> I'm thinking of setting up an Intel Core Duo machine with Vista Business
> to
> run Virtual PC. Of course, Vista has quite high system requirements.
>
> 1. Is there something to be said for running VPC on say Windows XP Pro or
> Windows 2000 Pro instead, where the host OS has more modest demands on my
> system (e.g. RAM)? Or does Vista have some specific advantages for running
> VPC?
>
> 2. I'm learning about web security, setting up Linux firewalls, web
> servers,
> and so on. Would VPC happily run 2-3 independent, virtual Linux boxes
> (system
> permitting, of course) and would I have the same security advantages that
> I'd
> get with separate hardware?
>
> Originally I was planning to set up a home web server, a firewall, a
> logging
> server, and so on, each on separate PCs, running minimal Linux
> configurations. However since I read about virtualization, I've started to
> wonder if this is an ideal application for VPC, so I only need to leave
> one
> PC running. Additionally, I could sidestep the great difficulties of
> setting
> up wifi on Linux, as the 'real' machine could have a wifi card but the
> virtual machines would all believe they had normal wired ethernet cards.
> I.e.
> the 'hardware' would work out-of-the-box (touch wood).
>
> Is there anything else I need to know, and would the virtual Linux boxes
> all
> communicate with one another and to the internet as though they were
> 'real'
> PCs?
>
> Thanks in advance.

> If you are thinking about making one machine a firewall, you don't
> really want all the machines connecting to the Internet directly!
> But don't
> let me put you off. With VPC you can run some virtual machines on an
> isolated virtual network (Local Only) behind a firewall system which does
> connect to the Internet through the host.

> I'm thinking of setting up an Intel Core Duo machine with Vista Business
> to
> run Virtual PC. Of course, Vista has quite high system requirements.
>
> 1. Is there something to be said for running VPC on say Windows XP Pro or
> Windows 2000 Pro instead, where the host OS has more modest demands on my
> system (e.g. RAM)? Or does Vista have some specific advantages for running
> VPC?
>
> 2. I'm learning about web security, setting up Linux firewalls, web
> servers,
> and so on. Would VPC happily run 2-3 independent, virtual Linux boxes
> (system
> permitting, of course) and would I have the same security advantages that
> I'd
> get with separate hardware?
>
> Originally I was planning to set up a home web server, a firewall, a
> logging
> server, and so on, each on separate PCs, running minimal Linux
> configurations. However since I read about virtualization, I've started to
> wonder if this is an ideal application for VPC, so I only need to leave
> one
> PC running. Additionally, I could sidestep the great difficulties of
> setting
> up wifi on Linux, as the 'real' machine could have a wifi card but the
> virtual machines would all believe they had normal wired ethernet cards.
> I.e.
> the 'hardware' would work out-of-the-box (touch wood).
>
> Is there anything else I need to know, and would the virtual Linux boxes
> all
> communicate with one another and to the internet as though they were
> 'real'
> PCs?
>
> Thanks in advance.

>I'm thinking of setting up an Intel Core Duo machine with Vista Business to
>run Virtual PC. Of course, Vista has quite high system requirements.
>
>1. Is there something to be said for running VPC on say Windows XP Pro or
>Windows 2000 Pro instead, where the host OS has more modest demands on my
>system (e.g. RAM)? Or does Vista have some specific advantages for running
>VPC?
>
>2. I'm learning about web security, setting up Linux firewalls, web servers,
>and so on. Would VPC happily run 2-3 independent, virtual Linux boxes (system
>permitting, of course) and would I have the same security advantages that I'd
>get with separate hardware?
>
>Originally I was planning to set up a home web server, a firewall, a logging
>server, and so on, each on separate PCs, running minimal Linux
>configurations. However since I read about virtualization, I've started to
>wonder if this is an ideal application for VPC, so I only need to leave one
>PC running. Additionally, I could sidestep the great difficulties of setting
>up wifi on Linux, as the 'real' machine could have a wifi card but the
>virtual machines would all believe they had normal wired ethernet cards. I.e.
>the 'hardware' would work out-of-the-box (touch wood).
>
>Is there anything else I need to know, and would the virtual Linux boxes all
>communicate with one another and to the internet as though they were 'real'
>PCs?
>
>Thanks in advance.

> One thing to keep in mind here, that I haven't seen mentioned is that
> MS provides no support for Linux OSes in VPC and there are no
> additions for Linux OSes included with VPC.
>Some Linux distros will
> work with the Additions supplied with Virtual Server, some will not.
> Running multiple VMs 24/7 is really a job for Virtual Server, not VPC.
> There are other VM solutions that provide more robust Linux support,
> some free, some not.

>Please refer to my responses below...
>
>"Steve Jain" wrote:
>
>> One thing to keep in mind here, that I haven't seen mentioned is that
>> MS provides no support for Linux OSes in VPC and there are no
>> additions for Linux OSes included with VPC.
>
>I believe there are additions available for Red Hat and SuSE. However I
>hoped to manage without additions, since I plan to build a PC that is capable
>of hardware virtualization. Am I correct in thinking this should largely
>negate the necessity of additions?
>
>Besides, I guess additions might introduce potential vulnerabilities into my
>virtual Linux boxes...?
>
>>Some Linux distros will
>> work with the Additions supplied with Virtual Server, some will not.
>
>Cheers for the heads-up. I have a few different distros of Linux, so touch
>wood one of them will work!
>
>> Running multiple VMs 24/7 is really a job for Virtual Server, not VPC.
>
>Briefly, could you summarise why you say that? I do appreciate the issue of
>scalability (as VS is multithreaded) and I have read the 'VSvsVPC' Word
>document on the MS website. However I have yet to be convinced VS is
>definitely the way to go. Anyhow I shall 'try and see'. :)
>
>I'm still try to fathom whether VS will allow me to run several independent
>Linux boxes on the same PC, all exploiting hardware virtualization. I could
>have sworn I read somewhere that this behaviour could hang VPC, but I can't
>find the link now...
>
>> There are other VM solutions that provide more robust Linux support,
>> some free, some not.
>
>Thanks for the feedback -- I shall look into the alternatives if I run into
>any problems with VPC/VS.

> There are Additions available for Virtual Server, not VPC. While they
> do work, they are unsupported by MS.
> Somewhat, put you'll need some kind of time sync daemon otherwise your
> VM's clock will drift or run too slow/fast.
> I can't think of any vulnerabilities that would be introduced by
> adding the VM Additions.
> Virtual Server is specifically designed to run servers. It runs as a
> service and is headless. It will take advantage of multiple cores.
> VPC has more overhead since it's displaying video

> On Wed, 23 May 2007 12:10:00 -0700, LiquidEyes
> <(email address - cut out)> wrote:
>
> You mentioned drag and drop and shared folders as a reason to use VPC,
> both are a feature of the VM Additions. Neither of these are
> available for Linux, only Windows VM Additions have these features,
> see the end for what the Linux VM Additions provide.
>
> I am no expert on Linux servers or security, I don't know what
> potential negative effects could occur from unsyncronized time.
> However, it would render any timestamped behavior irrelevant, i.e.
> logs, etc. I don't have detailed knowledge of what the Additions
> change in Linux either.
>
> If your primary goal is to get a secure, stable, robust, well-tested
> environment, then VPC is not the way to go. Linux is completely
> unsupported.
> Virtual Server provides some support, but VM Ware Server is also free
> and does explicitly offer full Linux support for a wider range of
> Linux distros.
>
> Virtual Server is headless. A VM runs as a service, unlike VPC, where
> the VM's video is displayed in a window. Virtual Server uses IIS to
> manage VMs, and a modified version on VNC, VMRC, to provide the
> display in either a stand along client app, or in the admin webpage.
>
> I see no reason VPC and VS couldn't be run together with VT, worst
> case you'd disable VT in one, but it's probable that since they use
> shared VMM code, they will coexist with VT enabled. I haven't tried
> running VS and VPC on a VT enable PC yet.
>
> ------**------**
> The Linux Additions provide the following:
> Kernel-Module
> This component of the Virtual Machine Additions is the base module for
> some of the VMAddition packages. This Module is required by x11,
> Timesync, Shutdown and Heartbeat packages.
>
> X11 Drivers
> This component of the Virtual Machine Additions for Linux provides
> mouse pointer integration and improved display performance for
> XFree86/X.org. This works by replacing the standard PS/2 mouse driver
> and S3 Trio64 driver by an enhanced version that ships with the
> Virtual Machine Additions. The installer will replace both the S3 Trio
> 64 driver file (s3_drv.o) and the PS/2 mouse driver file (mouse_drv.o
> & mouse_drv.so). This is done to avoid error prone automated changes
> to your xfree86.conf/xorg.conf. A backup copy of the driver files is
> made during installation.
>
> Timesync
> This component of the Virtual Machine Additions provides the means to
> synchronize the time between the guest and host.
>
> Shutdown
> This component of the Virtual Machine Additions enables guest shutdown
> handling from the host through scripts (using host COM API) and the
> Web interface.
>
> Heartbeat
> This component of the Virtual Machine Additions enables the Virtual
> Server (Linux) to send "keep alive" messages to the host which can be
> monitored in the web interface (Administrative Website).
>
> SCSI-Module
> Virtual Server emulates Adaptec AIC7870 virtual SCSI adapter for which
> all guest operating systems provide driver support. Disk performance
> using standard Adaptec drivers is not optimal. Therefore, an
> accelerated SCSI driver is provided which operates the virtual SCSI
> adapter in a different mode and achieves much better results.
>
>
> ----------- ---- --- -- - - - -
> Cheers,
> Steve Jain, Virtual Machine MVP
> http://vpc.essjae.com/