On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 00:57, Christopher Chan
<christopher.chan@bradbury.edu.hk> wrote:
> On Tuesday, November 02, 2010 12:48 AM, Luis Paulo wrote:
>> On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 12:31, Russ Foster<rjf@russfoster.com> *wrote:
>>> The point of the original post was: don't run video editing software in a
>>> virtualized environment on a local machine.
>>>
>>> More specifically; there are two very resource intensive applications, video
>>> editing and sound editing. *These will not run better in a virtualized
>>> environment under any circumstances.
>>>
>>
>> What is "run better"?
>
> Let me give one perspective that has proven true. More stable. In this
> case, it would not be just the application, but the entire operating
> system too.
>
>
>>
>> On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 13:01, Jordon Bedwell<jordon@envygeeks.com> *wrote:
>>> You guys wanna put money on whether they can't run very good on a
>>> virtual machine? This isn't aimed at Christopher, but I really do get
>>> tired of people blaming virtualisation for their /crappy/ and I repeat
>>> it again over and over /crappy/ hardware.
>>
>> "run very good"? Are we kidding?
>
> No. Not kidding at all. Nobody in their right mind will run things in an
> environment for some extra benefits at a big cost.
>
>
>>
>> You are not meaning "run faster on a VM", right? Because if so, I may
>> give you some links about virtualization for you to read.
>
> Nobody said anything about speed.
>
>
>>
>> Virtualization is not about the run. The advantages may be found elsewhere.
>
> Oh it is. Who'd do virtualization if it kept crashing even if you have
> all the other advantages?
>
>
>>
>> One, is hardware abstraction. An example is to transport a server to a
>> different computer.
>>
>> Other is running multi systems (or releases, or upgrade status) on the
>> same computer at the same time.
>> Running windows programs while running your favorite OS is an example.
>>
>> The [virtualization] advantages may be found elsewhere.
>> May because you may not need virtualization. As in you may not need
>> internet, or a quad core, or another disk, or ...
>>
>> Thats my opinion, and for now I'll stick to it.
>>
>
> Yes, but these that you have listed are not all there is to it
>
I'm running an ubuntu 10.4 server with no X and a windows XP (running
autocad 2009) clients on ubuntu hosts using libvirt - on a phenom X4
905e and a Turion X2 laptop, both 4G ram.
I'll change my desktop soon to a VM also, now is a dual boot ubuntu
and XP (for games).
The original post was about changing to a wine environment, but I
think it changed to the pros and cons of emulated/virtual
environments, so I created a new topic.
Chan: How can I say it in other words, because I think you didn't get
my meaning?
IMO, If someone thinks virtualization will make os or software run
faster, didn't understood what is virtualization.
So I was saying don't know what is meant by can't run "very good" on a
virtual machine.
About the advantages, I was not trying to be exhaustive. Those are the
ones I think is harder to do without virtualization.
You had already mentioned backup with lvm snapshot, I think.
If anyone wants to add more, please do.
But, after reading Russ response again, I'm not sure if he don't have
a point.As I said, imo, of course video editing and sound editing apps
will not "run better" (as in faster) in a virtualized
environment. That's not the point, they will run slower.
What I don't know if those will work as if in the native os and
hardware (even if slower), or if they will work at all?
My concerns are with the available graphics card abstractions and the
drivers for it.
So, for example, can we play battlefield on a windows client?
I
didn't find any googling with someone that really tried it, but it
seems no (no compatible graphics).
Regards
Luis
--
ubuntu-users mailing list
ubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
Virtualization (was Wine?)
