Virtualization...what should i use?

Luca Gervasi · 2009-11-07 08:49:18

Hallo.

I'm planning to virtualize a Quad core / 4gb ram. I'd like to build 2-4 virtual machines for testing some advanced features of Asterisk / MySQL and some other well known softwares. I have some licenses for Asterisk addons from digium, so i'd like to maintain them over time, using the virtual machine and moving it.

What should i use? I don't need fancy 3D Acceleration, just a common abstraction for all the hw i have (pretty standard: usb, nics, harddisks...).

I was thinking about Xen Server or Virtual Box (anyway, i'm using them for my personal lab, so i'd prefer solutions that don't require a license...).

The solution should be "headless", i don't want to be forced to login to X every time the guest systems need to be booted...

Thanks in advances.

See Ya

Luca

graysky · 2009-11-07 11:22:39

I use Virtualbox, it's in the AUR for x86_64 and doesn't require a $$$ license. It does need a I believe.

OrangeRoot1000 · 2009-11-07 18:49:34

K/Qemu is all cli and rocks. I've had vbox and the problem I've experienced is they change their code too much and break backward compatibility.

Runiq · 2009-11-07 20:06:00

There is a headless version of Virtualbox that installs along with the Qt version - never tried it, though. I tried kqemu as well (wanted something without license, too), but didn't like the mouse cursor lag, so I switched to virtualbox. Virtualbox-ose (Open Source Edition) doesn't have a restrictive license, but it also doesn't have USB support as far as I know.

some-guy94 · 2009-11-07 21:56:23

VirtualBox can be used from the command line, using VBoxManage and VBoxSDL

OrangeRoot1000 · 2009-11-07 22:14:31

Vbox nonfree has usb and some other things the free version doesn't. Then it is a matter of using shared folders.

bluflame_ignite · 2009-11-08 02:01:35

I had several troubles with VBox OSE - not having necessary folder sharing and USB support, etc. I use VBox (non-OSE). I think the term non-free is misleading; I understand it's not free as in free speech, but it is still free as in free beer, so I'm still happy with it.

Anyway, I don't use it for anything like what you're talking about - I don't know much about "headless," but I'm very satisfied with it so far.

wantilles · 2009-11-08 12:05:10

1. Use virtualbox_bin. You will find it in AUR. Or ready in our repo -> adslgr64.

2. Also more RAM -> 8GB -> would not be bad.

fukawi2 · 2009-11-09 00:49:48

I'm about to try VMware ESXi soon which is a bare metal hypervisor -- with only 4GB of RAM, you'd probably benefit from a bare-metal HV. It's requires no $$$.

If you try it before me, let me know how it goes!

R00KIE · 2009-11-09 15:56:58

How about KVM, anyone tried it?
I've been wanting to give it a go but I have to look how it works and how to set it up. I guess it should be faster than vbox (but slower than a bare-metal HV).

phanisvara · 2013-08-02 11:39:32

i've started playing around with QEMU/KVM a couple days ago, and i like it. was using vbox before, which i didn't.

i haven't noticed any mouse lag yet, after installing a few of the main distros i wanted to try out again: fedora 19, debian wheezy, ubuntu (latest, whatever the no.). only trouble i have that so far i wasn't able to get a mouse working properly in an archlinux guest probably something i'm doing wrong, but couldn't figure it out yet.

tried a few GUI frontends, but found that i'm better off starting VMs from the command line: less confusing, and all of the GUI apps i tried had some quirks, like didn't find proper directories or executables.

using KVM and virtio drivers, it's pretty fast; admittedly not as fast a bare metal install, but not slower than i remember vbox (just my impression, no benchmarking or such). assuming i'll get the arch guest trouble sorted out, i'll stick with KVM/QEMU.

Last edited by phanisvara (2013-08-02 11:43:23)

cybertorture · 2013-08-02 11:56:23

@R00KIE KVM is type 1 HV a.k.a baremetal hypervisor. It is slower 'cos by default it does not export all cpu features like mmx sse etc... otherwise its very competative.
Cheers

phanisvara · 2013-08-02 12:04:10

It is slower 'cos by default it does not export all cpu features like mmx sse etc

i found that letting it emulate the exact host CPU works very well, by adding the option "-cpu host" to the command line.

fsckd · 2013-08-02 12:53:21

Hi phanisvara, please don't bump old threads. Thanks. Closing.

Arch Linux

#1 2009-11-07 08:49:18

Virtualization...what should i use?

#2 2009-11-07 11:22:39

Re: Virtualization...what should i use?

#3 2009-11-07 18:49:34

Re: Virtualization...what should i use?

#4 2009-11-07 20:06:00

Re: Virtualization...what should i use?

#5 2009-11-07 21:56:23

Re: Virtualization...what should i use?

#6 2009-11-07 22:14:31

Re: Virtualization...what should i use?

#7 2009-11-08 02:01:35

Re: Virtualization...what should i use?

#8 2009-11-08 12:05:10

Re: Virtualization...what should i use?

#9 2009-11-09 00:49:48

Re: Virtualization...what should i use?

#10 2009-11-09 15:56:58

Re: Virtualization...what should i use?

#11 2013-08-02 11:39:32

Re: Virtualization...what should i use?

#12 2013-08-02 11:56:23

Re: Virtualization...what should i use?

#13 2013-08-02 12:04:10

Re: Virtualization...what should i use?

#14 2013-08-02 12:53:21

Re: Virtualization...what should i use?

Board footer