Slackware virtualization
Luca Beccari
slackware. I don't have money but I want stability.
I'm reading documentation from Xen 3.0.2 and VMware Server.
Anyone can give me a comment about the easier to install, mantaint?
About the performance I suppose Xen is the best but It is reliable?
Thanks everyone
Howard Bryce
I think that as of now, VMware is more versatile. Starting yesterday, you
can download it at no cost.
Loki Harfagr
> I'm looking for the best (at the moment) virtualization solution for
> slackware. I don't have money but I want stability.
> I'm reading documentation from Xen 3.0.2 and VMware Server.
>
> Anyone can give me a comment about the easier to install, mantaint?
I'd say the easier of the two you quoted is VMWare, though I'd recommend
QEmu instead, I have had trouble on some machines with VMWare that I
hadn't with QEmu.
> About the performance I suppose Xen is the best
It should be the best, but it's yet in active dev, moving even faster
than Linux 2.6 diffs ;D)
> but It is reliable?
I would say no at the moment if your concern is stability and ease of
install/maintain, though as it is moving fast forward it may be almost
perfect in a short time.
This is just a simple user advice, I hope you'll get advice from people
that rely on these virtzers for a living, that would certainly help you
more than my "consumer" feelings ;-)
Loki Harfagr
> Le Thu, 13 Jul 2006 19:55:02 +0200, Luca Beccari a écrit :
>
>> I'm looking for the best (at the moment) virtualization solution for
>> slackware. I don't have money but I want stability.
>> I'm reading documentation from Xen 3.0.2 and VMware Server.
>>
>> Anyone can give me a comment about the easier to install, mantaint?
>
> I'd say the easier of the two you quoted is VMWare, though I'd recommend
> QEmu instead, I have had trouble on some machines with VMWare that I
> hadn't with QEmu.
I'll have to add to this that I still didn't try the beta and now free
version of the server, so YMMV :-)
Alan_C
> I'm looking for the best (at the moment) virtualization solution for
> slackware. I don't have money but I want stability.
> I'm reading documentation from Xen 3.0.2 and VMware Server.
You haven't said what you want to run in the virtual machine. (Vmware
Player has many pre built images/guest_OS that can download for free --
they run in Vmware Player
I'm running host OS Slackware-current at this time on which i've a
Qemu/Kqemu with a Win 2K SP4 guest OS. I also have latest Vmware Player
with a Win 2K SP4 guest OS. Both are great and ran at nearly equal speed
until I compiled a hugemem 2.6.16.20 kernel. I went up from 1GB to 1.5
GB ram in my Pent. 4
qemu -boot c sda3 ~/images/win2k.img -m 608 -localtime
-m 608 equates to 608 megs ram shared to the virt. mach.
(way more than enough)
either very nearly or the same amount ram shared to Vmware Player (I
only run one virt mach. at a time)
With 1 GB physical ram and 330 to 400 shared to each virt. mach. both
virt. mach. ran at equal speed nearly. But Vmware player for some reason
takes home the prize ever since I did 1.5 GB, hugemem kernel, and shared
608 to virt. mach. Qemu/kqemu nearly didn't change in speed while Vmware
Player significantly speeded up. (I don't know why this is)
The Win 2K in Vmware Player runs so fast (after hugemem) that it appears
like it's not even a virtual machine (though it is a virt. mach.)
VMware Player
On the Desktop
Written by Jason Perlow
Sunday, 15 January 2006
Page 1 of 5
The August 2005 ?On the Desktop?
(http://www.linux-mag.com/2005-08/desktop_01.html) demonstrated blah blah
the January 2006 at linux-mag.com see "VMware Player On the Desktop"
is howto (DL trial Vmware Workstation) can create what will then after
30 days will also still run in Vmware Player -- allows for free to run a
Win on Linux.
I was waiting for the free Vmware server to turn/evolve to a later
release candidate or whatnot. I'll have to check again -- perhaps it's
time for me to try this one too. (though my need is really already being
done as I mentioned above)
>
> Anyone can give me a comment about the easier to install, mantaint?
Vmware Workstation trial is very nice. later when I installed Vmware
Player then something happened the virtual networking didn't compile
right. But the networking for virt. mach. on my real physical LAN works
OK so what I did is I fired up Samba on Slack and now I use Samba to
network between host OS and Win guest OS. I never fixed the virt.
network whatever (don't need to, using Samba instead)
So far with Qemu when it's *not* running I mount the image to Slack and
trade/copy files between host and guest OS in this way. I haven't yet
learned how to get Qemu/Win_guest_OS onto my real physical LAN so I can
use Samba like I do with Vmware Player.
Of the two, Vmware Player is my favorite. But I like and use both.
If anyone can point me to a Qemu howto onto my real physical LAN of
192.168.1.xx that'd be appreciated (then I could use Samba).
If you try Vmware (wrkstatn, player) , note that it is not
(officially) (not) supported on Slack. But I merely went to the vmware
forums and searched/found plenty of answered questions there's an easy
workaround is needed to get it installed on Slack. Also if a very late
2.6 kernel like me there at same forum is developer's patch needed
otherwise won't install
BTW I've not a clue "what's best" these are merely my experiences so far
that I've shared. "what's best" likely may be an opinionated/debateable
thing. And, best for what? ie what/how_many your guest_OS
"virtualization needs" ie server farm versus just a Win running on Linux
like me.
--
Alan_Cu . . . later abc
Loki Harfagr
> So far with Qemu when it's *not* running I mount the image to Slack and
> trade/copy files between host and guest OS in this way. I haven't yet
> learned how to get Qemu/Win_guest_OS onto my real physical LAN so I can
> use Samba like I do with Vmware Player.
>
> Of the two, Vmware Player is my favorite. But I like and use both.
>
> If anyone can point me to a Qemu howto onto my real physical LAN of
> 192.168.1.xx that'd be appreciated (then I could use Samba).
For a general sight over user mode network, see directly here :
http://fabrice.bellard.free.fr/qemu/qemu-doc.html#SEC23
For your specific "Windows on guest OS question", just add this
line to your Windows lmhosts file :
( Usually C:\Windows\System32\drivers\etc\lmhosts )
10.0.2.4 smbserver
And add this swith to your launch :
-smb /path2yourSambaSharedDirectory
Note that this path2 can point to anywhere in your system, like
a link or a directory full of links to anywhere else, then be
careful :-)
PS: The net user mode is the default but if you had another net option
like tap here, change it to :
-net user
nosorozec
Daniel de Kok
> About the performance I suppose Xen is the best but It is reliable?
It kinda depends on the job. I usually make the following distinctions,
with the software that works well for the specific categories:
Virtual private servers: Virtuozzo/OpenVZ, Xen
Virtualization for better server utilization: VMWare Server, Xen
Desktop virtualization: VMWare Player/Workstation, qemu, Win4Lin
Development virtualization: bochs, qemu, usermode linux, VMWare Workstation
Some points to consider:
- VMWare and Virtuozzo definitely have the easiest and most extensive.
- VMWare, qemu and bochs can run arbitrary operating systems.
- Xen 3 can run arbitrary operating systems on VT-x CPUs.
- Virtouzzo and usermode linux can dynamically allocate resources,
Xen also more or less.
- Xen does not run on top of another OS, but is a hypervisor on which
multiple operating systems run simultaneously. One operating system
(named Domain0) has administrative control over other domains.
So, if you combine the purpose of virtualization, and these factors,
it should be fairly easy to make a choice*.
-- Daniel
[*] A different issue is that some technologies are FOSS software,
while others are not.
Luca Beccari
wrote:
>Luca Beccari <lbec...@dmsweb.it> writes:
>
>> I'm looking for the best (at the moment) virtualization solution for
>> slackware. I don't have money but I want stability.
>> I'm reading documentation from Xen 3.0.2 and VMware Server.
>
>You haven't said what you want to run in the virtual machine.
You're right.
A customer of mine bought a well-build server in order to change the
old firewall. It's a medium-light server (521 MB RAM, 2 80GB HD, 1,5
Ghz CPU). IMHO it's a shame use it as a plain firewall.
I think it's time to play virtualization.
I could create a VM for firewall, a VM for an http front-end and a VM
for test purpose (no X-server only console). Chroot can provide
security separation, virtualization can provide resources separation
too.
The point is that one VM (=firewall) have to run wathever I do to
other VM. The Vnetwork must be easy to setup, I don't want a
console-only manager, and the server\hypervisor must be stable: I
don't want reboot the server monthly (as I do with Exchange) to clean
up RAM.
Can I try Xen 3?