Capitan Holy Hippie's ramblings

Lately, I've had an opportunity to try out both Parallels desktop, and VMWare server. Herin are a few notes and comments on the two.

My goal with virtualization software is to create an easily rebuildable, easily disposable, easily replicatable lab environment. I frequently have a need for a Solaris environment where I can load up various servers from the Java Enterprise System stack, and muck with them, or show others how to make them work. So, I want to see how well Solaris 10 works (or doesn't) in these environments. I gather that in this regard, I'm an atypical user - many seem to want to run a consumer-oriented operating system made by a Seattle based company in these virtual machines. This doesn't interest me at all.

I have two environments where I'm trying out these pieces of software:

1) W2100z running the Linux version of Java Desktop System 3.
2) MacBook Pro running Mac OS X 10.4.7.

There's quite a few things different between the platforms - Both Parallels and VMware run on the W2100z. VMware doesn't have a version out yet for the Mac, so Parallels is the only game in town. The 2100z has 4GB of ram, the MacBook Pro only 2GB. The 2100z has two AMD Opteron processors, and the MacBook Pro has a dual-core processor.

However, Parallels runs pretty much the same on both platforms, and a virtual machine created on the Mac runs just fine on the W2100z. And, both VMware and Parallels are clearly pieces of software targeting the same problem in the same way, and are very comparable in function and features. Solaris works in both, although somewhat differently.

VMware notes:

* There are few differences that I could note between VMware workstation and VMware server. VMware server is free, and seems to do all I want (create/change virtual machine settings, networking, etc.) Plus, the free VMware player is a bonus I like - this means I can create a virtual machine running Solaris, and hand it out along with the player for people to use. (Potentially very useful for teaching labs.)
* VMware has a BIOS that runs on boot - and oh boy, you have to be quick to catch it while it is running and change settings.
* Solaris doesn't seem to need any extra drivers - either VMware emulates common hardware Solaris has drivers for, or the VMware drivers are built-in.
* Audio works.
* X works, no problems - using the XSun server. Haven't tried XOrg yet.

Parallels notes:

* My general impression is that Parallels works fine, but just doesn't have the level of finish that VMware does.
* Parallels doesn't have a BIOS where you can change settings - boot sequence is changed through the virtual machine settings.
* Parallels provides a network driver for Solaris.
* Video seems to work just fine.
* Audio doesn't work. Parallels provides an emulated audio device, but Solaris doesn't seem to recognize it.
* X works, but you need to use the XOrg server, and configure it to use PS2 mouse/keyboard. Otherwise, you start up X and nothing happens! Fun.
* Parallels can't handle running on a machine with 4GB RAM or more. I had to tweak the BIOS on the W2100z to not use all the physical memory so that Parallels could start up.

General Solaris notes:

* Solaris doesn't like suspend and resume. At least, every time I've tried it, both parallels and VMware, it just freezes up afterwards.
* Solaris isn't very comfortable configuring itself through DHCP.

Conclusion:

VMware, even the free Player, is a much better virtualization solution than Parallels. There's nothing particularly wrong with Parallels, it just doesn't seem to be as mature as VMware. Parallels also got to the Mac first, and is even endorsed by Apple, which makes it the best way to do multiple OSes on Apple Intel hardware. I have no interest in setting up Boot Camp on my MacBook Pro - I've been through setting up a multi-boot machine, and am done with that now, thank you very much.