DaemonForums  

Go Back   DaemonForums > Miscellaneous > General software and network

General software and network General OS-independent software and network questions, X11, MTA, routing, etc.

View Poll Results: Which VT software do you prefer?
Parallels 0 0%
Virtualbox 13 37.14%
VMWare (various flavors) 16 45.71%
Qemu (various combos or not) 6 17.14%
Voters: 35. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 4th August 2008
prijikn prijikn is offline
New User
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 5
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

I think VMware is the one of the best virtualization software because It's free and It's compatible with all Linux
Reply With Quote
Old 4th August 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 prijikn View Post
I think VMware is the one of the best virtualization software because It's free and It's compatible with all Linux
Free ... same free as nvidia binary blob, not a good thing really, maybe you will understand that some day.

Compatible with all Linux you say, all Linux systems use Linux kernel (SRSLY?) so what is strange here that it runs on all Linux systems?

WMware is crap because it is LIMITED to Linux (and windows, even worse).

You cannot run it on OpenSolaris or FreeBSD (dont even start about WMware3) or any other UNIX.
__________________
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
Old 4th August 2008
ephemera's Avatar
ephemera ephemera is offline
Knuth's homeboy
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 537
Thanked 49 Times in 43 Posts
Default

i haven't tried VirtualBox yet. how does it compare performace/feature-wise with VmwareWS6?
Reply With Quote
Old 4th August 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

@ephemera

Its genrally as fast or even faster then WMware, very responsive, great for desktop usage, along with its seamless mode.
__________________
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
Old 4th August 2008
s0xxx's Avatar
s0xxx s0xxx is offline
Package Pilot
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 194
Thanked 47 Times in 22 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ephemera View Post
i haven't tried VirtualBox yet. how does it compare performace/feature-wise with VmwareWS6?
Here's Ivan Voras's results after running FreeBSD in VirtualBox (on Windows XP), and what he thinks about VMWare Server 2.0.
__________________
The best way to learn UNIX is to play with it, and the harder you play, the more you learn.
If you play hard enough, you'll break something for sure, and having to fix a badly broken system is arguably the fastest way of all to learn. -Michael Lucas, AbsoluteBSD

Last edited by s0xxx; 4th August 2008 at 03:50 PM. Reason: Minor typo
Reply With Quote
Old 4th August 2008
ephemera's Avatar
ephemera ephemera is offline
Knuth's homeboy
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 537
Thanked 49 Times in 43 Posts
Default

interesting, i didn't expect virtualbox to be in the same league as vmware in terms of performance.
Reply With Quote
Old 4th August 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 ephemera View Post
interesting, i didn't expect virtualbox to be in the same league as vmware in terms of performance.
I will have to benchamrk them (and many more) as part of my master's thesis, so I will put them here before 2009 begin.
__________________
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
Old 4th August 2008
scottro's Avatar
scottro scottro is offline
Real Name: Scott Robbins
Spam Deminer
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: NYC
Posts: 322
Thanked 31 Times in 25 Posts
Default

There's a fellow on Fedora forums, who did some casual benchmarking of VBox vs. kvm.
He found that KVM was actually a bit ahead of native in raw computer and VBox a bit behind. (By raw computing, I've forgotten what he used to test, but some sort of number crunching, I think.) Using Native as 100, KVM (on a machine with a VT enabled processor) was something like .99 and VBox about 100.01 or so.

Phoenix and myself have expressed our opinions of 2.0 and they pretty much agreed with the link provided S0xxx. Judging from their forums, it seems that most people seem to agree that 2.0 is a regression.
Reply With Quote
Old 4th August 2008
JMJ_coder JMJ_coder is offline
VPN Cryptographer
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 464
Thanked 8 Times in 8 Posts
Default

Hello,

At work I am setting up a workstation for myself that will need virtualization. It will run Slackware 12.1 and will need to emulate Windows XP. The primary software that will be run will be MS Office and maybe some kind of vnc.

Any suggestions?
__________________
And the WORD was made flesh, and dwelt among us. (John 1:14)
Reply With Quote
Old 5th August 2008
scottro's Avatar
scottro scottro is offline
Real Name: Scott Robbins
Spam Deminer
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: NYC
Posts: 322
Thanked 31 Times in 25 Posts
Default

For a situation like that, I think VirtualBox will be your best choice. See my http://home.nyc.rr.com/computertaijutsu/vmcomp.html

(Did I mention that page already in this thread? Well, it was probably on page one.)
The only argument against it would be if you need the XP machine to be a host on the LAN. However, setting up a bridged connection isn't overly difficult.
VMware-server (choose the current 1.6-whatever, not the beta 2.0) does the bridged networking out of the box but requires more resources in my opinion.
Lastly, one thing I do find is that any VM will gradually eat up resources, and I've found that if I start with nice -n 19 (lowest priority) it will still respond well enough, and not slow down the host very much.
Reply With Quote
Old 5th August 2008
JMJ_coder JMJ_coder is offline
VPN Cryptographer
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 464
Thanked 8 Times in 8 Posts
Default

Hello,

Quote:
Originally Posted by scottro View Post
For a situation like that, I think VirtualBox will be your best choice. See my http://home.nyc.rr.com/computertaijutsu/vmcomp.html

(Did I mention that page already in this thread? Well, it was probably on page one.)
The only argument against it would be if you need the XP machine to be a host on the LAN. However, setting up a bridged connection isn't overly difficult.
VMware-server (choose the current 1.6-whatever, not the beta 2.0) does the bridged networking out of the box but requires more resources in my opinion.
Lastly, one thing I do find is that any VM will gradually eat up resources, and I've found that if I start with nice -n 19 (lowest priority) it will still respond well enough, and not slow down the host very much.
Thanks. It may need to connect to the LAN - probably via Zenworks in the Windows. That would be needed to email the Office docs - unless I have access to those files from inside Linux (I've never set something like that up before, though - samba?).

I have a friend at work who uses VMWare running under Windows XP to emulate Windows XP that he uses to configure automated Windows installs. He sets the RAM that VMWare has access to so that it doesn't take all of it. I would imagine that VirtualBox would have similar configurability.
__________________
And the WORD was made flesh, and dwelt among us. (John 1:14)
Reply With Quote
Old 5th August 2008
scottro's Avatar
scottro scottro is offline
Real Name: Scott Robbins
Spam Deminer
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: NYC
Posts: 322
Thanked 31 Times in 25 Posts
Default

Yes, it's not RAM that's the issue, it's more CPU time. The docs that come with VBox aren't bad, they go through the limitations of NAT. It can get to the LAN, but the LAN can't get to it, at least not without more research than it took me to set up bridged networking. That is, it will have a default NAT address of 10.2.x.x (I think, maybe 10.1.x.x or even 10.0.x.x.) From that machine, on a 192.168.1.0/24 network, I can put in, for example, WinSCP, a GUI scp client for MS systems, and ssh by address to the host. I can reach the Internet. I can access other Windows hosts by IP---hrrm, possibly by name, but I've never tried. At work, I have it set up for bridged networking, and I no longer have any MS boxes on my home LAN. However, it can connect to say, a box running samba, again, I'm not sure if it requires the IP or can do it by name. So, it can get out without problem. However, the other machines on the LAN can't get in.

Again, setting up bridged networking isn't all that difficult, it's just not an out of the box thing at this point. Now that I've written an article about it (linked from the article mentioned above) it's almost trivial, since, like so many things in Unix and Unix like systems, it's not that it's complex, it's just that the documentation that will work is either hard to find or outdated.
Reply With Quote
Old 5th August 2008
JMJ_coder JMJ_coder is offline
VPN Cryptographer
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 464
Thanked 8 Times in 8 Posts
Default

Hello,

Could you please clear up my confusion. What is the host OS and the guest OS.

The way I'm thinking is that the host OS is the one that is running the virtualization software and the guest OS is the one that is being emulated by the virtualization software. Is my thinking correct?
__________________
And the WORD was made flesh, and dwelt among us. (John 1:14)
Reply With Quote
Old 5th August 2008
DrJ DrJ is offline
ISO Quartermaster
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Gold Country, CA
Posts: 506
Thanked 39 Times in 39 Posts
Default

That's right.

(Do I need extra characters to post?)
Reply With Quote
Old 5th August 2008
Carpetsmoker's Avatar
Carpetsmoker Carpetsmoker is offline
Real Name: Martin
Old man from scene 24
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Eindhoven, Netherlands
Posts: 2,080
Thanked 198 Times in 156 Posts
Default

There was a minimum of 10 characters, I see no reason to keep this enabled ... So I disabled this feature.
__________________
UNIX was not designed to stop you from doing stupid things, because that would also stop you from doing clever things.
Reply With Quote
Old 5th August 2008
DrJ DrJ is offline
ISO Quartermaster
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Gold Country, CA
Posts: 506
Thanked 39 Times in 39 Posts
Default

Yay!
Reply With Quote
Old 6th August 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 JMJ_coder View Post
At work I am setting up a workstation for myself that will need virtualization. It will run Slackware 12.1 and will need to emulate Windows XP. The primary software that will be run will be MS Office and maybe some kind of vnc.
If the CPU supports hardware virtualisation (Intel VT-D, AMD SVM), I'd recommend KVM. It basically turns the host Linux kernel into a hypervisor, and provides full-virtualisation (which means you can run pretty much any OS as a guest). If you use Linux kernel 2.6.25 or 2.6.26 in the host, and KVM 71 or 72, then you can also use paravirtual network drivers in Windows to get near-native network speeds. There's work on a paravirtual block driver for Windows, that will eventually allow it to get near-native harddrive speeds as well.

Plus, you get a simple, standard VNC console to all of your virtual machines. No need to install rdesktop or VNC in the guest, and no need to use a standalone access tool like VMWare/VBox.

(Yeah, I'm a KVM pimp right now.)
__________________
Freddie

Help for FreeBSD: Handbook, FAQ, man pages, mailing lists.
Reply With Quote
Old 6th August 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 JMJ_coder View Post
Could you please clear up my confusion. What is the host OS and the guest OS.
The host OS is installed on the physical hardware.

The guest OS is installed into the virtual machine.
__________________
Freddie

Help for FreeBSD: Handbook, FAQ, man pages, mailing lists.
Reply With Quote
Old 6th August 2008
JMJ_coder JMJ_coder is offline
VPN Cryptographer
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 464
Thanked 8 Times in 8 Posts
Default

Hello,

Quote:
Originally Posted by phoenix View Post
If the CPU supports hardware virtualisation (Intel VT-D, AMD SVM), I'd recommend KVM. It basically turns the host Linux kernel into a hypervisor, and provides full-virtualisation (which means you can run pretty much any OS as a guest). If you use Linux kernel 2.6.25 or 2.6.26 in the host, and KVM 71 or 72, then you can also use paravirtual network drivers in Windows to get near-native network speeds. There's work on a paravirtual block driver for Windows, that will eventually allow it to get near-native harddrive speeds as well.

Plus, you get a simple, standard VNC console to all of your virtual machines. No need to install rdesktop or VNC in the guest, and no need to use a standalone access tool like VMWare/VBox.

(Yeah, I'm a KVM pimp right now.)
Thanks for the info. The system that they gave me is an older Pentium 4 single core ~2.4 GHz, so I don't think it's up to the task.
__________________
And the WORD was made flesh, and dwelt among us. (John 1:14)
Reply With Quote
Old 6th August 2008
JMJ_coder JMJ_coder is offline
VPN Cryptographer
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 464
Thanked 8 Times in 8 Posts
Default

Hello,

I decided to use VirtualBox. It was a bear to try to install - and after all my trying, I still couldn't get it to compile. So, I opted for the pre-compiled binary with the non-open license.

I got that installed and I have an empty VM configured (I gave it - 256MB RAM, 10GB storage) that I'll install XP on tomorrow.
__________________
And the WORD was made flesh, and dwelt among us. (John 1:14)
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
Fax software drhowarddrfine General software and network 31 25th December 2008 06:18 AM
any wlanconfig-like software? niedzwiedz FreeBSD General 2 30th July 2008 11:56 PM
Server virtualization satimis Off-Topic 27 22nd June 2008 06:57 PM
bbs software mjt FreeBSD Ports and Packages 3 8th May 2008 03:02 PM


All times are GMT. The time now is 08:08 PM.


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