Re: [SLUG] virtualisation solutions?
Sridhar Dhanapalan writes: > 2009/3/20 Daniel Pittman : >> Ben Donohue writes: >> >>> yes i know it not FOSS. However I think that he wanted something >>> simple to manage with FOSS as preferred. >>> >>> However you are incorrect about the "and only available on Windows >>> with the dot-net platform". I said that it runs on bare metal. >> >> Sorry, but I seem to have failed to communicate: the *MANAGEMENT* tools >> for ESXi are only available on Windows; they are distinct from the >> software, to which you here refer. > > Which is instant fail in my book :( > > It's annoying enough that there's no VMware server client for Mac OS, > but to restrict VM access to Windows boxes defeats a big benefit of > virtualisation entirely. In defence of ESXi, which we considered deploying at work, you can do a reasonable amount of management using Unix-available[1] command line tools, or the built-in console. You can also, obviously, use any VM-hosted remote access mechanism, so console access may only be a short term requirement. The things we couldn't work out how to do without Windows were to create new virtual machines or to edit them, without jumping through hoops to get ssh access to the management slice, and to view performance metrics without having to find third party software and/or hack the management slice. >>> FOSS stands for Free open source software doesn't it? So the only >>> problem is that it's not open source. But it's free and uses Linux as >>> an installer. >> >> The free in that refers to "free of restriction", not "free of cost". > > Yep exactly. Over the years I have very much come to agree with the view that RMS should have selected a different word when naming the free software movement. Of course, with sufficiently good vision of the future to know that would be a problem he should also have made a killing at the races... ;) Regards, Daniel Footnotes: [1] Linux and MacOS-X, at least. Guess which platforms we also have at work, eh? -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] virtualisation solutions?
2009/3/20 Daniel Pittman : > Ben Donohue writes: > >> yes i know it not FOSS. However I think that he wanted something >> simple to manage with FOSS as preferred. >> >> However you are incorrect about the "and only available on Windows >> with the dot-net platform". I said that it runs on bare metal. > > Sorry, but I seem to have failed to communicate: the *MANAGEMENT* tools > for ESXi are only available on Windows; they are distinct from the > software, to which you here refer. Which is instant fail in my book :( It's annoying enough that there's no VMware server client for Mac OS, but to restrict VM access to Windows boxes defeats a big benefit of virtualisation entirely. >> FOSS stands for Free open source software doesn't it? So the only >> problem is that it's not open source. But it's free and uses Linux as >> an installer. > > The free in that refers to "free of restriction", not "free of cost". Yep exactly. -- Bring choice back to your computer. http://www.linux.org.au/linux -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] virtualisation solutions?
2009/3/20 Sam Lawrance : > > On 20/03/2009, at 11:47 AM, Daniel Pittman wrote: > >> Ben Donohue writes: >> >>> Doesn't anyone know that VMware ESX3.5i is now free? >> >> Sure, as in beer. That fails the "FOSS highly desired" bullet point on >> the original posters list of features. Point one, in fact. > > Is the requirement driven by the business problem? If yes, fair point. > Otherwise it's a case of needlessly constraining the available solutions. Yes, it is a business preference. If we go with something proprietary there'd better be a very good reason. Personally I prefer it that way :) -- Bring choice back to your computer. http://www.linux.org.au/linux -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] virtualisation solutions?
Ben Donohue writes: > yes i know it not FOSS. However I think that he wanted something > simple to manage with FOSS as preferred. > > However you are incorrect about the "and only available on Windows > with the dot-net platform". I said that it runs on bare metal. Sorry, but I seem to have failed to communicate: the *MANAGEMENT* tools for ESXi are only available on Windows; they are distinct from the software, to which you here refer. [...] > FOSS stands for Free open source software doesn't it? So the only > problem is that it's not open source. But it's free and uses Linux as > an installer. The free in that refers to "free of restriction", not "free of cost". Regards, Daniel -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] virtualisation solutions?
Hi Daniel, yes i know it not FOSS. However I think that he wanted something simple to manage with FOSS as preferred. However you are incorrect about the "and only available on Windows with the dot-net platform". I said that it runs on bare metal. That means that it erases everything on the HDD and installs itself. Then you can run Linux and/or Windows hosts. You certainly don't need windows and dot net. It is not ESX but ESXi. It is very easy to use and imho at the moment is very superior to all other virtual solutions out there. Sure one day that may change. But I don't know anyone who would say that anything is comparable at the moment for ease of use. And the price is right. $0. FOSS stands for Free open source software doesn't it? So the only problem is that it's not open source. But it's free and uses Linux as an installer. why not check it out? Ben Daniel Pittman wrote: Ben Donohue writes: Doesn't anyone know that VMware ESX3.5i is now free? Sure, as in beer. That fails the "FOSS highly desired" bullet point on the original posters list of features. Point one, in fact. It's not FOSS but you can get a free license and use it. The management interface is simple and neat. ...and only available on Windows with the dot-net platform, so can't be effectively run on Linux as far as I am aware. Certainly a quick google tells me that this has not substantially changed. Regards, Daniel -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] virtualisation solutions?
On 20/03/2009, at 11:47 AM, Daniel Pittman wrote: Ben Donohue writes: Doesn't anyone know that VMware ESX3.5i is now free? Sure, as in beer. That fails the "FOSS highly desired" bullet point on the original posters list of features. Point one, in fact. Is the requirement driven by the business problem? If yes, fair point. Otherwise it's a case of needlessly constraining the available solutions. Sam -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] virtualisation solutions?
2009/3/18 Sridhar Dhanapalan : > We're getting a new box at work to host virtual machines, and I'm > trying to figure out what the best virtualisation solution might be. > The specs will very likely be a dual quad-core CPU with 32GB RAM, > running CentOS. > > I'd like to have something that: > > * is FOSS > * is easy to manage (I've got other responsibilities and don't want to > be bogged down with sysadmin work) > * can preferably also run on our Fedora 8 desktops, so we can share VM images > * can support a wide variety of guest OSs (especially Linux, Windows > and Solaris) I don't have much experience with the other options but I think a good point in favour of Xen is that it comes built in with CentOS 5 and so is supported - you don't have to keep looking for updates, security patches, compatibility issues or anything - you just keep your yum-updatesd running and that's it. I don't remember how long it took me to learn but I think I got things up and running in less than a day and we've been building and running hundreds of xen guests using very simple scripts and config files for the last 18 months or so. I think it's a good strategy to try to stick to whatever comes with your (supported) distro, in the name of keeping things simple. Eventually RH promises a migration path to KVM, which should arrive in 5.4. Cheers, --Amos -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] virtualisation solutions?
Ben Donohue writes: > Doesn't anyone know that VMware ESX3.5i is now free? Sure, as in beer. That fails the "FOSS highly desired" bullet point on the original posters list of features. Point one, in fact. > It's not FOSS but you can get a free license and use it. The management > interface is simple and neat. ...and only available on Windows with the dot-net platform, so can't be effectively run on Linux as far as I am aware. Certainly a quick google tells me that this has not substantially changed. Regards, Daniel -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] virtualisation solutions?
Doesn't anyone know that VMware ESX3.5i is now free? It's not FOSS but you can get a free license and use it. The management interface is simple and neat. I'm not talking about vmware server which runs on top of a windows or linux host. ESX3.5i runs on bare metal and supports windows and linux hosts. If you want simple to operate then this is it. The free license also allows you to connect to a SAN. It will run very nicely on a dual quad-core with 32GB RAM. Ben Sridhar Dhanapalan wrote: We're getting a new box at work to host virtual machines, and I'm trying to figure out what the best virtualisation solution might be. The specs will very likely be a dual quad-core CPU with 32GB RAM, running CentOS. I'd like to have something that: * is FOSS * is easy to manage (I've got other responsibilities and don't want to be bogged down with sysadmin work) * can preferably also run on our Fedora 8 desktops, so we can share VM images * can support a wide variety of guest OSs (especially Linux, Windows and Solaris) Most of my experience is with VMware, but that's proprietary. We've got some Xen experience in the office, but this server will be managed by me and quite frankly I find Xen to be overly complicated. KVM looks very neat, in that it uses Linux as the hypervisor and so doesn't try to be an OS unto itself. It's also Red Hat's preferred virtualisation platform nowadays, which is great since we use a lot of Red Hat and CentOS. Cheers, Sridhar -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] virtualisation solutions?
On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 04:08:19PM +1100, Tony Sceats wrote: > with VirtualBox 2.1.4 you don't have to setup any bridging, at least not to > be on the same LAN (ie, my VirtualBox machine is on the same subnet as my > the physical machine) > > basically you just say use eth0 (or whatever) in the Virtual Machine config, > and it doesn't setup any bridge interfaces > > very very easy true main reason I use it on my laptop like this is when i moved from lan to wireless, bridged routing works and seamless (with the help of SNAT) > > [snip] > > > > this is mine for virtualbox on debian > > auto brVB > > allow-hotplug brVB > > # All the vbox interfaces will attach to this interface > > iface brVB inet static > >bridge_ports none > >address 192.168.1.1 > > netmask 255.255.255.0 > > > > I then just use routing > > [snip] > > > > -- > > SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ > > Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html > > > -- > SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ > Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html > -- Sic transit gloria Monday! signature.asc Description: Digital signature -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] virtualisation solutions?
Actually I guess not - I just noticed the window title of my virtual machine, and it's xVM.. On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 4:41 PM, Tony Sceats wrote: > erm, I thought it was, but the 'About VirtualBox' doesn't say so - I got it > from the VirtualBox website as a binary not as source though.. didn't pay or > register or anything either though > > > On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 4:32 PM, Mark Walkom wrote: > >> Is that for OSE? >> >> I know xVM can do it but I thought OSE couldn't (yet). >> >> 2009/3/19 Tony Sceats >> >> with VirtualBox 2.1.4 you don't have to setup any bridging, at least not >>> to >>> be on the same LAN (ie, my VirtualBox machine is on the same subnet as my >>> the physical machine) >>> >>> basically you just say use eth0 (or whatever) in the Virtual Machine >>> config, >>> and it doesn't setup any bridge interfaces >>> >>> very very easy >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 3:44 PM, Alex Samad wrote: >>> >>> > On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 01:09:47PM +1100, Jeff Waugh wrote: >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > > It still looks like having proper network bridging (so the VMs are >>> > > > directly on the network just like any other host) is a pain in the >>> bum. >>> > > > The solutions I've seen involve performing some arcane rituals with >>> > brctl >>> > > > and co. >>> > > >>> > > Bridging is brain-meltingly simple on Debian-based systems. Quick >>> example >>> > of >>> > > /etc/network/interfaces with a single bridge set up: >>> > > >>> > > auto br0 >>> > > iface br0 inet static >>> > > address 192.168.10.200 >>> > > netmask 255.255.255.0 >>> > > gateway 192.168.10.1 >>> > > bridge_ports eth0 eth1 eth2 >>> > > >>> > > ^ Only *ONE* extra line to say "sudo make me a bridge", >>> xkcd-style >>> > ;-) >>> > >>> > this is mine for virtualbox on debian >>> > auto brVB >>> > allow-hotplug brVB >>> > # All the vbox interfaces will attach to this interface >>> > iface brVB inet static >>> >bridge_ports none >>> >address 192.168.1.1 >>> > netmask 255.255.255.0 >>> > >>> > I then just use routing >>> > >>> > > >>> > > (There are additional parameters you can add if you want to, but >>> they're >>> > all >>> > > optional.) >>> > > >>> > > - Jeff >>> > > >>> > > -- >>> > > linux.conf.au 2010: Wellington, NZ >>> > http://www.penguinsvisiting.org.nz/ >>> > > >>> > > "The postmodern version is: If all you have is duct tape, >>> everything >>> > >starts to look like a duct. Right. When's the last time you used >>> duct >>> > >tape on a duct?" - Larry Wall >>> > > -- >>> > > SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ >>> > > Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html >>> > > >>> > >>> > -- >>> > "And I am an optimistic person. I guess if you want to try to find >>> > something to be pessimistic about, you can find it, no matter how hard >>> you >>> > look, you know?" >>> > >>> >- George W. Bush >>> > 06/15/2004 >>> > Washington, DC >>> > >>> > -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- >>> > Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) >>> > >>> > iEYEARECAAYFAknBzaAACgkQkZz88chpJ2NV9ACeLgn1IbWv5h3xywB4ye4HMyZZ >>> > n ཤﰳ㖣忭ꁍ⬲褻� >>> > =R1lJ >>> > -END PGP SIGNATURE- >>> > >>> > -- >>> > SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ >>> > Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html >>> > >>> -- >>> SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ >>> Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html >>> >> >> > -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] virtualisation solutions?
erm, I thought it was, but the 'About VirtualBox' doesn't say so - I got it from the VirtualBox website as a binary not as source though.. didn't pay or register or anything either though On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 4:32 PM, Mark Walkom wrote: > Is that for OSE? > > I know xVM can do it but I thought OSE couldn't (yet). > > 2009/3/19 Tony Sceats > > with VirtualBox 2.1.4 you don't have to setup any bridging, at least not to >> be on the same LAN (ie, my VirtualBox machine is on the same subnet as my >> the physical machine) >> >> basically you just say use eth0 (or whatever) in the Virtual Machine >> config, >> and it doesn't setup any bridge interfaces >> >> very very easy >> >> >> On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 3:44 PM, Alex Samad wrote: >> >> > On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 01:09:47PM +1100, Jeff Waugh wrote: >> > > >> > > >> > > > It still looks like having proper network bridging (so the VMs are >> > > > directly on the network just like any other host) is a pain in the >> bum. >> > > > The solutions I've seen involve performing some arcane rituals with >> > brctl >> > > > and co. >> > > >> > > Bridging is brain-meltingly simple on Debian-based systems. Quick >> example >> > of >> > > /etc/network/interfaces with a single bridge set up: >> > > >> > > auto br0 >> > > iface br0 inet static >> > > address 192.168.10.200 >> > > netmask 255.255.255.0 >> > > gateway 192.168.10.1 >> > > bridge_ports eth0 eth1 eth2 >> > > >> > > ^ Only *ONE* extra line to say "sudo make me a bridge", xkcd-style >> > ;-) >> > >> > this is mine for virtualbox on debian >> > auto brVB >> > allow-hotplug brVB >> > # All the vbox interfaces will attach to this interface >> > iface brVB inet static >> >bridge_ports none >> >address 192.168.1.1 >> > netmask 255.255.255.0 >> > >> > I then just use routing >> > >> > > >> > > (There are additional parameters you can add if you want to, but >> they're >> > all >> > > optional.) >> > > >> > > - Jeff >> > > >> > > -- >> > > linux.conf.au 2010: Wellington, NZ >> > http://www.penguinsvisiting.org.nz/ >> > > >> > > "The postmodern version is: If all you have is duct tape, >> everything >> > >starts to look like a duct. Right. When's the last time you used >> duct >> > >tape on a duct?" - Larry Wall >> > > -- >> > > SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ >> > > Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html >> > > >> > >> > -- >> > "And I am an optimistic person. I guess if you want to try to find >> > something to be pessimistic about, you can find it, no matter how hard >> you >> > look, you know?" >> > >> >- George W. Bush >> > 06/15/2004 >> > Washington, DC >> > >> > -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- >> > Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) >> > >> > iEYEARECAAYFAknBzaAACgkQkZz88chpJ2NV9ACeLgn1IbWv5h3xywB4ye4HMyZZ >> > n ཤﰳ㖣忭ꁍ⬲褻� >> > =R1lJ >> > -END PGP SIGNATURE- >> > >> > -- >> > SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ >> > Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html >> > >> -- >> SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ >> Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html >> > > -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] virtualisation solutions?
Is that for OSE? I know xVM can do it but I thought OSE couldn't (yet). 2009/3/19 Tony Sceats > with VirtualBox 2.1.4 you don't have to setup any bridging, at least not to > be on the same LAN (ie, my VirtualBox machine is on the same subnet as my > the physical machine) > > basically you just say use eth0 (or whatever) in the Virtual Machine > config, > and it doesn't setup any bridge interfaces > > very very easy > > > On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 3:44 PM, Alex Samad wrote: > > > On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 01:09:47PM +1100, Jeff Waugh wrote: > > > > > > > > > > It still looks like having proper network bridging (so the VMs are > > > > directly on the network just like any other host) is a pain in the > bum. > > > > The solutions I've seen involve performing some arcane rituals with > > brctl > > > > and co. > > > > > > Bridging is brain-meltingly simple on Debian-based systems. Quick > example > > of > > > /etc/network/interfaces with a single bridge set up: > > > > > > auto br0 > > > iface br0 inet static > > > address 192.168.10.200 > > > netmask 255.255.255.0 > > > gateway 192.168.10.1 > > > bridge_ports eth0 eth1 eth2 > > > > > > ^ Only *ONE* extra line to say "sudo make me a bridge", xkcd-style > > ;-) > > > > this is mine for virtualbox on debian > > auto brVB > > allow-hotplug brVB > > # All the vbox interfaces will attach to this interface > > iface brVB inet static > >bridge_ports none > >address 192.168.1.1 > > netmask 255.255.255.0 > > > > I then just use routing > > > > > > > > (There are additional parameters you can add if you want to, but > they're > > all > > > optional.) > > > > > > - Jeff > > > > > > -- > > > linux.conf.au 2010: Wellington, NZ > > http://www.penguinsvisiting.org.nz/ > > > > > > "The postmodern version is: If all you have is duct tape, > everything > > >starts to look like a duct. Right. When's the last time you used > duct > > >tape on a duct?" - Larry Wall > > > -- > > > SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ > > > Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html > > > > > > > -- > > "And I am an optimistic person. I guess if you want to try to find > > something to be pessimistic about, you can find it, no matter how hard > you > > look, you know?" > > > >- George W. Bush > > 06/15/2004 > > Washington, DC > > > > -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- > > Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) > > > > iEYEARECAAYFAknBzaAACgkQkZz88chpJ2NV9ACeLgn1IbWv5h3xywB4ye4HMyZZ > > n ཤﰳ㖣忭ꁍ⬲褻� > > =R1lJ > > -END PGP SIGNATURE- > > > > -- > > SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ > > Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html > > > -- > SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ > Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html > -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] virtualisation solutions?
with VirtualBox 2.1.4 you don't have to setup any bridging, at least not to be on the same LAN (ie, my VirtualBox machine is on the same subnet as my the physical machine) basically you just say use eth0 (or whatever) in the Virtual Machine config, and it doesn't setup any bridge interfaces very very easy On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 3:44 PM, Alex Samad wrote: > On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 01:09:47PM +1100, Jeff Waugh wrote: > > > > > > > It still looks like having proper network bridging (so the VMs are > > > directly on the network just like any other host) is a pain in the bum. > > > The solutions I've seen involve performing some arcane rituals with > brctl > > > and co. > > > > Bridging is brain-meltingly simple on Debian-based systems. Quick example > of > > /etc/network/interfaces with a single bridge set up: > > > > auto br0 > > iface br0 inet static > > address 192.168.10.200 > > netmask 255.255.255.0 > > gateway 192.168.10.1 > > bridge_ports eth0 eth1 eth2 > > > > ^ Only *ONE* extra line to say "sudo make me a bridge", xkcd-style > ;-) > > this is mine for virtualbox on debian > auto brVB > allow-hotplug brVB > # All the vbox interfaces will attach to this interface > iface brVB inet static >bridge_ports none >address 192.168.1.1 > netmask 255.255.255.0 > > I then just use routing > > > > > (There are additional parameters you can add if you want to, but they're > all > > optional.) > > > > - Jeff > > > > -- > > linux.conf.au 2010: Wellington, NZ > http://www.penguinsvisiting.org.nz/ > > > > "The postmodern version is: If all you have is duct tape, everything > >starts to look like a duct. Right. When's the last time you used duct > >tape on a duct?" - Larry Wall > > -- > > SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ > > Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html > > > > -- > "And I am an optimistic person. I guess if you want to try to find > something to be pessimistic about, you can find it, no matter how hard you > look, you know?" > >- George W. Bush > 06/15/2004 > Washington, DC > > -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- > Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) > > iEYEARECAAYFAknBzaAACgkQkZz88chpJ2NV9ACeLgn1IbWv5h3xywB4ye4HMyZZ > n ཤﰳ㖣忭ꁍ⬲褻� > =R1lJ > -END PGP SIGNATURE- > > -- > SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ > Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html > -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] virtualisation solutions?
On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 01:09:47PM +1100, Jeff Waugh wrote: > > > > It still looks like having proper network bridging (so the VMs are > > directly on the network just like any other host) is a pain in the bum. > > The solutions I've seen involve performing some arcane rituals with brctl > > and co. > > Bridging is brain-meltingly simple on Debian-based systems. Quick example of > /etc/network/interfaces with a single bridge set up: > > auto br0 > iface br0 inet static > address 192.168.10.200 > netmask 255.255.255.0 > gateway 192.168.10.1 > bridge_ports eth0 eth1 eth2 > > ^ Only *ONE* extra line to say "sudo make me a bridge", xkcd-style ;-) this is mine for virtualbox on debian auto brVB allow-hotplug brVB # All the vbox interfaces will attach to this interface iface brVB inet static bridge_ports none address 192.168.1.1 netmask 255.255.255.0 I then just use routing > > (There are additional parameters you can add if you want to, but they're all > optional.) > > - Jeff > > -- > linux.conf.au 2010: Wellington, NZ http://www.penguinsvisiting.org.nz/ > > "The postmodern version is: If all you have is duct tape, everything >starts to look like a duct. Right. When's the last time you used duct >tape on a duct?" - Larry Wall > -- > SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ > Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html > -- "And I am an optimistic person. I guess if you want to try to find something to be pessimistic about, you can find it, no matter how hard you look, you know?" - George W. Bush 06/15/2004 Washington, DC signature.asc Description: Digital signature -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] virtualisation solutions?
Sonia Hamilton writes: > * Daniel Pittman [2009-03-19 10:22:50 +1100]: Administratively, do you actually care if people sign their replies to you or not? >> Respectfully, VMware server no longer really qualifies as "simple" given >> that the dependency list for basic management now includes Java, a Java >> application server, a Firefox plugin, binary-only components included in >> that plugin, an AJAX web application, and the basic server stuff. > > vmrun, vmware-cmd solves most of these problems. They make it easier to interact without having to touch the UI much, but they don't give access to the virtual console, and failures in the Java application server stack can prevent VMs from running... Anyway, the command line tools and/or API do help some, I admit. Regards, Daniel -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] virtualisation solutions?
> It still looks like having proper network bridging (so the VMs are > directly on the network just like any other host) is a pain in the bum. > The solutions I've seen involve performing some arcane rituals with brctl > and co. Bridging is brain-meltingly simple on Debian-based systems. Quick example of /etc/network/interfaces with a single bridge set up: auto br0 iface br0 inet static address 192.168.10.200 netmask 255.255.255.0 gateway 192.168.10.1 bridge_ports eth0 eth1 eth2 ^ Only *ONE* extra line to say "sudo make me a bridge", xkcd-style ;-) (There are additional parameters you can add if you want to, but they're all optional.) - Jeff -- linux.conf.au 2010: Wellington, NZ http://www.penguinsvisiting.org.nz/ "The postmodern version is: If all you have is duct tape, everything starts to look like a duct. Right. When's the last time you used duct tape on a duct?" - Larry Wall -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] virtualisation solutions?
On Thursday 19 March 2009 10:00:05 slug-requ...@slug.org.au wrote: > >> I have not been able to get VMWARE to keep time on my dual AMDs > >> despite trying all the solutions I could find. (Guest loses 5min > >> /hour !) > > > > I vaguely remember a long time ago doing some rtc pokery to get this > > going. An alternative would be to frequently sync to an ntp server. > > That is what we refer to as a losing strategy: running NTP inside a > VMWare VM, or pretty much any VM, is going to make your life *MORE* > miserable, not less. > > NTP requires a whole bunch of things to work correctly, and a VM simply > cannot deliver them. Just use the host hardware clock, or a real > paravirtualized time source.[1] Point being on this sort of hardware (dual AMD) VMWARE fails miserably. > >> VirtualBox works a treat for me. Used to was that the network setup > >> to run as a server was hard-work, but is now as easy as VMWARE. > > > > It still looks like having proper network bridging (so the VMs are > > directly on the network just like any other host) is a pain in the > > bum. The solutions I've seen involve performing some arcane rituals > > with brctl and co. > > Configuring a bridge with brctl should be trivial on any sensible > distribution. Seriously, if you need software bridging it shouldn't be > harder than just defining a software bridge and adding the interface. Easy as it was (and was quite, but not very easy due to host problems eg setup 6 bridged interfaces and only 3 are created etc etc) the need to bridge is removed (this year releases) James -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] virtualisation solutions?
Sridhar Dhanapalan writes: > 2009/3/19 jam : > >> I have not been able to get VMWARE to keep time on my dual AMDs >> despite trying all the solutions I could find. (Guest loses 5min >> /hour !) > > I vaguely remember a long time ago doing some rtc pokery to get this > going. An alternative would be to frequently sync to an ntp server. That is what we refer to as a losing strategy: running NTP inside a VMWare VM, or pretty much any VM, is going to make your life *MORE* miserable, not less. NTP requires a whole bunch of things to work correctly, and a VM simply cannot deliver them. Just use the host hardware clock, or a real paravirtualized time source.[1] >> VirtualBox works a treat for me. Used to was that the network setup >> to run as a server was hard-work, but is now as easy as VMWARE. > > It still looks like having proper network bridging (so the VMs are > directly on the network just like any other host) is a pain in the > bum. The solutions I've seen involve performing some arcane rituals > with brctl and co. Configuring a bridge with brctl should be trivial on any sensible distribution. Seriously, if you need software bridging it shouldn't be harder than just defining a software bridge and adding the interface. Regards, Daniel Footnotes: [1] This implies, sadly, not VMWare. Ah, well. -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] virtualisation solutions?
* Daniel Pittman [2009-03-19 10:22:50 +1100]: > Respectfully, VMware server no longer really qualifies as "simple" given > that the dependency list for basic management now includes Java, a Java > application server, a Firefox plugin, binary-only components included in > that plugin, an AJAX web application, and the basic server stuff. vmrun, vmware-cmd solves most of these problems. signature.asc Description: Digital signature -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] virtualisation solutions?
2009/3/19 jam : > I have not been able to get VMWARE to keep time on my dual AMDs despite trying > all the solutions I could find. (Guest loses 5min /hour !) I vaguely remember a long time ago doing some rtc pokery to get this going. An alternative would be to frequently sync to an ntp server. > VirtualBox works a treat for me. Used to was that the network setup to run as > a server was hard-work, but is now as easy as VMWARE. It still looks like having proper network bridging (so the VMs are directly on the network just like any other host) is a pain in the bum. The solutions I've seen involve performing some arcane rituals with brctl and co. VMware Server 1 worked perfectly in this regard. I still can't get VMware Server 2 VMs to work in bridged mode. -- Bring choice back to your computer. http://www.linux.org.au/linux -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] virtualisation solutions?
On Wednesday 18 March 2009 21:19:08 slug-requ...@slug.org.au wrote: > > Well XenServer 5 would do it, but it's not FOSS. > > Virtualbox *might* if it's Solaris 10 (I haven't gotten 9 working yet), > > pretty sure the others will work - Windows will and I find it faster on > > my laptop than on bare metal. > > Yes, it's Solaris 10. I was under the impression that Virtualbox was > focused more on desktop virtualisation and is less geared for servers. > Is that incorrect? > > > Xen is pretty powerful, but there is still a lack of good, solid > > management tools that cover HA, iSCSI integration, replication, migration > > etc etc. > > A lack of good management tools is what concerns me. I want to get > productive quickly and not have to spend unnecessary time setting up > and managing. I don't need zillions of features, but I do want > something that's solid and easy to use. I have not been able to get VMWARE to keep time on my dual AMDs despite trying all the solutions I could find. (Guest loses 5min /hour !) VirtualBox works a treat for me. Used to was that the network setup to run as a server was hard-work, but is now as easy as VMWARE. Despite making progress in this area, VirtualBox does not like tickless or 1000Hz kernels. I recompile my CentOS kernels to use 100Hz and the host clock rate drops to Idle. Xp, ubuntu and suse guests seem to be fine with no fiddling. So I see no disadvantages in VB as a server. My servers all run an X + GUI for admin when you want, heck I even have LTSP Thin Clients using gPXE on a few MB disk, but network boot using PXE is a dream (achieved by some but oh so messy) 'Cause I want USB (and cause I'm pragmatic) I use only the sun version not the FOSS one. Jaames -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] virtualisation solutions?
Dean Hamstead writes: [...] > Xen is snapping at VMwares heels, however if you want basics and > simplicity, why are you resisting the free VMware server. Respectfully, VMware server no longer really qualifies as "simple" given that the dependency list for basic management now includes Java, a Java application server, a Firefox plugin, binary-only components included in that plugin, an AJAX web application, and the basic server stuff. Having had the experience of failure in many of those components I can't agree that VMWare server is any longer simple — even though version 1 definitely was. Failures: - firefox plugin binary components, not available for MacOS-X, check. - Java stack randomly crashing, check. - Java application server suddenly failing to respond after a week of operation, and only coming back to life after uninstalling, manually deleting the things it didn't delete, and reinstalling, check. - AJAX web application suffering race conditions that cause it to randomly log you out, check. Regards, Daniel OK, maybe I am just a tiny bit bitter about that experience. -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] virtualisation solutions (was Re: slug Digest, Vol 38, Issue 25)
Andre Kolodochka wrote: > Why not "closed source" VMWare, which is the pretty much been there > from the beginning? Because when something goes wrong you can't hack the source code to fix it. I mess about quite a bit with qemu and yes, I have at times hacked about it its source code. Erik -- - Erik de Castro Lopo - "The plural of anecdotes is not data." -- Lee Revell on LAD mailing list -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] virtualisation solutions?
> 2009/3/18 Jeff Waugh : > > Depends on what you mean by manage, but if you're trying to avoid being > > a part time sysadmin, then something clicky might be best. > > I have no aversion to the CLI. I spend half my time in there and I'm quite > fond of it for some things. I often type vim keybindings into GUI apps > without thinking :) > > Some admin is fine, but to a large degree I'd want it to 'just work' with > minimal intervention. > > I suppose I'm looking for something that's 'easy to manage' but not > necessarily 'dumb' :) Clicky isn't dumb, it's just a different way of approaching the problem. > > But if you want something nicer, use VMWare Server (free but not Free). > > I have used VMware server a fair bit, and in fact I upgraded to version 2 > today and was quite impressed. I would prefer something FOSS, though. > > Virtualbox has always struck me as a desktop solution, although I haven't > used it much so I might be wrong. It is easy to manage remotely? Can I > bring up VM GUIs over the network? virtualbox -startvm ... then use RDP to talk directly to the guest. There are a whole range of CLI tools such as vboxmanage (which is amazingly capable, without being insane to use). Plus stuff to manage disk images and so on. Don't test VirtualBox and VMWare at the same time though. Bad things happen. :-) - Jeff -- linux.conf.au 2010: Wellington, NZ http://www.penguinsvisiting.org.nz/ It makes perfect sense. If you're a narcissistic arsehole spawned from a curdled gene pool. -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] virtualisation solutions?
Sridhar Dhanapalan writes: > 2009/3/18 Mark Walkom : > >> Well XenServer 5 would do it, but it's not FOSS. >> Virtualbox *might* if it's Solaris 10 (I haven't gotten 9 working yet), >> pretty sure the others will work - Windows will and I find it faster on my >> laptop than on bare metal. > > Yes, it's Solaris 10. I was under the impression that Virtualbox was > focused more on desktop virtualisation and is less geared for servers. > Is that incorrect? > >> Xen is pretty powerful, but there is still a lack of good, solid management >> tools that cover HA, iSCSI integration, replication, migration etc etc. > > A lack of good management tools is what concerns me. Your choices, then, are buy something or buy something; none of the free options have much by way of admin tools, and nothing much better than VMware. > I want to get productive quickly and not have to spend unnecessary > time setting up and managing. I don't need zillions of features, but I > do want something that's solid and easy to use. KVM with libvirt does a respectable job, and is the preferred solution for RH these days. It also has good support on Ubuntu (preferred solution), Debian and SuSE. Plus, as you noted earlier, KVM takes a good approach to the issues around virtualization, although it does require sufficiently advanced hardware — VMX or SVM support on the CPU. It can, now, also take advantage of things like PCIe virtualization hardware to pass directly through hardware. The weakest point for it is paravirtualized drivers for non-free operating systems, of which there are basically zero good choices. The e1000 NIC emulation, however, is pretty robust, and generally performs pretty close to a PV solution. Finally, libvirt will also manage Xen and, in theory[1], other virtualization tools, so if you introduced Xen or whatever it could be managed the same way. Anyway, I currently use KVM and VMWare Server 2, and would vastly prefer the former everywhere — even though it has been more of a pain to manage, in some ways, than the VMWare product. It required manual XML configuration file editing, or other low level bypassing the GUI, but at least it didn't incomprehensibly stop working until completely removed (by hand) and reinstalled, unlike VMWare. Twice. Regards, Daniel Footnotes: [1] ...as in, I don't believe it talks to anything else, but it could if someone wrote the code to integrate it. -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] virtualisation solutions?
2009/3/18 Jeff Waugh : > >> * is easy to manage (I've got other responsibilities and don't want to >> be bogged down with sysadmin work) > > Depends on what you mean by manage, but if you're trying to avoid being a > part time sysadmin, then something clicky might be best. I have no aversion to the CLI. I spend half my time in there and I'm quite fond of it for some things. I often type vim keybindings into GUI apps without thinking :) Some admin is fine, but to a large degree I'd want it to 'just work' with minimal intervention. I suppose I'm looking for something that's 'easy to manage' but not necessarily 'dumb' :) > But if you want something nicer, use VMWare Server (free but not Free). I have used VMware server a fair bit, and in fact I upgraded to version 2 today and was quite impressed. I would prefer something FOSS, though. Virtualbox has always struck me as a desktop solution, although I haven't used it much so I might be wrong. It is easy to manage remotely? Can I bring up VM GUIs over the network? -- Bring choice back to your computer. http://www.linux.org.au/linux -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] virtualisation solutions?
> We're getting a new box at work to host virtual machines, and I'm > trying to figure out what the best virtualisation solution might be. > The specs will very likely be a dual quad-core CPU with 32GB RAM, > running CentOS. > > I'd like to have something that: > > * is FOSS Check. > * is easy to manage (I've got other responsibilities and don't want to > be bogged down with sysadmin work) Depends on what you mean by manage, but if you're trying to avoid being a part time sysadmin, then something clicky might be best. > * can preferably also run on our Fedora 8 desktops, so we can share VM > images Check. > * can support a wide variety of guest OSs (especially Linux, Windows > and Solaris) Check. The answer is VirtualBox. :-) But if you want something nicer, use VMWare Server (free but not Free). - Jeff -- linux.conf.au 2010: Wellington, NZ http://www.penguinsvisiting.org.nz/ "NASCAR is not race per se. It's just a contest about who can turn left the best." - Unknown -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] virtualisation solutions?
Sridhar Dhanapalan wrote: We're getting a new box at work to host virtual machines, and I'm trying to figure out what the best virtualisation solution might be. The specs will very likely be a dual quad-core CPU with 32GB RAM, running CentOS. I'd like to have something that: * is FOSS * is easy to manage (I've got other responsibilities and don't want to be bogged down with sysadmin work) * can preferably also run on our Fedora 8 desktops, so we can share VM images * can support a wide variety of guest OSs (especially Linux, Windows and Solaris) Most of my experience is with VMware, but that's proprietary. We've got some Xen experience in the office, but this server will be managed by me and quite frankly I find Xen to be overly complicated. KVM looks very neat, in that it uses Linux as the hypervisor and so doesn't try to be an OS unto itself. It's also Red Hat's preferred virtualisation platform nowadays, which is great since we use a lot of Red Hat and CentOS. Cheers, Sridhar I've used KVM for a few places quite successfully, Setup out of the box is nice and easy, you can use virt-manager to get a nice pointy-clicky interface to it (at the expense of some of the nifty features like live migration etc) performance seems acceptable, there are paravirtualised drivers for windows out now for both network and disk (as I recall). The latest debian ships with paravirtualised disk and network in the kernel so performance is quite good there, (some fiddling to get it to use it but nothing too drastic). At home I use it on an ubuntu 8.10 server that is also my TV in 6Gb ram quad core machine, It happily handles a 3 core virtual machine with 3.5Gb of ram running a mail server, another one with 350mb of ram as the backup server, a web server and the web server for the accounts machine, both of which use 128mb of ram. All of the small machines are given 2 CPU's, as the work load is fairly bursty. I also tried Xen but gave up because it was just too hard to work with, and its headed closed source these days anyway, well at least the "big boys toys" are anyway. -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] virtualisation solutions?
> Yes, it's Solaris 10. I was under the impression that Virtualbox was > focused more on desktop virtualisation and is less geared for servers. > Is that incorrect? They are feeling the lure of data center virtualisation. However Virtualbox is probably not mature enough for system critical applications. >> Xen is pretty powerful, but there is still a lack of good, solid > management >> tools that cover HA, iSCSI integration, replication, migration etc etc. > > A lack of good management tools is what concerns me. I want to get > productive quickly and not have to spend unnecessary time setting up > and managing. I don't need zillions of features, but I do want > something that's solid and easy to use. Xen is snapping at VMwares heels, however if you want basics and simplicity, why are you resisting the free VMware server. Granted you cant get at all the source code. And i understand the moral high ground. However, from a solution point of view it is free, its the leader of the pack and unless you are in dire need to hack the source of the virtualisation suite xen vs vmware free is largely the same. VMware tools is now FOSS software, and vmware provides API's for its server component which will allow tight integration. Also its guest machines can easily be transported from servers to desktops etc. Im all about open source, and not settling for 'close enough'. But in terms of my 9-5 often times slipping of my moral high ground just a little, goes a long way to keeping my natural hair color :) Dean -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] virtualisation solutions?
2009/3/18 Mark Walkom : > Well XenServer 5 would do it, but it's not FOSS. > Virtualbox *might* if it's Solaris 10 (I haven't gotten 9 working yet), > pretty sure the others will work - Windows will and I find it faster on my > laptop than on bare metal. Yes, it's Solaris 10. I was under the impression that Virtualbox was focused more on desktop virtualisation and is less geared for servers. Is that incorrect? > Xen is pretty powerful, but there is still a lack of good, solid management > tools that cover HA, iSCSI integration, replication, migration etc etc. A lack of good management tools is what concerns me. I want to get productive quickly and not have to spend unnecessary time setting up and managing. I don't need zillions of features, but I do want something that's solid and easy to use. Sridhar -- Bring choice back to your computer. http://www.linux.org.au/linux -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] virtualisation solutions?
Well XenServer 5 would do it, but it's not FOSS. Virtualbox *might* if it's Solaris 10 (I haven't gotten 9 working yet), pretty sure the others will work - Windows will and I find it faster on my laptop than on bare metal. Xen is pretty powerful, but there is still a lack of good, solid management tools that cover HA, iSCSI integration, replication, migration etc etc. That is what I have found in my travels. 2009/3/18 Sridhar Dhanapalan > We're getting a new box at work to host virtual machines, and I'm > trying to figure out what the best virtualisation solution might be. > The specs will very likely be a dual quad-core CPU with 32GB RAM, > running CentOS. > > I'd like to have something that: > > * is FOSS > * is easy to manage (I've got other responsibilities and don't want to > be bogged down with sysadmin work) > * can preferably also run on our Fedora 8 desktops, so we can share VM > images > * can support a wide variety of guest OSs (especially Linux, Windows > and Solaris) > > Most of my experience is with VMware, but that's proprietary. We've > got some Xen experience in the office, but this server will be managed > by me and quite frankly I find Xen to be overly complicated. KVM looks > very neat, in that it uses Linux as the hypervisor and so doesn't try > to be an OS unto itself. It's also Red Hat's preferred virtualisation > platform nowadays, which is great since we use a lot of Red Hat and > CentOS. > > Cheers, > Sridhar > > > -- > Bring choice back to your computer. > http://www.linux.org.au/linux > -- > SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ > Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html > -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
[SLUG] virtualisation solutions?
We're getting a new box at work to host virtual machines, and I'm trying to figure out what the best virtualisation solution might be. The specs will very likely be a dual quad-core CPU with 32GB RAM, running CentOS. I'd like to have something that: * is FOSS * is easy to manage (I've got other responsibilities and don't want to be bogged down with sysadmin work) * can preferably also run on our Fedora 8 desktops, so we can share VM images * can support a wide variety of guest OSs (especially Linux, Windows and Solaris) Most of my experience is with VMware, but that's proprietary. We've got some Xen experience in the office, but this server will be managed by me and quite frankly I find Xen to be overly complicated. KVM looks very neat, in that it uses Linux as the hypervisor and so doesn't try to be an OS unto itself. It's also Red Hat's preferred virtualisation platform nowadays, which is great since we use a lot of Red Hat and CentOS. Cheers, Sridhar -- Bring choice back to your computer. http://www.linux.org.au/linux -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
