DaemonForums  

Go Back   DaemonForums > Miscellaneous > Off-Topic

Off-Topic Everything else.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   (View Single Post)  
Old 19th June 2008
satimis satimis is offline
Port Guard
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 27
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default Server virtualization

Hi folks,


Server virtualization.


What will be the best planning, strategy, etc. on server virtualization? Google found me tons of article sufficient for me reading a month. Can any folk shed me some light on;

- whether the host should not run any server or application on it except VMware/Xen/Virtualbox/qemn etc. there ?

- if there is only one fixed IP/public IP can it satisfy all servers running on the virtural box? OR multiple fixed IP/public IP are needed?

- Which servers can't be co-exist

- Network arrangement.

- Can I run Vyatta on the same box
http://www.vyatta.com/


Pointer would be appreciated. TIA


B.R.
satimis
Reply With Quote
  #2   (View Single Post)  
Old 19th June 2008
vermaden's Avatar
vermaden vermaden is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: pl_PL.lodz
Posts: 1,052
Thanked 118 Times in 93 Posts
Default

If you run Xen, you will not be able to run VirtualBox or VMware at the same time and vice versa, you must decide which virtualization sollution to choose, you may also go with KVM if you CPU supports Intel-VT or AMD-V.

You can of course run vyatta and many other OSes at the same time.
__________________
religions, worst damnation of mankind
"If 386BSD had been available when I started on Linux, Linux would probably never had happened." Linus Torvalds

Linux is not UNIX! Face it! It is not an insult. It is fact: GNU is a recursive acronym for “GNU's Not UNIX”.
vermaden's: links resources deviantart spreadbsd
Reply With Quote
  #3   (View Single Post)  
Old 19th June 2008
satimis satimis is offline
Port Guard
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 27
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by vermaden View Post
If you run Xen, you will not be able to run VirtualBox or VMware at the same time and vice versa, you must decide which virtualization sollution to choose,
Thanks for your advice.

Sorry for the confusion on my late posting. What I meant is running either Xen or VMware or VirturalBox etc. Most likely I'll test Xen. I have a box here running VMware. Any suggestion? Thanks


Quote:
you may also go with KVM if you CPU supports Intel-VT or AMD-V.
What will be the advantage running KVM on a virtual box?


Quote:
You can of course run vyatta and many other OSes at the same time.
Noted with thanks.


What I'm concerned is following points;

- Whether we should not run anything on the host other than VMware/Xen/VirturalBox, etc.


- Can I run a workstation as host? Because I don't install X packages on server. I do headless installation. If YES I can configure/install the servers on the workstation.


B.R.
satimis
Reply With Quote
  #4   (View Single Post)  
Old 19th June 2008
vermaden's Avatar
vermaden vermaden is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: pl_PL.lodz
Posts: 1,052
Thanked 118 Times in 93 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by satimis View Post
Sorry for the confusion on my late posting. What I meant is running either Xen or VMware or VirturalBox etc. Most likely I'll test Xen. I have a box here running VMware. Any suggestion?
Download Solaris from solaris.com and boot with xVM.

Quote:
What will be the advantage running KVM on a virtual box?
KVM is like QEMU, you can start it without display with --nographic option, so it will be more like Xen, you will be able to ssh to the VM of course, a good sollution for vyatta for example, but KVM is limited to Linux host only, while VirtualBox is also avialable on Solaris.


Quote:
- Whether we should not run anything on the host other than VMware/Xen/VirturalBox, etc.
You can use Solaris containers, which will secure everything and you will have no performance drops at the same time since is OS level virtualization like FreeBSD Jails.

Quote:
- Can I run a workstation as host? Because I don't install X packages on server. I do headless installation. If YES I can configure/install the servers on the workstation.
Generally X11 is not a standart package for servrs, but Solaris will install it anyway as part of the default install, so you will have to disable it manually by SMF later.

You may do some "startup" administration at the box in x11 and then after all Xen/xVM setup is done disable X11.
__________________
religions, worst damnation of mankind
"If 386BSD had been available when I started on Linux, Linux would probably never had happened." Linus Torvalds

Linux is not UNIX! Face it! It is not an insult. It is fact: GNU is a recursive acronym for “GNU's Not UNIX”.
vermaden's: links resources deviantart spreadbsd
Reply With Quote
  #5   (View Single Post)  
Old 19th June 2008
satimis satimis is offline
Port Guard
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 27
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by vermaden View Post
Download Solaris from solaris.com and boot with xVM.
Hi vermaden,

Good suggestion. Never run Solaris before. In the past for Unix I selected either OpenBSD or FreeBSD. A side question what will be the difference btw Solaris and Open Solaris?


Quote:
Generally X11 is not a standart package for servrs, but Solaris will install it anyway as part of the default install, so you will have to disable it manually by SMF later.

You may do some "startup" administration at the box in x11 and then after all Xen/xVM setup is done disable X11.
It seem NOT a problem to me if I can run Solaris as workstation. Since it is host I won't build server on it only for remote config the server on the virtual box.


Others noted with thanks


B.R.
satimis
Reply With Quote
  #6   (View Single Post)  
Old 19th June 2008
vermaden's Avatar
vermaden vermaden is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: pl_PL.lodz
Posts: 1,052
Thanked 118 Times in 93 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by satimis View Post
Good suggestion. Never run Solaris before. In the past for Unix I selected either OpenBSD or FreeBSD. A side question what will be the difference btw Solaris and Open Solaris?
BSDs are great systems but they have very little to offer if it comes to virtualization sollutions (Jails in FreeBSD + QEMU only currently).

Solaris is based on OpenSolaris + some binary addons that are not avialable in source. Solaris is avialable only in binary form while OpenSolaris comes with full sources.

Every two weeks there is new build (annunced on opensolaris.org/os JIVE forums) of OpenSolaris SXCE (Solaris Express Community Edition), currently build 90, about every quater Sun creates SXDE (Solaris Express Developer Edition) which is then tweaked/fixed to be a Solaris 10 $MONTH / $YEAR update.

For Solaris resources check docs.sun.com lots of good docs there, especially for virtualization, a near 40 chapter book about virtualization for example
__________________
religions, worst damnation of mankind
"If 386BSD had been available when I started on Linux, Linux would probably never had happened." Linus Torvalds

Linux is not UNIX! Face it! It is not an insult. It is fact: GNU is a recursive acronym for “GNU's Not UNIX”.
vermaden's: links resources deviantart spreadbsd
Reply With Quote
  #7   (View Single Post)  
Old 19th June 2008
scottro's Avatar
scottro scottro is offline
Real Name: Scott Robbins
VPN Cryptographer
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: NYC
Posts: 347
Thanked 31 Times in 25 Posts
Default

Slack is 32 bit. There's a few 64 bit versions, I think one is considered the quasi-official one but I don't remember which.

As for which virtualization, on Linux, I have a page with my VERY subjective opinion....

http://home.nyc.rr.com/computertaijutsu/vmcomp.html
Reply With Quote
  #8   (View Single Post)  
Old 20th June 2008
phoenix's Avatar
phoenix phoenix is offline
Risen from the ashes
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 699
Thanked 90 Times in 81 Posts
Default

If all your hardware is supported by Linux kernel 2.6.18, and your CPU doesn't support hardware virtualisation, and you will only be running NetBSD or Linux in your virtual machines, then Xen 3.0 (not 3.1 or 3.2) is very nice. Fairly easy to use, very fast, very lightweight.

However, if your CPU support hardware virtualisation, then go with with a Linux distro that uses kernel 2.6.24, and use Kernel-based Virtual Machine (KVM). With that, you can create virtual machines you can run *any* 32-bit or 64-bit PC-based OS (any BSD, any Linux, any Windows, etc). KVM is very easy to use, is very lightweight, is very easy to understand, and performance is very close to native (around 80% in most benchmarks). There's also paravirtual disk and network drivers available for Linux and Windows which give native I/O performance. For more info, check http:///kvm.qumranet.com/kvmwiki/ and http://www.linux-kvm.com

We're moving all our VM hosts to KVM. It's just better than Xen.
__________________
Freddie

Help for FreeBSD: Handbook, FAQ, man pages, mailing lists.
Reply With Quote
  #9   (View Single Post)  
Old 20th June 2008
horizon's Avatar
horizon horizon is offline
Port Guard
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 16
Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by phoenix View Post
If all your hardware is supported by Linux kernel 2.6.18, and your CPU doesn't support hardware virtualisation, and you will only be running NetBSD or Linux in your virtual machines, then Xen 3.0 (not 3.1 or 3.2) is very nice. Fairly easy to use, very fast, very lightweight.

However, if your CPU support hardware virtualisation, then go with with a Linux distro that uses kernel 2.6.24, and use Kernel-based Virtual Machine (KVM). With that, you can create virtual machines you can run *any* 32-bit or 64-bit PC-based OS (any BSD, any Linux, any Windows, etc). KVM is very easy to use, is very lightweight, is very easy to understand, and performance is very close to native (around 80% in most benchmarks). There's also paravirtual disk and network drivers available for Linux and Windows which give native I/O performance. For more info, check http:///kvm.qumranet.com/kvmwiki/ and http://www.linux-kvm.com

We're moving all our VM hosts to KVM. It's just better than Xen.
Interesting post phoenix, I've been looking at Xen recently but will now be checking out KVM. Thanks.
Reply With Quote
Old 20th June 2008
satimis satimis is offline
Port Guard
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 27
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by phoenix View Post
If all your hardware is supported by Linux kernel 2.6.18, and your CPU doesn't support hardware virtualisation, and you will only be running NetBSD or Linux in your virtual machines, then Xen 3.0 (not 3.1 or 3.2) is very nice. Fairly easy to use, very fast, very lightweight.

However, if your CPU support hardware virtualisation, then go with with a Linux distro that uses kernel 2.6.24, and use Kernel-based Virtual Machine (KVM). With that, you can create virtual machines you can run *any* 32-bit or 64-bit PC-based OS (any BSD, any Linux, any Windows, etc). KVM is very easy to use, is very lightweight, is very easy to understand, and performance is very close to native (around 80% in most benchmarks). There's also paravirtual disk and network drivers available for Linux and Windows which give native I/O performance. For more info, check http:///kvm.qumranet.com/kvmwiki/ and http://www.linux-kvm.com

We're moving all our VM hosts to KVM. It's just better than Xen.
Hi phoenix,


I have no hardware problem.


I'll take your advice installing Zenwalk Linus as host and run KVM on it as virtual server. Thanks


B.R.
satimis
Reply With Quote
Old 21st June 2008
scottro's Avatar
scottro scottro is offline
Real Name: Scott Robbins
VPN Cryptographer
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: NYC
Posts: 347
Thanked 31 Times in 25 Posts
Default

The latest KVM's, on boxes with the virtualization built into the processor, also do 64 bit and SMP--actually, more CPUs than VMware server. VMware server does have the ease of use thing, especially with bridged networking.

There is, by the way, a bounty out for VMware on FreeBSD and Orlando, the fellow who did the VMware 3 port, has taken it up, so there's hope that you'll get your VMware on FreeBSD one of these days.

I do find VMware rather resource intensive. I don't like the direction that they seem to be going with their 2.0 beta, though I guess it's aimed at a very powerful server running several VMs. Rather than give you the console of the machine by default, it gives you a web management interface.

I don't want to post misinformation, and my memory is hazy on this, but I think (and maybe someone can confirm this or correct it if it's wrong) that the 2.0 beta puts in its own version of java, and uses up port 80 (by default, which can be changed.) Not realizing this, I messed up a test installation of nagios, which could no longer use port 80 because VMware had it. In contrast, nagios and cacti can play nicely together, both using port 80.
Reply With Quote
Old 22nd June 2008
phoenix's Avatar
phoenix phoenix is offline
Risen from the ashes
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 699
Thanked 90 Times in 81 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by scottro View Post
VMware server does have the ease of use thing, especially with bridged networking.
If by ease-of-use, you mean "there's one way to do it, using one interface, and there's no configuration possible". (And don't get me started on how horrible the network setup in Xen has become.)

The really nice thing about KVM is that you don't have to learn a new way of networking. You use the tools in the host OS to configure the network. If you want eth0 to be your bridge, you can. If you want eth3 through eth6 to be separate bridges assigned to separate VMs, without IPs, with eth0 a management interface with an IP, you can. If you want to create a large bond0 using eth1 through eth6, and then use that for the bridge, you can. Anything you can do normally in Linux networking, you can configure for the networking for the VMs.

Quote:
I do find VMware rather resource intensive. I don't like the direction that they seem to be going with their 2.0 beta, though I guess it's aimed at a very powerful server running several VMs. Rather than give you the console of the machine by default, it gives you a web management interface.
Yes, that is really going in the wrong direction, IMO. I participated in the beta process for a bit, and wrote up a report for them on how bad the web GUI was, how slow it was, how unstable it was, how resource intensive it was, and to please, please, please bring back a native management console. Not everything needs to be web-based.
__________________
Freddie

Help for FreeBSD: Handbook, FAQ, man pages, mailing lists.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Virtualization Software ninjatux FreeBSD Ports and Packages 4 8th January 2009 08:49 PM
Sun Java System Web Server - Active Server Pages (yes ASP) hopla FreeBSD General 0 26th September 2008 08:22 AM
Virtualization Software ninjatux General software and network 52 22nd August 2008 04:18 PM


All times are GMT. The time now is 03:44 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content copyright © 2007-2010, the authors
Daemon image copyright ©1988, Marshall Kirk McKusick