I have a Dell PowerEdge server with a 4 core 64-bit Intel processor, 12GB RAM, a 500GB SCSI internal drive, a 2TB external eSATA drive, and some random external USB drives used for ad-hoc backup. I would like to use this platform to begin experimenting with VMware for software development and testing across multiple OS. Ideally I would like to set up my VM's so that I can access them via remote desktop from another workstation.
In particular I would like to run the following OS's on this box (not all simultaneously):
A 64-bit version of Windows Server 2003 or Windows Server 2008
A 32-bit version of Windows XP Professional
A 32-bit version of Vista Business or Ultimate with Aero
A 64-bit version of Ubuntu 8.04 LTS Server
A 32-bit version of Ubuntu 8.04 LTS Desktop
I'm confused about which VMware product to choose: Workstation, Server, or the new ESXi and if Workstation or Server, which OS to choose as my host OS.
My analysis:
ESXi seems to be VMware's platform of the future. Pros: ESXi seems to have superior support for memory and CPU management and appears to be the most efficient VMware product for running multiple VM's simultaneously. Its also free. Cons: It seems to support a smaller set of hardware - in particular - it does not appear to support USB, IDE or eSATA hard drives and only has experimental support for Windows Server 2003. Conclusion: If there is any way I could use ESXi, I would use it. But ESXi does not appear to be a good choice for me because of my hardware and OS choices.
Workstation and Server seem to be similar and both appear to support my list of OS's and, unlike ESXi, my choice of USB, IDE and eSATA hard drives as well.
Workstation costs ~$200 and comes with an ACE option for building and deploying VM's. Seems like a cool option, but I think I would have to purchase a copy of Workstation for every workstation I was going to use ACE to deploy a VM image??? Workstation has more support for snapshots, but this is a feature I don't see myself using.
Server is free and does not appear to support an ACE option. But my understanding is that I can move VM's between similar hardware configurations if the hardsware boxes are all running the same version of Server.
My conclusion (do you agree?):
I think Server 2.0 is the best choice for me. Your thoughts? Specifically, is there anything I'm missing in terms of valuable Workstation functionality or Server weaknesses that I haven't mentioned?
Regards,
Brett