I like many users like to consolidate their hardware to run unRAID and multiple OSes virtually on the same server. Looking at available options I ended up virtualizing unRAID in VMware ESXi VM for the following major reasons -  barebone hypervisor/small footprint and resources overhead, mature enterprise level software with great features, plus ESXi option available for free. Other options such adding virtualization support to unraid running on physical server or virtualizing unRAID in another OS VM using product such as VirtualBox didn't work for me for number of reasons (along with those are interdependency between unraid and virtual layer so changes to unraid such upgrade may require changes for virtual piece, complexities related to adding software to minimalistic slackware distribution unraid based on and so on, dealing with other OS stack, etc)

 

ESXi route is not without bumps, particular with hardware support (even in improved 4.1 version) since product oriented toward enterprise hardware rather than for DIY configurations but there are workarounds Resource control is quite outstanding - you may slice hardware almost as you like and provision to different OSes.

 

Running unRAID in ESXi VM is possible but far from perfect. When presenting drives to VM (as physical RDM option) unraid management interface (emhttp) does not recognize drives temperatures, even though smartctl does; there are somewhat related issues with spin down and recognizing drives serial numbers (which can be fixed patching md driver). This all for based on experience with 4.6 but in 5.x changelog/roadmap I have not noticed any related improvements - correct me if is not the case.

 

It would be really beneficial for many users to improve ESXi support in stock unRAID. As time goes more people realize benefits with this approach and ability to properly virtualize unRAID will only add to customer base.

 

 

I absolutely support this request. I've been wanting to combine my 2 primary boxes for quite some time now (work horse server and then the unraid box). I've been striving for a more efficient setup, less clutter, less heat, less noise, easier maintenance not to mention more cost effective over time due to lower electrical costs and component costs.

 

I have seen many users attempting VM setups of the past few years I've been an unRaid user so there's definitely demand for it. I myself never attempted it due to the limitations of the various methods (far too complicated, too much a performance hit, not enough support etc. etc.) but have been drooling over the thought of a nice bare metal ESXi setup ever since I learned of the tech. What SK and others have done recently with testing out a setup has really got my brain dancing all over the place and am I very excited that they are so close. That little extra push by getting some support in actual "development" would really do it.

 

As SK mentioned, once users realize the benefits of having this type of technology integrated into their various setups... they'll really turn onto it and I can almost guarantee it will be worth the effort.

I'm very much in favor of being able to have unRaid on my ESXi machine. 

 

Compiling a custom unRaid is not a viable workaround for even typically adventurous but still linux novice folks.

Yes, it's possible to create some modified version of unRaid and install VM Server on it but that means not using a stock version of unRaid.  For those who play around making their own linux distributions it's probably fun, but for those of us who don't it's not a smart approach to a stable system. 

 

Yes, ESXi has a large and active non-enterprise following. 

There are forums where a great many desktop motherboards are used to build whitebox servers with ESXi.  The interest in non-enterprise use for ESXi is growing.  In environments like that word spreads fast of new solutions.  Please add unRaid to the growing list of services that work with ESXi.

Another (strong) vote to support this.

 

Apart from the already mentioned advantages above, it may also alleviate the pressure to add more and more plugins and other functionalities into the unRAID server itself (vmware/virtualbox inside unRAID being the first 'casualty'). In stead, these applications can run in more suitable installs next to unRAID on the same hardware, leaving the unRAID server more or less stock.

 

Sort of the best from all worlds. Horses for courses ...  

I agree with everything already mentioned here.  I suspect many people avoid unRAID because of the lack (and/or unsupported nature of) additional functionality.  ESXi support would make unRAID a much more attractive option.  This is obviously a "Pro" feature and should induce some registration upgrades also.

I also agree with what has been said in this thread, and I fully support the implementation of this request! It would be a great addition to an already great software package, and the additional functionality would only allow for it to build and become more versatile.

I would like this as well.

Personally, I want two parity disks. Although ESXi support would be cool, it is not my top priority, dual parity is.

Personally, I want two parity disks. Although ESXi support would be cool, it is not my top priority, dual parity is.

 

ditto, as much as I would like this to be easier I would much rather see dual parity implemented first.

Get your own thread!! 

 

+1 from my side.

In addition I'd like to see a more open approach to this, thus not limiting the support to the ESXi hypervisor.

With the availability of the PVOPs kernel and adding the VIRTIO family of drivers, unRAID would then be open

to run on bare metal, and all major hypervisors from the linux-host world, like XEN, KVM and Virtualbox, too.

 

 

 

If someone with a VMware ESXi setup would install 5.0b3/4, and report specific issues to Tom, my guess is that he would be open to fixing the compatibility issues, so long as the changes are minor (which it sounds like they are) and don't create compromises for non-virtual users.  

+1 for VM support.    I am only in the testing/demo phase of unRaid.  But if esxi was officially supported, I would probably go ahead and buy a pro license or two.

+1 for esxi support.. It would truly make this from a good product, to a great product.

+1 for VM support. I could see myself using it down the road if it were implemented officially.

I would definitely be using unRaid right now if there was ESXi support! My friend just told me there might be a chance now.

I would definitely like this option ...

 

 

If someone with a VMware ESXi setup would install 5.0b3/4, and report specific issues to Tom, my guess is that he would be open to fixing the compatibility issues, so long as the changes are minor (which it sounds like they are) and don't create compromises for non-virtual users.  

 

I'd be happy to do this, but I have no idea how.  I have a couple of  ESXi 4.1 servers, but you cannot boot from USB, so Im assuming unRAID will have to be installed somehow.

There are ways to boot on machines that don't support USB booting. These are mostly older motherboards so it doesn't come up often these days. Look at the Best of the Forms (link in my sig) and you should find a section on boot problems that discuss how ro use a "kicker" disk to boot unRaid.

If someone with a VMware ESXi setup would install 5.0b3/4, and report specific issues to Tom, my guess is that he would be open to fixing the compatibility issues, so long as the changes are minor (which it sounds like they are) and don't create compromises for non-virtual users.  

 

I'd be happy to do this, but I have no idea how.  I have a couple of  ESXi 4.1 servers, but you cannot boot from USB, so Im assuming unRAID will have to be installed somehow.

 

I have a VirtualBox DEV system setup. It does support USB, but not booting from it.  What I did was make a virtual drive and just pretend it was a USB drive and boot from that. This will work for the Basic free license that doesn't need a USB GUID. 

 

If someone with a VMware ESXi setup would install 5.0b3/4, and report specific issues to Tom, my guess is that he would be open to fixing the compatibility issues, so long as the changes are minor (which it sounds like they are) and don't create compromises for non-virtual users.  

 

I'd be happy to do this, but I have no idea how.  I have a couple of  ESXi 4.1 servers, but you cannot boot from USB, so Im assuming unRAID will have to be installed somehow.

 

..the request for V5 originates from this thread: http://lime-technology.com/forum/index.php?topic=7914.0

The solution for booting unRAID in a VM is in this thread too.

In ESXi you can use USB passthrough and boot a VM

User SK has also created an unRAID ISO from which you can boot the VM from and

that will mount the USB flash automagically after boot happened (provided you have assigned the Flash to the VM).

+1 from me on this request too.  I am rolling my own VMware Server 2.0.2 builds to keep current with the 4.x release, but it is a pain every time the kernel changes in unRAID.

 

If this request is going to get any traction, I think we need a bulleted list of issues/requests for Tom to look into.  I don't fully understand all of the issues, but I know some of the users on this forum do.  Please put together a formal request, nothing would make me happier than to be running ESXi.... I am drooling just thinking about it!!

 

+1 for more support on ESXi.

 

I'd love to help with testing but won't be getting the needed hardware for another month or two, I think it's going to take me that long to decide what to purchase anyway  

 

This definitely looks like the approach i'm going to be taking though, i've already started day dreaming of having everything all in one box (sad innit) - gone will be the days of swapping out HDD's for diff systems and constantly struggling for more/better storage.

+1 for ESXi support. I don't want to dedicate all that power and available memory and CPU 24/7to just unRAID, when it could do so much more at the same time.

How about virtio-blk support? 

 

I've compiled the kernel to have all the glue.  I need unRAID to be able to see the /dev/vdx devices