Edit Question - KnowledgeHub

Title Body

I currently use VMware workstation to create separate workspaces for various clients that I do work for. So for a given client I only install software needed for a specific job, and don't have to worry about software A for client #1 mucking up software B for client #2. With an adequate sized hard drive this works well but I am not sure I am using VMware to its best advantage. The steps I go through when setting up for a new job are: Do a windows update on a base VMware image that I have saved away. Make a full clone of the base image and rename for the new job Launch the new image and configure/install as necessary. After doing this for a while I now have a collection of VMware images sitting around that are all at different levels of updates unless I manually go into each image and kick off an update cycle. And if there is some new tool that I want in all of my images I have to also go around and do multiple manual installs. But I feel secure in knowing that each image is self contained (albeit taking 10+Gb at a hit) and that if anything happens to a single image then an issue cannot propagate into any other image. (Note that I do do regular backups of all my images) So my question is am I doing this the best way, or should I consider linked clones so that I only have to do a windows update or common application install on my base system? What are the pro's and con's of each way of organizing things? In addition, although I try not to keep data files inside the Image's local disks I find that the share to my local hard drive seems very slow compared to the Images file system, hence I tend to leave work inside the image. Should I force myself to not leave data inside the image? Or put another way, how much corruption can a VMware image take before any single file in the images filesystem becomes inaccessible? Edit Some thoughts I have had since pos

Tags (comma-separated) Cancel