Which virtualization environment ?

Lone_Wolf · 2009-08-08 21:56:26

Within a few weeks i will start studying for MS server 2008 certification (Needed for my job) .

My personal pc/laptops have been running arch for several years now, and i intend to keep it that way.
Virtual Machines are abviously the answer.

A typical VM setup will have 4 machines ( 2 servers, 2 clients).
USB hardware and 3D support is unimportant, the ability to make teams of those machines and place them in different subnets IS.
high res 1920x1200 support in the VM's is optional.

In the past i have used vmware workstation for this, but i only have a license for version 5 and that doesn't run windows server 2008 .
I could upgrade the license, but would like to give the OSS solutions a chance.

As i have no experience with other virtual environments like kvm and virtualbox i hope other archlinux users can help me decide which oss vurtualization would be the best for this purpose.

Last edited by Lone_Wolf (2009-08-08 21:58:36)

JawsThemeSwimming428 · 2009-08-08 22:19:54

Not sure about kvm as I have never used it but I look at Virtualbox as a more "home-user" oriented solution. It has gotten much better over time and in no way am I saying it isn't good but I'm not sure it is as full-featured as VMWare Workstation. I use it frequently at home for running Linux, Windows, and BSD VM's and it usually works good. Maybe someone can provide more light on this. Good luck with whatever you choose!

mikesd · 2009-08-08 22:41:53

I would look at VirtualBox for this. I have used VirtualBox and kvm and VirtualBox is more polished. Install it and take it for a spin.

moljac024 · 2009-08-08 23:16:08

One more recommendation for Virtualbox..
You may want to try the virtualbox_bin package from the archlinuxfr repo though.
You can add the repo by putting this in your pacman.conf :

[archlinuxfr]
# The french Arch linux community packages
Server = http://repo.archlinux.fr/i686

djszapi · 2009-08-09 05:50:15

Yeah, if USB support is not so important, the binary version is enough for you, virtualbox is a good environment.

But I liked KVM too, qemu clone, because it's a hardware related simulation, not software virtualization, but maybe I'm wrong.

sand_man · 2009-08-09 07:10:47

Both KVM and VirtualBox use hardware virtualisation.

loafer · 2009-08-09 08:41:53

virtualbox_bin 3.0.4-1 in AUR has USB support.

cool · 2009-08-10 18:29:34

Another vote for virtualbox_bin. grab is from AUR

pizmooz · 2009-08-10 19:31:30

+1 KVM/QEMU

haven't used virtual box though. I like KVM/QEMU because you use all standard linux tools to control the environment. Like for setting up networking you use brctl. It is really fast also. You need to have a deeper understanding of the system (say compared to vmware), and be willing to write shell scripts to setup networking and launch the VMs. But it gives you a high level of customization, which seems to be aligned with the arch philosophy.
Make sure you when you enable VT in the BIOS you fully powerdown (let the caps drain) otherwise it won't enable on the proc. This tripped me up at first.

Wintervenom · 2009-08-10 19:56:01

I pick VirtualBox, because of its performance. In virtualized XP, I get from boot to a usable desktop in about eight or nine seconds (after switching to its SATA-ACHI).

Last edited by Wintervenom (2009-08-10 19:57:47)

Lone_Wolf · 2009-08-12 20:56:47

I have done some reading into kvm/qemu and virtualbox and will go with kvm/qemu .
While setting up the networking will be harder than with virtualbox, kvm/qemu appear to function closer to the hardware.

Virtualbox has 2 things i dislike :
the stuff left out of the OSS version (the .bin is better, but if i wanted closed code i'd stick with vmware).
RDP support (RDP is imo a terminal server/management protocol, that sucks as a remote control protocol. my favorite for that is VNC)

waiting until webshop has my order complete (case , mobo and cpu coolers not there yet), then i can build my new system and get to work.

thisllub · 2009-08-13 07:52:22

I have tried them all and my vote is kvm.
You must make sure the kernel modules are loaded e.g. (both are required)

modprobe kvm
modprobe kvm-amd

It is light and quick, supports migration and is very easy to script.
Recent objective tests I have found on the net suggest it is now the fastest virtual platform.
I have found VirtualBox can fill my 2 GB of ram far too easily.

My favourite use for it is to run Tomcat apps.
They seem to be able to grind the whole os to a halt through memory piggery.
In a restricted VM they are slower but the scheduler treats the VM fairly and the overall machine is much more responsive.

Documentation could be better but at least it seems to be right.

Last edited by thisllub (2009-08-13 07:52:54)

Arch Linux

#1 2009-08-08 21:56:26

Which virtualization environment ?

#2 2009-08-08 22:19:54

Re: Which virtualization environment ?

#3 2009-08-08 22:41:53

Re: Which virtualization environment ?

#4 2009-08-08 23:16:08

Re: Which virtualization environment ?

#5 2009-08-09 05:50:15

Re: Which virtualization environment ?

#6 2009-08-09 07:10:47

Re: Which virtualization environment ?

#7 2009-08-09 08:41:53

Re: Which virtualization environment ?

#8 2009-08-10 18:29:34

Re: Which virtualization environment ?

#9 2009-08-10 19:31:30

Re: Which virtualization environment ?

#10 2009-08-10 19:56:01

Re: Which virtualization environment ?

#11 2009-08-12 20:56:47

Re: Which virtualization environment ?

#12 2009-08-13 07:52:22

Re: Which virtualization environment ?

Board footer