VPS or bare metal? What would you use?

[Phas3L0ck]

Had a question for a long time that yields mixed responses; if someone had a server with say M$ Win2K8R2, (or 2012R2) and they wanted to host virtual machines on the side with unused resources from current system operations, what would you, the users, prefer to have your VPS/VPC image operating on?  (and please give a short description of your choice*)

 

1. Hyper-V (system feature of Win-Server, NOT a dedicated appliance)

2. VMware Workstation  (more versatile; no automation available, but can run as a background process; easier to maintain; less problematic than Hyper-V at all)

 

*ESXi not possible, system would have an existing load*

Again, these would be the only choices available for hosting VPC images on an active server with other tasks running.

 

NOTE:  This is more or less an open poll; I only want a general answer set to determine practicality of one over the other...

Thank you for reading.

[Levent]

I tend to favor VMware just because their solutions are a lot less hassle compared to free/open source stuff. Also I am not sure if I understand your question fully, are you going to rent out VPS' on your server? 

[Phas3L0ck]

1 minute ago, Levent said:

I tend to favor VMware just because their solutions are a lot less hassle compared to free/open source stuff. Also I am not sure if I understand your question fully, are you going to rent out VPS' on your server? 

I'm asking in general; people love the technology of VMware, but would you welcome someone using VMware Workstation to host your VPC image?

Or, would you be essentially turned-off by the idea of a type-2 hypervisor being used as the host software rather than the industry standard type-1, joining the communal stigma that surrounds the use of PC software for full-time operation?

[Trinopoty]

Personally, as long as my task is being done well, I don't give a damn what VM platform the person is using to host.

That said, I take some features for granted, for instance, the ability to poweroff and reboot without SSHing into the machine (in case it's not responding). If you can't give me that, I won't host with you.

Another thing I like to take for granted is public IP allocation to my VM. I don't want to deal with a NAT solution whatsoever.

[Phas3L0ck]

On 8/30/2019 at 11:54 PM, Trinopoty said:

Personally, as long as my task is being done well, I don't give a damn what VM platform the person is using to host.

That said, I take some features for granted, for instance, the ability to poweroff and reboot without SSHing into the machine (in case it's not responding). If you can't give me that, I won't host with you.

Another thing I like to take for granted is public IP allocation to my VM. I don't want to deal with a NAT solution whatsoever.

Ah, my first real feedback, finally! Thank you for the vote, this is helpful for my vision.

 

As far as essential hardware functions such as power, here is the current situation:

 - IP allocation is a given-- I use Bridged by default. (I also hate NAT, too many stability issues)

 - Reboot is possible through the guest OS

 - Power off is easy enough-- *I haven't solved the remote Power-ON remote boot problem yet, but as soon as I figure out how to enable Wake-On-LAN on VMware Virtual Networking, it's all good* (in the future, this should be fixed or automated)

 

There's just one sucky problem I haven't been able to fix; lack of remote access to the boot screen of any VM during initial bootup-- which isn't typically a problem unless you get BSOD all the time or someone decides to use encryption that requires passcode entry at boot... VMware does have VNC access capabilities, so as soon as I learn how that works I'll get back to you. In the meantime, there is a partial fix; the use of VMware vSphere client to remotely login to the virtual instance-- but I'm still working out the details of possibilities of session authentication, security, and general compatibility.

 

Again, I plan to automate things like this in the future so you can do bootups through a command line and view the load screen. Even then, viewing the load screen is one thing, being able to interact with it is another.

 

I think you highlighted 2 of my biggest problems, and I'll certainly try to work those out to make my idea more appealing.

[Phas3L0ck]

On 8/30/2019 at 11:54 PM, Trinopoty said:

Personally, as long as my task is being done well, I don't give a damn what VM platform the person is using to host.

That said, I take some features for granted, for instance, the ability to poweroff and reboot without SSHing into the machine (in case it's not responding). If you can't give me that, I won't host with you.

Another thing I like to take for granted is public IP allocation to my VM. I don't want to deal with a NAT solution whatsoever.

UPDATE: In reference to your reply and my previous response, I FIXED IT! It turned out to be a simple matter of software socialization-- VMware talks to VMware!

 

I discovered the ability to use my VMware Workstation installation as a software-type server, hosting VMs as "shared" for remote access. All features and full control of a VPC boot screen and power function can be accessed by users through their VMware Workstation's "Connect to Server" option in the program's start screen.

AND, I successfully tested it to be usable over the internet!  And yes, it is secure.

The only thing left to do now is configure user security access rights and privileges. As soon as I know for sure that one person can't see another's VM, I can start prototyping my potential service to the public.

[AbsoluteFool]

I don't use type 2 hypervisors alot. But for  the applications i do use them for virtualbox seem to be more than good enough. It has the most basic that's needed and can simply be transfered to any type 1 hypervisor of my choice later on. But yeah.. Virtualbox licensing is tricky as with all free stuff 

[NelizMastr]

Don't forget HyperV isn't limited to Windows Server, it's also available as a feature for Pro and Enterprise versions of Windows 8 and up.

[Phas3L0ck]

21 hours ago, AbsoluteFool said:

I don't use type 2 hypervisors alot. But for  the applications i do use them for virtualbox seem to be more than good enough. It has the most basic that's needed and can simply be transfered to any type 1 hypervisor of my choice later on. But yeah.. Virtualbox licensing is tricky as with all free stuff 

Seriously? People still use VirtualBox by Oracle? Does anyone realize how inferior that is to VMware? It's practically obsolete, like that weird hypervisor that Citrix has...

Anyhow, this isn't about what you use, it's about what should be used (from what's possible) to deliver a service of hosting a virtual PC in the cloud to you.

21 hours ago, NelizMastr said:

Don't forget HyperV isn't limited to Windows Server, it's also available as a feature for Pro and Enterprise versions of Windows 8 and up.

Seen and used it personally. Not impressed.  Don't forget I'm running a server, not some lousy desktop. If you're gonna bring up a PC OS in a server software discussion, at least substantiate your statement of the obvious with something more notable besides the common "you're not the only one who has..." remark.

My question was how a user prefers to have their VM hosted in the case that type-2 installations are the only option.

[AbsoluteFool]

7 hours ago, Phas3L0ck said:

Seriously? People still use VirtualBox by Oracle? Does anyone realize how inferior that is to VMware? It's practically obsolete, like that weird hypervisor that Citrix has...

Anyhow, this isn't about what you use, it's about what should be used (from what's possible) to deliver a service of hosting a virtual PC in the cloud to you.

Seen and used it personally. Not impressed.  Don't forget I'm running a server, not some lousy desktop. If you're gonna bring up a PC OS in a server software discussion, at least substantiate your statement of the obvious with something more notable besides the common "you're not the only one who has..." remark.

My question was how a user prefers to have their VM hosted in the case that type-2 installations are the only option.

The Cloud and VM and what type of hypervisor you choose is not even remotely the same. Perhaps you should make up your mind what you are asking for.

 

Type1 hypervisor will always be prefered over a type2. And as it seems you do have knowledge about this i don't really understand why you ask a question at all.

 

Btw Citrix uses XenServer...

[Phas3L0ck]

2 hours ago, AbsoluteFool said:

The Cloud and VM and what type of hypervisor you choose is not even remotely the same. Perhaps you should make up your mind what you are asking for.

 

Type1 hypervisor will always be prefered over a type2. And as it seems you do have knowledge about this i don't really understand why you ask a question at all.

I NEVER SAID THEY WERE THE SAME!!!  Do you even know what a VPS is?

 

I know that. If you don't understand the question by now then why bother replying?

[AbsoluteFool]

4 hours ago, Phas3L0ck said:

I NEVER SAID THEY WERE THE SAME!!!  Do you even know what a VPS is?

 

I know that. If you don't understand the question by now then why bother replying?

You want a Virtual Private Desktop (Twist from VPS or virtual private server), which indeed can be created in virtualbox even how outdated and sad virtualbox is.

 

Anyways, the answer you are looking for is a type 1 hypervisor. That's what people would use in a real datacenter. You really think they would have their virtual desktops rely on a bare metal server with a type 2 hypervisor on? Why even bother asking?

[Phas3L0ck]

3 minutes ago, AbsoluteFool said:

You want a Virtual Private Desktop (Twist from VPS or virtual private server), which indeed can be created in virtualbox even how outdated and sad virtualbox is.

 

Anyways, the answer you are looking for is a type 1 hypervisor. That's what people would use in a real datacenter. You really think they would have their virtual desktops rely on a bare metal server with a type 2 hypervisor on? Why even bother asking?

Yeah, I do think so. And here's why; I figured out the remote access integration to provide such a quality of experience that no one would ever know the difference as long as it runs the way it should.

The only reason to ever use Type-1 is when running hundreds of VMs and/or there is a need for dedicated GPU integration, which by the way is hopelessly flawed and ineffective.

[Jarsky]

I do have VMWare Workstation running on my NAS for a Linux VM that I have auto start with Windows (you can do this by moving the VM into the "shared vm's". Its there as I  currently havent moved it over to my new server build. 

 

Ideally though Hyper-V Workstation is far better IMO for running something local. I don't have start up issues like I occasionally do with VMWare Workstation, and its license free. 

 

In any sort of non-home environment though I would never run these on a dependant server. If I have no hardware dependancy, my solution would be to P2V the host Windows machine and then ESXi/Hyper-V the baremetal. For VMware, you can temporarily run VMWare Workstation on another PC, then use the VMware Converter to P2V it to Workstation, then once you've got ESXi running on the original hardware, you can convert the VM from Workstation to ESXi.

 

P.S Also keep in mind that Windows 2008 (R2) runs out of support in 3 months (other than Azure) so you should be thinking about upgrading it to maintain security. 

[Phas3L0ck]

2 hours ago, Jarsky said:

Ideally though Hyper-V Workstation is far better IMO for running something local. I don't have start up issues like I occasionally do with VMWare Workstation, and its license free. 

 

In any sort of non-home environment though I would never run these on a dependant server. If I have no hardware dependancy, my solution would be to P2V the host Windows machine and then ESXi/Hyper-V the baremetal. For VMware, you can temporarily run VMWare Workstation on another PC, then use the VMware Converter to P2V it to Workstation, then once you've got ESXi running on the original hardware, you can convert the VM from Workstation to ESXi.

 

P.S Also keep in mind that Windows 2008 (R2) runs out of support in 3 months (other than Azure) so you should be thinking about upgrading it to maintain security. 

There's no such thing as "Hyper-V workstation," it's just an addable feature for Windows Server, and it has countless logistical and technological issues. But Hyper-V does have the advantage of being locally manageable in an integrated interface, yes, BUT, and I can't emphasize the but enough, HV has the MASSIVE PROBLEM of not being able to provide a graphical interface to remote users so they can startup, shutdown, and interact with the boot screen by hand from an external connection. VMware fixed that a long time ago, and that's one of the prime reasons companies switched from HV appliances to ESXi.

 

This post wants nothing to do with P2V discussions, but I will say that it can be a component of transitioning an existing system to a cloud VM host. Otherwise, I vaguely see a repeated point that type-2 hypervisors aren't ideal for mission critical hosting... which is a sensible point, if you're talking about business-grade virtual operations-- running at least 10+ VMs at any given time around the clock, nonstop. However, I'm here to make the case that A: as far as the technology goes, there's not much difference between VMware's Workstation and ESXi other than management and implementation format; and B: partitioning idle resources on a variable-load server is more than practical with type-2 software, especially in VMware's case that, despite the obvious lack of web management that ESXi has, Workstation edition can be used as a hosting hypervisor nonetheless (through sharing as you mentioned) and accessed by users from their own installation of VMware workstation (connect to server function) which is also not used to connect to the newer ESXi servers, with the demise of the vSphere Client program.

 

Don't forget, the idea is to not only reduce or entirely eliminate local loads and problems associated with running a virtual OS on top of an open system, but to provide faster, simpler access to reliable resources, completely external for access anywhere from most devices, and with the peace of mind that the remote platform is secure and guaranteed to remain operational. *Forgive me if I sound like an advertisement in that sentence, but what other way do I have to further describe why I'm asking what to go with in the first place?

Also, this is immensely geared toward friends, associates, and occasional business partners who need powerful, reliable compute resources and/or tight integration with my server for various projects, for example. My server when completed will typically handle 6-7 power hungry VMs, or up to 20 low-end VMs (had a side thought of providing legacy geeks/enthusiasts with a Windows XP VPC just for fun) for whatever they might be needed.

 

Lastly, Windows 7 (2K8R2) becoming unsupported is completely irrelevant to VM operation, as I have very good system security, and I always run my external VMs on their own network subnet and dedicated link to further secure my systems from their traffic, protecting the latter in the process.

IN FACT, like Windows XP, Windows 7 will be extremely popular as a remotely offered virtual platform for the many who desire Windows as it is and was, NOT how it's going to be. Windows 8/8.1 was bad enough... but with the rise of the highly unstable, cumbersome Windows 10 with a rolling release design and countless tremendous flaws system wide, people will be swarming by the hundreds of MILLIONS to literally anything else, especially the more mature, familiar Windows 7.

As it stands W7 VMs are kind of a pain to maintain, having to completely rebuild some from scratch just install every month's updates. (don't... even... ask...) It will be far easier to secure Windows 7, rather than bank on updates that may not even solve anything in the first place!!! Strengthening my case, most major AntiVirus/Network Security programs will continue to operate perfectly on Windows 7 for effectively another decade at least.  Personally, I was somewhat pleased (though with disappointment) that updates for XP finally ended, as it made my life much easier to stabilize and secure existing systems in a faster, more compact manner.

It is in this way that Windows 7 will be the next Windows XP. For native x64, hail Windows 7; welcome to 2020... for a better experience.  I've waited years for this-- finally something enthusiasts and collectors can truly cling to and actually make use of... not for months or years, but for decades to come! W7X64... native on ALL modern hardware, second to none! This is what Windows XP should have been. This is like a second chance-- no more half-baked XP x86/64 on legacy micro-architectures... And this time, we do it RIGHT!

[Trinopoty]

I seem to remember VMWare Workstation having a Web UI. I can't remember what features it has but the basic power management stuff is there along with video streaming from the guest OS. It also has fine grained user access controls from what I can remember. Maybe look into that as well since not everyone will want to install Vmware on their system to access the VPS.

[Phas3L0ck]

2 minutes ago, Trinopoty said:

I seem to remember VMWare Workstation having a Web UI. I can't remember what features it has but the basic power management stuff is there along with video streaming from the guest OS. It also has fine grained user access controls from what I can remember. Maybe look into that as well since not everyone will want to install Vmware on their system to access the VPS.

Simple mistake; VMware's ESXi has a web interface, Workstation is console only (with remote option).

 

My only use for offering VMware connection of Workstation-to-Workstation is to offer users the ability to do maintenance without the need to contact me; remote startup and shutdown, and access to the boot screen for secure startup and diagnostic. This form of access is also useful for those common cases where users lose control of their VM due to a simple network misconfiguration of their VPC, because my host system has one address that will not change (no it's not a dedicated static IP, but Comcast has a way of letting computers keep their acquired address for a very long time.) so anyone can access the host to fix any mistake they may have made with the vLAN their guest has. And yeah I'm discovering more about the user access controls, so I'm happily prepared to provide a safe, reliable VPS experience to anyone interested once my server is ready.

 

People don't have to use VMware for a Workstation-to-Workstation link, it's just an option I can provide for ease of use, and to satisfy the more advanced users. I encourage people to use their own access methods directly into theit guest VPC; I fully support RDP over internet, (I know it's old but trust me it works) TeamViewer (obviously) and some VPN connections (maybe not all) are possible.

[Trinopoty]

No. VMWare really does have a Web UI called WSX.

You can find information about it here: https://kb.vmware.com/s/article/2033641

You'll have to look into the security of it though. It's a better option if it can be provided.

[Phas3L0ck]

2 hours ago, Trinopoty said:

No. VMWare really does have a Web UI called WSX.

You can find information about it here: https://kb.vmware.com/s/article/2033641

You'll have to look into the security of it though. It's a better option if it can be provided.

I see, it's an add-on program made for an obsolete version of VMW, and hasn't been maintained or updated since December of 2012. (probably for good reason, too.)

Even if it could somehow work, I'm not at all happy about it, and here's why; aside the problem of security like you mentioned, managing and maintaining anything web-based is hopelessly painful on a good day, and total nightmare on a bad day.

 

Man, let me tell you, it's bad enough doing TeamViewer on a web interface, and web-based RDP (rarely implemented) is just plain weird. Not to mention, VMware expanded support of all new Workstation installs to be able to clearly communicate with any ESXi or other VMware server. I've had the displeasure of experiencing ESXi's web UI first hand, and sooo not impressed; it only becomes useful for graphically executing what should be console commands like power on/off, delete/add/modify VM settings, etc. Interacting with a VM through a web UI is not ideal, and impractical for the vast majority with unstable/unreliable systems that drove them to need a VPC in the first place!   And if you have to log into a web UI just to power on or off, or change a few settings, there's no real point in even attempting a public web UI for the host-- not to mention the likely inability to use the highly preferred unity mode (eh, sometimes it might work, but not well through the web interface unless you're on the corporate LAN).

[Trinopoty]

I see. I used it last in 2013 or so. I didn't look into the fact that it wasn't maintained any more.