Virtualizing windows server 2003

Sign in. United States English. Ask a question. Quick access. Search related threads. Remove From My Forums. Answered by:. Connectrix is no Johnny-come-lately, either. It got started in the "virtual" business in with a product called, appropriately, "Virtual. In , it introduced the first virtual machine, an application for the Macintosh platform that allowed users to run Windows programs on the Mac OS. With Windows , virtual server technology is but one of three suggested methods for consolidating services.

The others are hardware partitioning and workload management. Hardware partitioning is a method to house multiple physical servers within a single box by dedicating a portion of the CPU, RAM and disk to different applications running on different instances of the operating system.

Blade servers, for example, are an extension of this method. PS -You can ready the full announcement here. Customers of all sizes trust Windows Server to run their business and mission-critical workloads. With… Read more. You are invited to get a first look deep-dive at Windows Server by registering… Read more. Today, we are announcing the general availability of Windows Server Microsoft Windows Server Blog.

Evan, I could not agree with you more - converting is a short term thing in my mind, a quick win but not a strategy. If I may humbly disagree - I've converted several servers with the VMware Converter Visioncore also makes a free converter BTW , and all of my P2V's running in production are as stable if not more so than when they were physical.

I know it 'feels weird' to do this, but in my experience it's a solid and viable solution, and is a long term strategy for my company. I fully support that conversions can often be more stable than physicals. Hope this clarifies. VirtualBox is fantastic for virtualizing testbeds and workstations, for things like having to run Visual Studio or Outlook on an Ubuntu workstation. For a mail server, I wouldn't do it. I actually voted to delete my answer but I guess I don't have the unilateral power to do that.

Thanks for the tip.. I've mostly used VMs as a development tool when debugging device drivers, and also to have access to windows apps or linux under the other host OS. I don't think this needs to be closed. VirtualBox can be configured to run in a headless mode, with CLI. If installed on top of a lightweight server install such as Arch or Debian, it may provide a very similar experience to ESXi.

Also, the full ESX actually includes a very light Redhat-based linux distro as a management interface. I'm not sure how the HW abstrations would differ, but I think it's a valid possible solution.

For the most very basic virtualization needs, yes, VirtualBox will probably work OK. One will run into the bounds of its ability very quickly, though. ErikA : are you comparing it to the full or free version of ESXi? What are some examples of features that are lacking in VirtualBox? Show 1 more comment. Alessandro Vozza Alessandro Vozza 1 1 silver badge 9 9 bronze badges.

Sign up or log in Sign up using Google.