On Sun, Dec 20, 2015 at 2:15 AM, Peter Ross <peter.r...@alumni.tu-berlin.de>

> 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.

VBox is fine, it works well and really has all the features of vitalization
of the big 3 except for clustering and a few side things.

I've been using bhyve and I like it.  I have no stability issues on dozens
of guests some with a lot of IO net and disk.

I had hoped VPS[1] would make it in, but that seems to have stalled.

[1] http://www.7he.at/freebsd/vps/

freebsd-virtualization@freebsd.org mailing list
To unsubscribe, send any mail to 

Reply via email to