The single biggest weakness that I've seen for VirtualBox is its inability to resize disk images after creation. This leads to creating additional virtual disks to present to the guest.
If you're hoping to resize the Windows filesystem to utilize this space, make sure to use "dynamic disks": http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx/kb/308424 --Matt On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 9:45 AM, Ryan Pugatch <r...@linux.com> wrote: > Edward Ned Harvey wrote: >> >> I find that Xen is great for virtualization of linux inside of linux ... And >> for nothing else. In fact, whenever I have a non-linux guest inside of Xen, >> I find Xen is unstable. I have a server with windows & linux guests inside >> of xen on RHEL5 host ... and about once per month, xen will lose its mind, >> and the memory of one machine becomes the memory of another. Solution is to >> reboot all the guests and host. And yes, performance is terrible, except >> for linux in linux. >> >> For either linux or mac hosts ... Sun Virtualbox is a pretty good choice. >> It has some bugs here and there ... but it does in fact have "guest >> extensions" or whatever they call it ... So the guest stability and >> performance is very good. >> >> If you only use your virtual machine casually, you can't beat the price of >> virtualbox. But if you use it all day every day, such as I do ... I run >> windows inside of mac every day, and I also run windows inside of ubuntu >> every day ... Then I find virtualbox is just simply too buggy and kloogy. >> >> On the mac, either parallels or vmware fusion is the professional way to go. >> In fusion, you must remember to install VMWare Tools, and in parallels, you >> must remember to install Parallels Extensions. If you do this, performance >> is near 100%. I personally prefer fusion for performance and reliability >> reasons, but parallels is slightly more featureful. Both are good choices, >> with neither having a large edge over the other in any way. >> >> On linux, VMWare Workstation is the professional way to go. Beware versions >> though. Check the vmware compatibility guide. I find VMWare Workstation is >> typically only compatible with hosts a rev behind ... For example ... >> Workstation works fine on ubuntu 904, but not 910. But by the time 1004 >> comes out, I think 910 will be supported. >> > > I agree that Linux inside Linux with Xen is good. I definitely need a > solution to virtualize Windows on a server rather than having the devs > virtualize on their local machines. I regularly use Virtualbox locally > and like it and have thought about setting up a server with a group of > headless VMs under it, but I am unsure of how Virtualbox performs in > that setup. Definitely looking for a server rather than workstation > solution so perhaps VMWare Server may be the way to go. > > Thanks for your thoughts. > > Ryan > _______________________________________________ > Discuss mailing list > Discuss@lopsa.org > http://lopsa.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss > This list provided by the League of Professional System Administrators > http://lopsa.org/ > -- LITTLE GIRL: But which cookie will you eat FIRST? COOKIE MONSTER: Me think you have misconception of cookie-eating process. _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lopsa.org http://lopsa.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss This list provided by the League of Professional System Administrators http://lopsa.org/