Peter Ross wrote on 12/20/2015 09:15:
Hi all,

I read through an older threat I kept in my archive. It started like this:

On Wed, 1 Apr 2015, Udo Rader wrote:

As far as my homework digging revealed, FreeBSD supports four
hypervisors:

* bhyve
* KVM
* QEMU
* VirtualBox

.. and later Xen was mentioned.

I ask myself which of the solutions are most mature at the moment and
immediately usable in production.

Reason is a potential company move from VMware ESXi/Centos(6/7) with
some critical Windows 2008 and 2012 IIS/.NET applications) involved.

While most of open source may go into FreeBSD jails, we have a few
CentOS6/7 boxes with proprietary software we have to keep, as well as
the Windows VMs to maintain (there is a long term effort to move them to
Open Source too but the final migration of all may be years away).

We may phase out ESXi gradually, or just keep it, depending on the
performance and maturity of FreeBSD based solutions.

I have experience with Linux on VirtualBox and it worked well if the
load was not high but the performance wasn't too good when under stress
(but it never crashed, I might add).

Which of the solutions are worth testing? Do you have recommendations?

I am thinking of server software and "containerisation" only, so USB
passthrough or PCI etc. is not really important.

Stability, performance and resource utilisation (e.g. possible
over-allocation of RAM) are matter most.

VirtualBox is the most usable and you can use it in headless mode. If you are really not satified with VirtualBox, you can try Xen. The other options is not mature enough to run highly loaded Windows in production.
(it is just my opinion and somebody else can see it otherwise)

Miroslav Lachman

_______________________________________________
freebsd-virtualization@freebsd.org mailing list
https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-virtualization
To unsubscribe, send any mail to 
"freebsd-virtualization-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Reply via email to