[ale] Mass Machine Virtualization w/ Remote GUI Access
Jeff Hubbs
hbbs at comcast.net
Wed Feb 22 10:24:29 EST 2006
Jim -
I've been reading up on Xen - how would CPU affinity be accomplished for
multiple instances of Xen?
- Jeff
James P. Kinney III wrote:
>On Tue, 2006-02-21 at 15:27 -0500, Jeff Hubbs wrote:
>
>
>>The 8-CPU mobo might be overdoing it but maybe not 4...
>>
>>Regarding Stephen A. DuChene's comment "We have found that even using a
>>big server system with multiple GB of memory there is still a practical
>>limit of around 4 - 8 people who can run VMware sessions off of a remote
>>server," I wonder if that is caused by a RAM I/O bottleneck that the
>>RAM-affinity of those boards can help get around. That is to say, does
>>it raise that limit or at least "soften the knee" if you're using these
>>new Opteron boards? Or, do I just have to buy one to find out? ;)
>>
>>Jeff
>>
>>
>>
>
>The IO bottleneck you run into is network bandwidth. Those Tyan boards
>are some serious monsters and should be the best things out that can
>handle the load. Run Xen on each physical CPU and ESX on each Xen
>virtual machine to partition off the server from itself.
>
>And add some extra AC for the server :)
>
>
>
>>Joe Knapka wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>Jeff Hubbs wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>I've got a situation where a number of users on a development shop LAN
>>>>are in a bad way because they're trying to run a number of different
>>>>Win2K3 Server virtual machines - done up in Microsoft Virtual PC - on
>>>>their desktops. This has come to result in people trying to pull and
>>>>push around 4-6GB of MSVPC files on the LAN, and, of course, anyone who
>>>>wants to actually run an instance on MSVPC has to have scads of RAM and
>>>>this is often incompatible with various people's desktops and laptops
>>>>who may be running "only" 512MB, tops.
>>>>
>>>>My way of addressing this would be to use VMware instead of MSVPC,
>>>>running it on an "uberserver" capable of holding and running numerous
>>>>virtual machines at once, such that various people can connect to the
>>>>virtual machines at the display level from their own WinXP desktops and
>>>>laptops.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>Ooh, this sounds like a perfect opportunity to go out and buy some of those
>>>Tyan 8-CPU mobos we were discussing last week!
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>It's that last part that I have a question about. Given that it would
>>>>be nice if more than one person could actually connect remotely to any
>>>>one of these virtual machines (i.e., fighting over mouse/keyboard if so
>>>>inclined), how to best cover the remote access?
>>>>
>>>>Ways I'm aware of include Xorg+Cygwin, a commercial X Server for
>>>>Windows, VNC, or MS Terminal Services. [NOTE: I assume that all but the
>>>>last would take place over OpenSSH].
>>>>
>>>>What do you think?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>Micro$haft wants you to pay for every terminal server connection, and if
>>>you run out,
>>>you can't log into the machine at all, which is very annoying and seems
>>>to happen
>>>all the freakin' time. All of our machines have VNC installed, so that
>>>we can get to
>>>the machines even when folks have forgotten to log out the
>>>two or three Remote Desktop sessions we're allowed on each one. I'd
>>>probably go with
>>>VNC and see how that works. You might give RealVNC some money for their
>>>"enterprise edition" and avoid having to muck about with SSH tunnels.
>>>
>>>-- JK
>>>
>>>
>>>_______________________________________________
>>>Ale mailing list
>>>Ale at ale.org
>>>http://www.ale.org/mailman/listinfo/ale
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>Ale mailing list
>>Ale at ale.org
>>http://www.ale.org/mailman/listinfo/ale
>>
>>
>>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>Ale mailing list
>>Ale at ale.org
>>http://www.ale.org/mailman/listinfo/ale
>>
More information about the Ale
mailing list