32 or 64 ? which is more suitable for running virtual box as host

ekv · 2009-12-01 11:35:57

Hi,

Unable to decide between the 2. My primary use will be running 2 or 3 VMs in virtual box.
Hardware : Lenovo T61 2Gig core 2 duo

any suggestions ?

Thx

JuseBox · 2009-12-01 13:40:44

With your hardware being a host might as well just use the 32 bit version. As for me for example. I have 8 gigs of ram so i do run the 64 bit version. But 64 comes with its issues as well (for virtualbox but the install was easy with AUR). but with only 2 GB go for 32 bit. you wouldn't benefit much with 64 bit.

R00KIE · 2009-12-01 18:04:27

I'm not sure but maybe the 64bit version would make it a little faster and I guess it could allow more flexibility if the guests are 64bit.

JuseBox · 2009-12-01 19:12:02

R00KIE wrote:

I'm not sure but maybe the 64bit version would make it a little faster and I guess it could allow more flexibility if the guests are 64bit.

I honestly don't see how he is going to see much acceleration at all with his specs. but i could be totally wrong.

ekv · 2009-12-05 06:21:31

JuseBox wrote:

R00KIE wrote:
I'm not sure but maybe the 64bit version would make it a little faster and I guess it could allow more flexibility if the guests are 64bit.
I honestly don't see how he is going to see much acceleration at all with his specs. but i could be totally wrong.

I am not using X in the guest. I am using Centos-5 to run DB2. So, just trying to find out the arch which will extract the best out of my available hardware

doorknob60 · 2009-12-05 06:58:32

64 bit, why not? That's like buying an Xbox 360 and only playing original Xbox games on it. Shouldn't give you any problems.

wantilles · 2009-12-05 08:42:50

64-bit has been much more suitable for everything, for at least 4.75 years now.

ekv · 2009-12-05 14:13:56

doorknob60 wrote:

64 bit, why not? That's like buying an Xbox 360 and only playing original Xbox games on it. Shouldn't give you any problems.

Yes .. Agreed. I accept there are perfomance gains in jobs like encoding video or any graphics rendering etc..

My only concern here is how much difference will I be gettting in virtualization. Its a differnet beast alltogether
As any kind of virtualization is CPU intensive, I am little bit for 64 W.R.T VM products.

But on the other hand, no VM maker says they recomend 64 bit for better performance. If there is a clear cut perfomance advantage in this particular area, would they not say it out loud ?

R00KIE · 2009-12-05 15:24:48

You do however have some limitations on the guests you can use if your host is 32bit.

If you have a 64bit host I believe you will have no restrictions on the type of guests you can use, check the virtualbox manual regarding this to get the idea.

ekv · 2009-12-13 09:03:58

Tried 64 .. no visible perf difference... going back to 32 arch

jwcxz · 2009-12-13 10:38:34

VirtualBox will allow you to run 64-bit guests on 32-bit hosts so long as your processor has virtualization extensions. Just thought I'd point that out.

If you don't use 32-bit stuff that requires a lot of 32-bit dependencies, I see no reason why not to use a 64-bit OS. But that's just my opinion.

insane_alien · 2009-12-21 11:10:10

why is it when people see no difference with 64-bit they go BACK to 32-bit. why not just leave it as 64-bit? afterall, there is no difference by their point of view so whats with making all the extra work?

Arch Linux

#1 2009-12-01 11:35:57

32 or 64 ? which is more suitable for running virtual box as host

#2 2009-12-01 13:40:44

Re: 32 or 64 ? which is more suitable for running virtual box as host

#3 2009-12-01 18:04:27

Re: 32 or 64 ? which is more suitable for running virtual box as host

#4 2009-12-01 19:12:02

Re: 32 or 64 ? which is more suitable for running virtual box as host

#5 2009-12-05 06:21:31

Re: 32 or 64 ? which is more suitable for running virtual box as host

#6 2009-12-05 06:58:32

Re: 32 or 64 ? which is more suitable for running virtual box as host

#7 2009-12-05 08:42:50

Re: 32 or 64 ? which is more suitable for running virtual box as host

#8 2009-12-05 14:13:56

Re: 32 or 64 ? which is more suitable for running virtual box as host

#9 2009-12-05 15:24:48

Re: 32 or 64 ? which is more suitable for running virtual box as host

#10 2009-12-13 09:03:58

Re: 32 or 64 ? which is more suitable for running virtual box as host

#11 2009-12-13 10:38:34

Re: 32 or 64 ? which is more suitable for running virtual box as host

#12 2009-12-21 11:10:10

Re: 32 or 64 ? which is more suitable for running virtual box as host

Board footer