Arch Linux

NickC_UK

Member

Registered: 2012-02-16

Posts: 27

Is Arch Linux suitable as a GUI virtualization host

Being a long term windows person I have only recently started installing various Linux distros.  My question at the moment is whether Arch is likely to be suitable for my intended purpose of a workstation virtualization host via KVM, or whether I would be wasting my time and better off with one of the graphical distros.

What I am looking to end up with is a virtualization Host for my main development workstation which will then be running various MS operating systems, and some Linux ones, as virtual machines.  I don't mind a bit of command line work to get this up and running initially but would prefer to have a GUI for normal daily use.  I envisage booting up to this as KVM host, using Virtual Machine manager to start and run whatever OS I will be using for the day, opening that up full screen and not often coming back to tghe Arch host until I shutdown at night.

Been thinking about some of the facilities I would require on this machine:

    Workstation Virtualization - both host partition and VMs all running on same physical machine
    Mixed Windows and Linux guest operating systems
    Access to NTFS partitions on same machine
    Access to Windows network
    Clean basic install for host KVM partition without Browser, Office or other unnecessary accessories and additions
    GUI required with 3DFX support as this is for workstation virtualization
    Support for dual-screens on nVidia GPU

I understand that I am going to need to piece together a list of packages to install but are there any known difficulties in Arch which prevent from it being suitable for this purpose.

Thanks,

esdaniel

Member

From: Paris

Registered: 2010-02-01

Posts: 58

Website

Re: Is Arch Linux suitable as a GUI virtualization host

I understand that I am going to need to piece together a list of packages to install but are there any known difficulties in Arch which prevent from it being suitable for this purpose.

On my dev server I replaced VMware's ESXi and use Arch as a KVM baremetal host though I do not really use it in anger, it does very capably help me mess around with VMs as I'm not doing a lot of multi-host kind of stuff like hot-swapping/migrating VMs from one host to another (maybe someone else might talk about their experience doing that with Arch) other than to/from the desktop host.

On my desktop running Arch I use both Virtualbox and QEMU-KVM, with and without libvirt/virtmanager.  For all Linux-based VMs I use KVM. Virtualbox is for my Windows XP VM as I also run the same VM on a netbook that does not have the CPU extensions for virtualisation acceleration and Virtualbox performs better in this regard on the netbook - so I like to keep using it on desktop so I'm familiar with latest quirks of Virtualbox and keep abreast of how to use it as it develops.

I find I run a fine balance between enjoying using Arch for work and being sufficiently competent to ensure I experience the minimum downtime... you will have to evaluate that one and find your balance too :-) 

For me, having left Windows some time ago it has been a pleasure and joy to watch and benefit from the Linux experience and open source community values, ethos and respective contributions. I now deal with much less downtime which is key being as I support myself 100%. I'm paranoid about security and Windows just scares the living hell out of me to run that OS - so again more peace of mind and again, less downtime. My desktop experience has continued to better Windows since I made the switch and I'm very happy with all the apps I use and thank the KDE community for their great contributions and extensive library of 'wares.

You'll need to think about desktop environments (DEs). I'd recommend you go for something lightweight like Openbox to minimise the learning curve at this stage, others might disagree but IMHO it's much easier to learn a small system well like Openbox than all the quirks of KDE with it's love for Nepomuk and Akonadi.

I picked Arch because 'I had it' with the whole Canonical thing - from the marketing/tree-hugging/community-community-community stuff plus the fact an update killed my RAID set so I decided to look for another distro. I picked Arch after speaking to lots of people, Arch is well regarded by some reputable Linux Outlaws and checking out the wiki and forums here gave me the impression the community is first-rate. I won't throw stones, all I will say is I'm much happier here and really appreciate and value everyone in this community's contributions and efforts to maintain and improve the Arch distro. Do you have time to make an informed decision, if yes then you'll need to see what are your weaknesses and whether there is sufficient support to allow you to benefit from that support and move forwards with a distro like Arch - if you're a noob then on your head be it, I guess - its fun but it also sucks when you've got a deadline and you can't get working again because you borked your system.

Litmus test - look at all the unanswered questions on the forums, how many could you answer authoritatively, today. For me, I've not yet been able to do many and I've been using Arch as my prime OS for more than a year now (in fact its coming up to my 2nd anniversary in May I think) though I blame family life for preventing me from spending more time grokking this further ;-) Same goes for the Active threads, take a peek at what people are happy to lend a hand on and also read this blog post with comments from some of the key contributors on their sentiment about it all.

Also, I think it's important to understand what you might not realise could be unintended consequences for the Arch community i.e. if you are using Arch of your own volition for mission/business-critical stuff and you hit a roadblock you have absolutely no right to get shitty about it, whine etc. and generally dump on anyone - it's your call and no one is forcing or recommending you use the distro in such situations although I'm sure many do - this is my opinion of course, I'm a noob in this community and have no authority to speak for it.  If you need to be able to run something and have the right governance in place (i.e. someone else to blame) then go use Red Hat and buy their support, you'll sleep better and need to do much less homework.

If you want to raise your level, do the homework and reap the rewards that's cool. The Arch wiki is the best place to start, not the forum IMHO and you should begin with the beginner's guide, then read up on the DEs and virtualisation to see the effort required on your part to put something into 'production' that will meet your needs.

I thought I'd share the above as I have already trodden a similar path, hope it helps. Now,  back to the deadline I have hanging over my head like a sword of Damacles.

Last edited by esdaniel (2012-02-16 21:15:40)

NickC_UK

Member

Registered: 2012-02-16

Posts: 27

Re: Is Arch Linux suitable as a GUI virtualization host

esdaniel, your very comprehensive thoughts on this subject most appreciated.  Very interesting to hear from someone who has been here before.

One of my main priorities for this virtualization host OS is stability. I had reasoned that the smaller and cleaner I keep this the more reliable it is going to be, that may or may not be the case.  Some of your comments lead me to wonder if, due to my lack of knowledge, I would be safer with a more mainstream server distros like CentOS.  Not wishing to knock Arch but question whether I am capabable enough to runuse it to its full capabilities without problems.

My current thoughts are between CentOS vs Arch vs Salix vs Debian.  Guess the only way is to install all of them and see how I get on.  Perhaps once I have done that and got them all working the decision about which to use will be obvious.

Many thanks,