All of my experience has been with CentOS 4 running VMWare server. Never really had any issues with it, very stable and supported all that I needed. I just couldn't justify Virtual Infrastructure, but did run VMWare 3 on a pair of IBMs.
On 1/26/08, Wade Curry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Tracy R Reed([EMAIL PROTECTED])@Fri, Jan 25, 2008 at 10:00:53PM -0800: > > Todd Walton wrote: > > >I, personally, would use Xen just so I could learn it better. But if > > >you're not doing Windows at all, UML is supposed to be pretty fast. > > > > Actually UML is among the slowest of the virtualization methods. I would > > second Xen if you are just doing Linux. Otherwise vmware might be the > > way to go although I always prefer the free software. Yes, > > Fedora/Redhat's integration of xen does make it pretty easy to use these > > days. > > One that I'm planning to look into shortly is KVM. This is a > hypervisor that's built into the Linux kernel. The Feb. 2008 > issue of Linux Journal has an article about it. > > ... Hmmm... > In reviewing that article, I see that KVM requires the CPU to > support virtualization. IIRC, the original poster's description > said his CPU doesn't have that. In which case, Xen would be my > second choice. > > Wade Curry > syntaxman > > > -- > [email protected] > http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list > -- Mark Schoonover, CMDBA http://www.linkedin.com/in/markschoonover http://marksitblog.blogspot.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- [email protected] http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
