I would assume you are talking about the processor extensions like Intel VT (for IA32) and VT-i (for IA64) or AMD-V (I think that's their name for the concept). As I'm sure you know since you are probably using the same laptop as I am, the Dell D830s don't come with a processor that supports it. If I were doing this for real hosting in a data center (as opposed to just having multiple dev environments to carry around), I'd definitely look for host hardware that supported hardware assisted virtualization.
That adds another interesting layer to the comparison of options - it's possible that one hypervisor might perform better than another without hardware assistance, but the results might reverse with the hardware assistance. On Fri, Nov 7, 2008 at 7:15 PM, Andrew Farnsworth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Performance of virtual machines can be fairly significantly improved if > you have hardware that specifically supports it and virtualization > software (a hypervisor) that does as well. I read a fairly recent > article on this about a week ago but cannot find it now. I'll post it > when I find it again. > > Andy > > > > Rob Huffstedtler wrote: > > Do you have any performance stats on virtual box? I use it for > > running Fedora hosted on my Windows laptop, and (subjectively) the > > performance seems pretty bad compared to VirtualPC (which isn't known > > for being lightning fast). Based on that experience, I would be > > skeptical of using it for server virtualization. That said, my > > skepticism could easily be overcome by data. > > > > On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 5:31 PM, Alex Smith (K4RNT) > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote: > > > > I like VirtualBox. > > > > www.virtualbox.org <http://www.virtualbox.org/> > > > > They have a rather good enterprise solution as well. > > > > > > On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 4:28 PM, Chris McQuistion > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote: > > > > I've used VMWare, in the past, and I currently use Virtual > > Iron, because it has fairly simple administration and is far > > cheaper than VMWare, if you want the bells and whistles. > > > > The big reasons to use VMWare or Virtual Iron (in my opinion) > > is the nice gui administration tools and their ability to run > > virtualized Windows guests very well, which has not worked > > well for me, with Xen based virtualization under Red Hat or SuSE. > > > > Chris > > > > > > On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 4:24 PM, andrew mcelroy > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote: > > > > Greetings, > > > > I am not trying to start a flame war or a rant, but I am > > trying to get a feel for what Open Source virtualization > > solutions are actually used. > > > > Currently I have a few servers virtualized inside Xen. > > However, I keep hearing that KVM is "the way to go"TM for > > hosting websites if you must stick to something open source. > > > > The purpose of these virtualized servers are to serve out > > either wordpress mu sites or ruby on rails sites. > > > > In the arena of hosting I have ran across OpenVZ, KVM and > Xen. > > > > I was wondering what everyone is using and why. > > > > > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "NLUG" group. To post to this group, send email to nlug-talk@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/nlug-talk?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
