet didn't work, set it to bridged, rebooted the VM, bam. Everything works like a charm. Running Windows 7 with Windows 7 in a VM... :) Now to find a Windows XP cd and see if THAT will work. I'm guessing that running XP is a lot more responsive... Not really an issue I have 6 gigs of ram tho and a fast computer.
-
I run Win2003 and Win2000 quite easily. I like Win2000 because I can get away with 384MB/4G partitions.
-
I run Win2003 and Win2000 quite easily. I like Win2000 because I can get away with 384MB/4G partitions.
I've never used VMWorkstation before. Any cool features I should be aware of? :) I haven't done anything with it yet besides Heartwood Questing! haha
-
Hmm, not really. I haven't been able to use VMware much since it HATES the latest Linux kernel. jeez!
-
Hmm, not really. I haven't been able to use VMware much since it HATES the latest Linux kernel. jeez!
Well one of the nicest features is running uo in its OWN VERSION of vista, seems to cut WAY down on the crashes for me. Clean instal ftw on VMWare Workstation. Thank you TM! You know... I wonder how well your TMAdvJournal would work scanning for UO chat messages between clients in seperate vm's? :) Oh the fun I'm gonna have.
-
Ok,
I've read this thread from beginning to end, and all I can find is discussion about all the pros and cons of each VM client. Now I ask the question that hasn't been asked. HOW is virtualization the key to scripting success? I've been toying around with the tutorials to try and get a feel for the scripting language, and I'm not having a lot of luck catching on. Will running my UO client in a VM assist in this somehow?
-
When you are running a multiclient from just one host operating system, you tend to get the clients tangled up because you might be moving the mouse with one client that might mess up the motion of another. With a VM, the mouse and video are kept separate from one another so they can't affect the execution of each other.
I just mentioned video, and if your script relies on OCR (like the quester), in a VM the screen is actually local to each VM instance. What that means is you can have a page covering a VM instance, but because it's got it's own virtual video card, that coverage will not effect the VM. So basically you can minimize the VM instance and it won't effect the OCR function.
Running a script in a VM pretty much will allow you to do other things with your computer without worrying about your own actions messing up the scripts execution.
That's success in my book!
-
That's success in my book!
I think I had an accident the first time I ran Heartwood Quester and minimized it to see and when I came back I had 3 runics and tons of talis. I browsed the net and thought I'd won UO without even playing. Seriously tho, it's VERY nice. I even have my neice saying, it's a "COMPUTER INSIDE A COMPUTER!" Fun for the whole family. :)
-
has anyone tried the HWQuester with a VM? i got mine all set up and running but the script is running much slower than normal. It crafts the bows at a normal pace but its very slow at getting the right quest and then marking the bows quest items
-
Is it your computer Rn? I have a Quad Core Phenom with 6 gigs of ram and I can run multiple vm's without any lag. I also have a very high speed connection to UO and normally never ping over 30... I have had 6 vm's going at once with no problems. There's not a lot you can do but maybe turn your monitor down to 16 bit, set your refresh rate to as high as it will go for what resolution you are set at. Then set it as high as it will go in EACH vm also. Sounds like you have a bottleneck somewhere tho, processor/video card/connection... my bet would be processor/video by what you said. Remember you're running a WHOLE nother operating system so it's a little resource hoggy especially if you're running UO in it. :)
-
think i figured out what it was, i was running service pack 1 and i should be using service pack 3. ill update as soon as i finishing downloading it
my comp is not top of the line but it def shouldnt be a prob to run a couple VMs if i wanted
2g ram
geforce 9600gt
2.33GHz intel core2 duo
250g ram
good cable
almost forgot... the problem was that it was only using around 90mb of PF usage
-
250g ram
250g ram !! wow! I'm sure you mean you HD size ;)
-
250g ram
250g ram !! wow! I'm sure you mean you HD size ;)
err, sorry. im terrible with hardware lingo/specs
update on my problem
installed SP3
i then tried to "Install Virtual Machine Additions" (im using Microsoft Virtual PC 2007)
once it restarts it only has 4-bit coloring and something is obviously wrong
i uninstalled the Additions and i can run UO again but its still only using limited resources
-
Change your resolution to 16 bit in the video options in the vm....
-
So...I've definitely decided I like VirtualBox the best. I am currently running Windows 7 Professional as my main OS, with a Xubuntu, Chromium OS, and Windows XP SP3 (32-bit) virtual machines. I use the Xubuntu box anytime I'm programming for my OS class (instead of having to deal with Cygwin in Windows). I use the WinXP box when I'm searching for anything dangerous (such as keygens, etc) since it's very difficult to get viruses through a virtual machine (however, you CAN get viruses, so still be careful). The ChromiumOS (Google's new OS that's still in like pre-Alpha) box I just installed to play around with it. It's pretty friggin cool!
Anyways, if anyone has any VBox questions, just ICQ me or PM me because I can probably tell ya what to do or what you're doing wrong. I think it's by far the best VM program out there and you can't beat free!!
-
Just keep in mind that VBox does have some performance issues. I've done some speed comparisons between VMware and VBox, and for things like Rar, WinZip or any other CPU intensive application, VBox simply lags way behind VMware. FYI
-
If I need to zip or unzip anything, I'd just do it on my main PC...I like VBox with Xubuntu because I can run it in Seamless Mode fullscreen on my third monitor and it's like having another tower underneath my desk running it!
-
Just pointing out things I've found as I migrated from VMware to VBox. Never had that problem in VMware and sometimes it gets annoying when I have to go out of the virtual OS to the native OS to do particular things. That said, I still use VBox primarily since I just got tired of trying to build the VMware kernel level drivers. Kernel changes can totally bork VMware regardless of your distro.
-
whats the best VM to use for file sharing.. I'm having a bitch of a time sharing with Windows XP (Primary) and Windows 7 (VM) I'm probably going to to change it to windows xp..
-
I just set up my first VM using VM Workstation. Was pretty easy to set up and was a peice of cake to load software with the drag and drop feature.
What are people doing for operating systems and what do folks recommend? I am guessing I want the smallest memory footprint that runs well. Is that XP? What about Windows 2000?
Do I need to buy a license for each VM? Seems like I remember Windows 2000 not checking online to match keys, but maybe it was before even 2000.
I can probably justify the 190 for Workstation if its the best option. Certainly was easy to set up. Sounds like Maddog likes VirtualBox better and if that's free and works as well its hard to justify paying for the same thing...
-
The windows option works very well imo also. I like the VMware one best, but I've only used VMware and Windows Virtual PC, but I've installed most operating systems successfully on VMware and it seems to work perfectly in Windows 7 with most any operating system.
-
What are people doing for operating systems and what do folks recommend? I am guessing I want the smallest memory footprint that runs well. Is that XP? What about Windows 2000?
XP is your safest and easiest bet IMO. No authorization and still supported (unlike 2k). Enter Vista and 2k7 and you have all of the OS registration stuff to contend with not to mention HUGE space and memory requirements that simply aren't necessary for scripting machines. I use 4gig drive files with 256Megs RAM and Windows XP and install nothing but UO and whatever UO-specific tools I need. No Viruscan, no swap file, just let 'er rip.
Do I need to buy a license for each VM? Seems like I remember Windows 2000 not checking online to match keys, but maybe it was before even 2000.
If you are being honest and actually purchasing your licenses then yes, consider each copy of a guest OS that you run virtually as an entirely new machine thus requiring a seperate OS client license. No, there are no checks and balances, it's an honor system thing until you get to Vista/2k7 (see above). The CD-Keys mean absolutely nothing, you can build 1,000,000,000,000,000 machines with the same CD key.
I can probably justify the 190 for Workstation if its the best option. Certainly was easy to set up. Sounds like Maddog likes VirtualBox better and if that's free and works as well its hard to justify paying for the same thing...
You don't need to pay for Microsoft Virtual PC and it works great. Furthermore, you have it set up already. Why change it? I say keep using what you've already done.
X
-
I thought that XP had that authorization thingy? That's kinda why I'm using 2003 for my VMs.
-
I thought that XP had that authorization thingy? That's kinda why I'm using 2003 for my VMs.
Never had to deal with that before TBH. I think you can, depends on the version of XP you're installing I guess (retail/OEM/Enterprise/etc). I always use either OEM or Enterprise media NEVEREVEREVEREVEREVER use Retail media!
X
-
I thought that XP had that authorization thingy? That's kinda why I'm using 2003 for my VMs.
Never had to deal with that before TBH. I think you can, depends on the version of XP you're installing I guess (retail/OEM/Enterprise/etc). I always use either OEM or Enterprise media NEVEREVEREVEREVEREVER use Retail media!
X
Not sure we're talking about the same thing here, but Virtual PC for windows is downloadable off their website and came with XP already installed, I never had to install a thing... and you can make as many copies as you like. At least I can...? Not sure how it works now, I downloaded it before I did an upgrade install of Windows 7 Ultimate over the beta...? :)
-
I loaded up Virtual PC and had it set up with Windows XP from a disk I had handy, it didn't download with an OS. When I VPC got to the OS install it asked me for an XP key and did not accept my windows 7 key. I took it off of my computer to make sure that I was not doing something wrong and tried again, same result.
I then loaded up VM Workstation and same thing. Got to the OS install and XP wanted a key. My 7 key didn't work here either. I did some poking around online and read that the first Win7 service pack you download invalidates the backward compatible license that comes with 7. Not 100%, since I read it through third party sites.
Meanwhile I remembered that I have a key to a copy of XP from a desktop that was stolen. I tried that and it worked to allows me to complete the install on one VM Workstation. I have not tried it on another yet.
The version of XP running in workstation asks me to register it each time it starts and says I have 30 days to register.
I am running a 30 day trial of workstation. If I am not blown away I will uninstall and try something else when the trial expires.
-
I loaded up Virtual PC and had it set up with Windows XP from a disk I had handy, it didn't download with an OS. When I VPC got to the OS install it asked me for an XP key and did not accept my windows 7 key. I took it off of my computer to make sure that I was not doing something wrong and tried again, same result.
I then loaded up VM Workstation and same thing. Got to the OS install and XP wanted a key. My 7 key didn't work here either. I did some poking around online and read that the first Win7 service pack you download invalidates the backward compatible license that comes with 7. Not 100%, since I read it through third party sites.
Meanwhile I remembered that I have a key to a copy of XP from a desktop that was stolen. I tried that and it worked to allows me to complete the install on one VM Workstation. I have not tried it on another yet.
The version of XP running in workstation asks me to register it each time it starts and says I have 30 days to register.
I am running a 30 day trial of workstation. If I am not blown away I will uninstall and try something else when the trial expires.
You can't use a Windows 7 key for Windows XP, you have to use a Windows XP key.
-
Ah, problem is that if you use the same key too much, when the OS finally uplinks to the mothership, they will flag it and force you to call into MS directly. I had that happen a couple times when I was reinstalling my OS on another drive or even if I had a major BIOS change. It was this crap that finally drove me to using Linux full-time.
-
12, the license for 7 is supposed to include a license for XP, or at least that is what I read -- but it only comes with one key, so I gave it a shot. Then I read that the first time you get a 7 update it invalidates the XP license on the key.
-
Windows XP Mode for Windows 7 Pro and up
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/virtual-pc/download.aspx
-
12, the license for 7 is supposed to include a license for XP, or at least that is what I read -- but it only comes with one key, so I gave it a shot. Then I read that the first time you get a 7 update it invalidates the XP license on the key.
Ah I see. I do recall that a number of 2k7 keys do indeed come with a free "XP downgrade".