Re: Windows/bhyve Bluescreen 0x50

[Peter Grehan]

Hi Trent,

 Revisiting this old topic:


I started playing with Peter's Windows guide and have run into a Blue
Screen of Death already.
I am using Windows 2016, and only changed the passwords in the AutoUnattend.
The zvol is 64GB in size.
I also tried it with a 40GB empty file for a disk, just to be sure.

The last 150 lines or so of the SAC output can be found here:
https://gist.github.com/pr1ntf/f019e5922bee6dbc791d

 ...



"0x50"
not yet initialized


 It appears to be related to the number of vCPUs. Using a single vCPU 
will result in this, wherease >= 2 seems to work Ok with 2k16 tp3.


 I'll be hooking up the debugger to see what Windows sees as the issue.

later,

Peter.

___
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"

Re: available hypervisors in FreeBSD

[Miroslav Lachman]

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"

Re: available hypervisors in FreeBSD

[Adam Vande More]

On Sun, Dec 20, 2015 at 2:15 AM, Peter Ross 
wrote:

> 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/



-- 
Adam
___
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"

Re: available hypervisors in FreeBSD

[Sergey Manucharian]

Excerpts from Miroslav Lachman's message from Sun 20-Dec-15 09:57:
> Peter Ross wrote on 12/20/2015 09:15:
> >> As far as my homework digging revealed, FreeBSD supports four
> >> hypervisors:
> >>
> >> * bhyve
> >> * KVM
> >> * QEMU
> >> * VirtualBox
> >
> > .. and later Xen was mentioned.
> > 
> > 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. 

I agree that VirtualBox is really stable, and I'm using it in production
environments for many years. However, there are a couple of possible
drawbacks: It does not support VRDP (remote console) and USB2/3 on FreeBSD.

Tha latter is probably not really important (although I needed it too).
The lack of remote console is bad for troubleshooting and/or remote
(re)installation.

Currently I have one bhyve Windows Server 2012 machine, which works
fine, although it's not really loaded at the moment.

Sergey

___
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"

Re: available hypervisors in FreeBSD

[Adam Vande More]

On Sun, Dec 20, 2015 at 9:25 AM, Sergey Manucharian  wrote:

> I agree that VirtualBox is really stable, and I'm using it in production
> environments for many years. However, there are a couple of possible
> drawbacks: It does not support VRDP (remote console) and USB2/3 on FreeBSD.
>
> Tha latter is probably not really important (although I needed it too).
> The lack of remote console is bad for troubleshooting and/or remote
> (re)installation.
>

Remote console is available via VNC, not RDP.


-- 
Adam
___
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"

Re: available hypervisors in FreeBSD

[Udo Rader]

On 12/20/2015 09:15 AM, Peter Ross wrote:
> 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.

two thoughts:

first, PCI passthru is a nice thing if you want to directly address
NICs, which again is a nice feature for virtualized servers relying in
almost native network throughput.

and second, but you are probably aware of that already, IIRC Xen dom0
support is quite new & lacks some features
(http://wiki.xenproject.org/wiki/FreeBSD_Dom0)
___
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"

Re: available hypervisors in FreeBSD

[Sergey Manucharian]

Excerpts from Adam Vande More's message from Sun 20-Dec-15 09:36:
> On Sun, Dec 20, 2015 at 9:25 AM, Sergey Manucharian  wrote:
> 
> > I agree that VirtualBox is really stable, and I'm using it in production
> > environments for many years. However, there are a couple of possible
> > drawbacks: It does not support VRDP (remote console) and USB2/3 on FreeBSD.
> >
> > Tha latter is probably not really important (although I needed it too).
> > The lack of remote console is bad for troubleshooting and/or remote
> > (re)installation.
> >
> 
> Remote console is available via VNC, not RDP.

It is VNC, and I use it Linux hosts, it's rather confusing since the option
is "--vrde on|off". But isn't it a part of the extension pack, which is
not available for FreeBSD?

https://www.virtualbox.org/manual/ch07.html

S.

___
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"

Re: available hypervisors in FreeBSD

[Adam Vande More]

On Sun, Dec 20, 2015 at 10:14 AM, Sergey Manucharian  wrote:

> > Remote console is available via VNC, not RDP.
>
> It is VNC, and I use it Linux hosts, it's rather confusing since the option
> is "--vrde on|off".


See
https://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-emulation/2013-January/010354.html

You can also set options like VNCAddress4 for listening address.


> But isn't it a part of the extension pack, which is
> not available for FreeBSD?
>
> https://www.virtualbox.org/manual/ch07.html
>

The explanation lies within that page.  VRDP is only in extension pack,
VRDE is available to all.  So someone with enough gumption could write a
VRDE RDP support.

-- 
Adam
___
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"