geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jason Dillon <ja...@planet57.com>
Subject Re: VMware on GBuild?
Date Fri, 28 Jul 2006 18:17:59 GMT
On Jul 28, 2006, at 11:09 AM, Aaron Mulder wrote:
> On 7/28/06, Jason Dillon <jason@planet57.com> wrote:
>> Why not use Xen ( http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Tools/Xen )?
>
> Because I understand that it's sensitive to the host OS and I don't
> want to fool with it.

Mmmkay :-P  Well maybe we will have to set Xen up on GBuild west and  
see which is better ;-)


>> If you just plan to use VMWare workstation, then chances are you are
>> going to be wasting a bunch of cycles.  Would be better to just run
>> multiple instances of Geronimo.
>
> No, was going to use VMware Server.   It's now final and free.

Doh, I did not realize they were giving it away for free.


> If I thought it was going to be possible to have multiple TCKs running
> simultaneously, I would, but that seems to be such a massive
> undertaking that I'm not willing to do it myself.  Do you think it's
> easier than I'm speculating?

How hard could it be?  Change some port numbers... run from a  
different directory?


>> I've had really bad luck with VMWare in the past so I am a bit jaded
>> to using it.  Previously we had a big box running ESX, and a few
>> virtual machines on it.  We setup our main build/ci server as one of
>> them... and it was so slow.... the vm had 100% utilization, but the
>> host was only at like 20%.
>
> I've had pretty good experience with VMware Server.  Very low overhead
> and no limits like you're describing.  It did seem that a database
> server suffered a little, but it was still quite usable, and I don't
> think the TCK does major disk access like that.

Aight, fair enough.  I'm interested to see how well it performs.

--jason


>
> Thanks,
>    Aaron
>
>> On Jul 28, 2006, at 10:21 AM, Aaron Mulder wrote:
>>
>> > I'm interested in setting up VMware Server on my GBuild boxes,  
>> since
>> > my understanding is that the TCK is pretty single-threaded and we
>> > ought to get better utilization out of the (dual-CPU) machines  
>> if we
>> > ran the host plus one VM or just two VMs (and forget about the  
>> host)
>> > on each box.
>> >
>> > It sounds like memory might be the constraining feature -- my boxes
>> > have 1.5, 2, and 4 GB respectively and I wonder whether  
>> splitting the
>> > smaller ones in half would leave enough RAM for the TCK to run.   
>> Would
>> > 512 or 768 be enough?
>> >
>> > The other question is IPs.  I only have 3 IPs.  Is there any way  
>> for
>> > me to put all the boxes/VMs behind a NAT and have them share 1  
>> IP with
>> > various port forwards, or do they really need to each have a public
>> > IP?
>> >
>> > Thanks,
>> >     Aaron
>>
>>


Mime
View raw message