Server Virtualization Platform Choices
-
Does that really matter on a workstation? And if this is on a server, do you need a gui console on the server?
-
@Dashrender said:
Does that really matter on a workstation? And if this is on a server, do you need a gui console on the server?
Just workstation. What's the advantage to a type 2 if you can use a type 1?
-
@johnhooks said:
@Dashrender said:
Does that really matter on a workstation? And if this is on a server, do you need a gui console on the server?
Just workstation. What's the advantage to a type 2 if you can use a type 1?
Dedicated resources to the OS and the ability to completely disable the VMs.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@johnhooks said:
@Dashrender said:
Does that really matter on a workstation? And if this is on a server, do you need a gui console on the server?
Just workstation. What's the advantage to a type 2 if you can use a type 1?
Dedicated resources to the OS and the ability to completely disable the VMs.
Good point.
-
What do you hope to gain when using virtualization on a workstation by using a type 1 hypervisor?
Other than HyperV, do any of them allow you access to a GUI from the console? If not, your stuck using a second machine as a workspace machine. Using a type 2 on a workstation allows you to have your local machine GUI, etc and windowed or full screen VMs.
-
If KVM gives you the local console features, I can see that being slightly beneficial. Definitely better performance of the VMs. The focus of the product is different, not sure it is worth the effort.
-
Ya you can have a full desktop gui on the workstation and have KVM running. Then just use VirtManager to access the console for each virtual machine.
-
@johnhooks said:
Ya you can have a full desktop gui on the workstation and have KVM running. Then just use VirtManager to access the console for each virtual machine.
Sounds like it works nearly the same as HyperV.
But I'm with Scott, not sure it's worth the effort for a hypervisor that has so little play.
-
I think that KVM might be a little lighter. Although VirtualBox is tuned for use with local graphics and KVM is not. One would be used "as designed" and the other more or less "making do." Not sure that the KVM experience would be better, likely worse. So if you were virtualizing servers and wanted them to process as quickly as possible KVM might be the better answer. If you want a good desktop experience, I would think that VirtualBox would be the answer.
-
@Dashrender said:
@johnhooks said:
Ya you can have a full desktop gui on the workstation and have KVM running. Then just use VirtManager to access the console for each virtual machine.
Sounds like it works nearly the same as HyperV.
But I'm with Scott, not sure it's worth the effort for a hypervisor that has so little play.
I just learned this the other day. Apparently this is how Gnome Boxes works. It sets up KVM machines in the user space. So each user has their own KVM VMs. So you can manage them with either Boxes or Virt-Manager.
-
@johnhooks said:
I just learned this the other day. Apparently this is how Gnome Boxes works. It sets up KVM machines in the user space. So each user has their own KVM VMs. So you can manage them with either Boxes or Virt-Manager.
So.... VDI?
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@johnhooks said:
I just learned this the other day. Apparently this is how Gnome Boxes works. It sets up KVM machines in the user space. So each user has their own KVM VMs. So you can manage them with either Boxes or Virt-Manager.
So.... VDI?
Well they are full VMs that the user can create. When you look in virt-manager it has KVM machines in localhost, when you create one with Gnome Boxes it's under localhost:user (or something to that effect). So like virtualbox but with KVM and per user.
-
@johnhooks said:
When you look in virt-manager it has KVM machines in localhost, when you create one with Gnome Boxes it's under localhost:user (or something to that effect). So like virtualbox but with KVM and per user.
-
@johnhooks said:
Well they are full VMs that the user can create.
Right... so VDI
Full VMs with remote graphical access. That's all VDI is.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@johnhooks said:
Well they are full VMs that the user can create.
Right... so VDI
Full VMs with remote graphical access. That's all VDI is.
Would anything with VNC or spice be considered that also?
-
@johnhooks said:
Would anything with VNC or spice be considered that also?
Spice, yes, that's specifically a VDI protocol. Anything using VNC for the purpose of doing computing with it, certainly.
-
VDI is simply the virtualization of resources meant to be consumed graphically instead of as a server.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
VDI is simply the virtualization of resources meant to be consumed graphically instead of as a server.
I thought it was specifically in reference to things like VMware Horizon or Citrix XenDesktop. Thanks for the clarification!
-
@scottalanmiller said:
VDI is simply the virtualization of resources meant to be consumed graphically instead of as a server.
Wait, why are you limited to graphically? If you're using a CLI, why isn't that VDI? is it because of the term desktop in "Virtual Desktop Infrastructure"?
-
@johnhooks said:
I thought it was specifically in reference to things like VMware Horizon or Citrix XenDesktop. Thanks for the clarification!
VDI existed long before those things
