Very cool!

I think that that is becoming less and less true. Quirky environments are becoming less and less the norm. The need to install locally is rapidly going away. There are still things that get installed locally but the variety and commonality is dropping at a prodigious pace and the isolation of programs is getting to be quite good.

@Reid-Cooper said:

If you do not want your VMware host to reach the Internet or any other subnet, you could also not give it a default gateway thus blocking it from communicating over any router automatically.

It's the computer I didn't want to reach the internet. However, I wanted the VMware to be alble to. I've, since then, achieved that mission.

@NetworkNerd the p2v for this is nice... just remember to check off a box if you're looking to use hyper-v on 2012... The downside though is that you might get a bloated VM because you can't move some of the blocks from the end of the vm to the front. Had that happen to me on one drive that was a 160gb vm using only 40gb. used the tool and was left with a 120gb vm... turned out that there were 'unmovable files' at the end of the vm image...

Coolio!

Yes, VM snapshots. Pain.

@Bill-Kindle said:

Okay I see what you are saying now. This is what Docker is right? (didn't see the below reply)

Correct. It is a "container" rather than virtualization. Similar, but slightly different.

New to me, thanks for the heads up. Will definitely be checking these out.

AD is only down for long periods of time because no one notices. If we were monitoring the AD environment closely, which we certainly need to do but it isn't a priority, we wouldn't have those long outages. It's because being down for a week has zero impact that no one investigates the issues until a convenient time or someone notices because they were attempting a ping test or something.

Well http://daerma.com is working perfectly, but http://JaredBusch.com is not updating the permalinks correctly. I will just nuke that one and redo it later and see if the problem goes away. I only have 3 posts on it.

That's an easy fix. As long as you have the foresight to have SSH enabled.

@Bill-Kindle said:

That's neat, but isn't it still just a Type-2 Hypervisor?

It's just an interface. It doesn't change VirtualBox.

@scottalanmiller said:

@alexntg said:

Windows 8.1 is not available in Ultimate. It's available in RT, Basic, Pro, and Enterprise. Windows 7 Ultimate included XP mode, which was a single-instance more desktop-integrated VM designed specifically to assist with application compatibility issues. It did not include normal virtualization rights.

In the Microsoft official material it stated that Ultimate was a non-SA version of Enterprise that was identical in every way.

According to this chart the VDI licensing was the same between the two...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_7_editions

Can you link the MS official material? I'm getting my info from http://download.microsoft.com/download/3/d/4/3d42bdc2-6725-4b29-b75a-a5b04179958b/licensing_windows7_with_VM_technologies.docx

@Dominica I can't speak to the OP - our problem really isn't about paying, well other than with time. The app can be replaced by another solution we already have in place, but our docs have to read the patient education material in the new system and approve it for our patients before we'll give it out. They currently only approved the material in the old system. If they'd read the new stuff and sign off on it, we'd be done.

@JaredBusch said:

I will look into it @katieunitrends. As always you are awesome.

Thanks so much!

Quite a while means several months, not years.

http://www.xenserver.org/

@Dashrender While true, it's both a funding problem and a hardware limitation on what I have to work with. With that said however, I have disproven the fact that it is a dynamic memory problem as the data translation uses all 16GB of RAM while running the job but as soon as it's done, allocation drops substantially without the OS even knowing the difference. Also, running a second translation job this time using an iSCSI LUN that I setup on my new Synology NAS (just a small 10GB LUN to store and write data to as part of this test) is running much faster than with the local storage, but I'm using consumer level drives in the host machine as opposed to WD Reds in the Synology NAS. It's a very noticeable difference.