Re: available hypervisors in FreeBSD
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"
Re: available hypervisors in FreeBSD
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
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
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
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
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
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
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. Thanks for any advice 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
Hello, El 02/04/15 a les 20.23, Gustau Pérez ha escrit: > > > On 01/04/2015 12:41, Roger Pau Monné wrote: >> El 01/04/15 a les 12.30, Udo Rader ha escrit: >>> Hi all, >>> >>> first please excuse if this may be a FAQ, but even though I am a long >>> time linux admin (~1996), I am quite new to the *BSD world and I am >>> trying to evaluate if FreeBSD fits our virtualization needs. >>> >>> So, for my many questions: >>> >>> As far as my homework digging revealed, FreeBSD supports four hypervisors: >>> >>> * bhyve >>> * KVM >>> * QEMU >>> * VirtualBox >> Make that 5: >> * Xen: http://wiki.xen.org/wiki/FreeBSD_Dom0 > >Hi, > >reading the wiki, I see EPT seems to be mandatory, is there any way > to run without the EPT extension in legacy hardware? Not really, FreeBSD Dom0 runs in PVH mode, which requires EPT at the moment. We could maybe get rid of the EPT requirement, but the IOMMU support is mandatory, and IIRC there's no hardware with IOMMUs but without EPT. Roger. ___ freebsd-virtualization@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-virtualization To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-virtualization-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: available hypervisors in FreeBSD
On 01/04/2015 12:41, Roger Pau Monné wrote: > El 01/04/15 a les 12.30, Udo Rader ha escrit: >> Hi all, >> >> first please excuse if this may be a FAQ, but even though I am a long >> time linux admin (~1996), I am quite new to the *BSD world and I am >> trying to evaluate if FreeBSD fits our virtualization needs. >> >> So, for my many questions: >> >> As far as my homework digging revealed, FreeBSD supports four hypervisors: >> >> * bhyve >> * KVM >> * QEMU >> * VirtualBox > Make that 5: > * Xen: http://wiki.xen.org/wiki/FreeBSD_Dom0 Hi, reading the wiki, I see EPT seems to be mandatory, is there any way to run without the EPT extension in legacy hardware? Best, Gustau ___ freebsd-virtualization@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-virtualization To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-virtualization-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: available hypervisors in FreeBSD
On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 9:41 AM, Paul Vixie wrote: > > > > there's no libvirt for bhyve yet, which turns some people off. > Wrong. See: https://libvirt.org/drvbhyve.html http://www.slideshare.net/CraigRodrigues1/libvirt-bhyve libvirt/bhyve is definitely not as polished as libvirt/KVM. It definitely needs more work, but at least some people have put in the work to add libvirt/bhyve support at all. -- Craig ___ freebsd-virtualization@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-virtualization To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-virtualization-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: available hypervisors in FreeBSD
>Hi all, > >I found the source of the problem. Once upon a time I compiled my > kernel with OFED support (WITH_OFED in /etc/src.conf). That installed > $INCLUDE/rdma/rdma_cma.h, which at the time of the installation (haven't > checked now) were missing the rdma_addrinfo structs. > >Moving the $INCLUDE/rdma dir somewhere allowed the build to finish. Sorry I did not finish my explanation. Having the rdma_cma.h in the default include dir fooled the tools/qemu-xen-dir/configure script, and thus compiling as if the target was a linux box. Moving the $INCLUDE/rdma dir, cleaning, configuring and building again did the job. Gustau ___ freebsd-virtualization@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-virtualization To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-virtualization-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: available hypervisors in FreeBSD
On 01/04/2015 18:51, Roger Pau Monné wrote: > El 01/04/15 a les 17.28, Gustau Pérez ha escrit: > >Hi Roger, >>I'm trying to build xen-tools in my laptop. It runs this: >> >> FreeBSD portgus 11.0-CURRENT FreeBSD 11.0-CURRENT #4 >> r279875+f0e745a(HEAD): Sat Mar 14 16:55:11 CET 2015 >> >>the build was done with gcc48, instead of 4.7 (but I think it has >> nothing to do with the problem) fails with the following error: >> >> http://pastebin.com/ShDnjLb1c > The paste seems to be gone :(. Can you upload it again? Hi all, I found the source of the problem. Once upon a time I compiled my kernel with OFED support (WITH_OFED in /etc/src.conf). That installed $INCLUDE/rdma/rdma_cma.h, which at the time of the installation (haven't checked now) were missing the rdma_addrinfo structs. Moving the $INCLUDE/rdma dir somewhere allowed the build to finish. Thanks for your help and great contribution! Gustau ___ freebsd-virtualization@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-virtualization To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-virtualization-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: available hypervisors in FreeBSD
El 01/04/15 a les 17.28, Gustau Pérez ha escrit: >Hi Roger, > >I'm trying to build xen-tools in my laptop. It runs this: > > FreeBSD portgus 11.0-CURRENT FreeBSD 11.0-CURRENT #4 > r279875+f0e745a(HEAD): Sat Mar 14 16:55:11 CET 2015 > >the build was done with gcc48, instead of 4.7 (but I think it has > nothing to do with the problem) fails with the following error: > > http://pastebin.com/ShDnjLb1c The paste seems to be gone :(. Can you upload it again? I'm using gcc48 to build the Xen tools without problems, maybe you have additional libraries which enable additional features in Qemu. Thanks, Roger. ___ freebsd-virtualization@freebsd.org mailing list http://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 wrote: > ... > > Raw disks are fine with us as we do not overprovision storage (at least > not yet). nfs, with the server running zfs "raid10", and the guest as an nfs client, using the "bridge" network, is as fast for normal file i/o (like un-tarring a big file) as native zfs on the server, and is as fast as "ufs" on the client using raw "zvol" from the server. so you have choices, and none of them are non-performant. > [guests.redbarn:amd64] cat /etc/fstab # Device Mountpoint FStype > Options Dump Pass# /dev/vtbd0p3 / ufs rw 1 1 mm1:/zroot1/guesthomes > /zroot1/guesthomes nfs rw,noinet4 0 0 and: > root@mm1:/home/vixie # cat /etc/zfs/exports # !!! DO NOT EDIT THIS > FILE MANUALLY !!! /zroot1/guesthomes guests.redbarn.org /zroot1/home > family.redbarn.org -- Paul Vixie ___ freebsd-virtualization@freebsd.org mailing list http://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 wrote: > ... > > I understand, that bhyve is native to BSD and will probably be the most > effective. But given its relatively 'young age', is it production ready > for (non nested) x86/amd64 linux guests? there's no libvirt for bhyve yet, which turns some people off. (not me, i don't use libvirt in any case.) there's significant clock drift, even with kern.timecounter.hardware="TSC-low" in the guests: > ... > Jan 26 05:38:08 guests ntpd[619]: time reset +0.223304 s > Jan 26 06:06:22 guests ntpd[619]: time reset +0.196973 s > Jan 26 06:34:24 guests ntpd[619]: time reset +0.200070 s > Jan 26 07:08:28 guests ntpd[619]: time reset +0.210997 s > Jan 26 07:36:09 guests ntpd[619]: time reset +0.205481 s > Jan 26 08:10:04 guests ntpd[619]: time reset +0.205461 s > Jan 26 08:39:43 guests ntpd[619]: time reset +0.175491 s > Jan 26 09:10:29 guests ntpd[619]: time reset +0.189261 s > Jan 26 09:44:03 guests ntpd[619]: time reset +0.164616 s > Jan 26 10:20:25 guests ntpd[619]: time reset +0.176280 s > Jan 26 10:56:18 guests ntpd[619]: time reset +0.161555 s > Jan 26 11:39:53 guests ntpd[619]: time reset +0.166066 s > Jan 26 12:31:11 guests ntpd[619]: time reset +0.142994 s > ... (that's much worse with the default kern.timecounter.hardware value, but still rather absurd.) i use bhyve in production and seems altogether ready. -- Paul Vixie ___ freebsd-virtualization@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-virtualization To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-virtualization-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: available hypervisors in FreeBSD
· On 01/04/2015 12:41, Roger Pau Monné wrote: > El 01/04/15 a les 12.30, Udo Rader ha escrit: >> Hi all, >> >> first please excuse if this may be a FAQ, but even though I am a long >> time linux admin (~1996), I am quite new to the *BSD world and I am >> trying to evaluate if FreeBSD fits our virtualization needs. >> >> So, for my many questions: >> >> As far as my homework digging revealed, FreeBSD supports four hypervisors: >> >> * bhyve >> * KVM >> * QEMU >> * VirtualBox > Make that 5: > * Xen: http://wiki.xen.org/wiki/FreeBSD_Dom0 > > Altough FreeBSD doesn't run KVM, and I'm not sure whether QEMU fits > under the hypervisor category, it's an emulator instead, so the list > should probably be 3 (Bhyve, VirtualBox and Xen). > > Roger. Hi Roger, I'm trying to build xen-tools in my laptop. It runs this: FreeBSD portgus 11.0-CURRENT FreeBSD 11.0-CURRENT #4 r279875+f0e745a(HEAD): Sat Mar 14 16:55:11 CET 2015 the build was done with gcc48, instead of 4.7 (but I think it has nothing to do with the problem) fails with the following error: http://pastebin.com/ShDnjLb1c It'd appear the compiler knows nothing about struct rdma_addrinfo when dereferencing a field in the struct. May this struct be a linuxism? Best, Gustau ___ freebsd-virtualization@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-virtualization To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-virtualization-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: available hypervisors in FreeBSD
On 2015-04-01 16:46, Roger Pau Monné wrote: Hello, El 01/04/15 a les 16.27, Gerd Hafenbrack ha escrit: ... The documentation for FreeBSD as Dom0 seems outdated anyway to me. The document was last modified on the 15th of March 2015. I know things move fast in the IT industry, but I wouldn't call that outdated. ... An example: https://wiki.freebsd.org/FreeBSD/Xen FreeBSD/Xen (last edited 2014-08-29 04:27:05 by CherryMathew) http://wiki.xenproject.org/wiki/FreeBSD_Dom0 This page was last modified on 14 March 2015, at 02:08. I think this is the page you are referring to. Please excuse my words. Sorry, they weren't intended as an offense. ___ freebsd-virtualization@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-virtualization To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-virtualization-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: available hypervisors in FreeBSD
Hello, El 01/04/15 a les 16.27, Gerd Hafenbrack ha escrit: > On 2015-04-01 16:19, Roger Pau Monné wrote: >> El 01/04/15 a les 14.59, Udo Rader ha escrit: >>> ... thanks for pointing Xen out. I was indeed not aware of Xen >>> running on >>> FreeBSD, an intriguing (and well known) alternative. >>> >>> The wiki says, that migrate/save/restore are missing from the *BSD port. >>> Is that still valid? >> >> Yes, I'm currently finishing the patches for Xen. This is not missing >> from FreeBSD, but from Xen itself when running Dom0 in PVH mode. > > The documentation for FreeBSD as Dom0 seems outdated anyway to me. The document was last modified on the 15th of March 2015. I know things move fast in the IT industry, but I wouldn't call that outdated. Roger. ___ freebsd-virtualization@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-virtualization To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-virtualization-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: available hypervisors in FreeBSD
On 2015-04-01 16:19, Roger Pau Monné wrote: El 01/04/15 a les 14.59, Udo Rader ha escrit: ... thanks for pointing Xen out. I was indeed not aware of Xen running on FreeBSD, an intriguing (and well known) alternative. The wiki says, that migrate/save/restore are missing from the *BSD port. Is that still valid? Yes, I'm currently finishing the patches for Xen. This is not missing from FreeBSD, but from Xen itself when running Dom0 in PVH mode. The documentation for FreeBSD as Dom0 seems outdated anyway to me. ___ freebsd-virtualization@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-virtualization To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-virtualization-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: available hypervisors in FreeBSD
El 01/04/15 a les 14.59, Udo Rader ha escrit: > On 04/01/2015 12:41 PM, Roger Pau Monné wrote: >> El 01/04/15 a les 12.30, Udo Rader ha escrit: >>> As far as my homework digging revealed, FreeBSD supports four hypervisors: >>> >>> * bhyve >>> * KVM >>> * QEMU >>> * VirtualBox >> >> Make that 5: >> * Xen: http://wiki.xen.org/wiki/FreeBSD_Dom0 >> >> Altough FreeBSD doesn't run KVM, and I'm not sure whether QEMU fits >> under the hypervisor category, it's an emulator instead, so the list >> should probably be 3 (Bhyve, VirtualBox and Xen). > > thanks for pointing Xen out. I was indeed not aware of Xen running on > FreeBSD, an intriguing (and well known) alternative. > > The wiki says, that migrate/save/restore are missing from the *BSD port. > Is that still valid? Yes, I'm currently finishing the patches for Xen. This is not missing from FreeBSD, but from Xen itself when running Dom0 in PVH mode. Roger. ___ freebsd-virtualization@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-virtualization To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-virtualization-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: available hypervisors in FreeBSD
On 04/01/2015 01:43 PM, Julian Elischer wrote: > Bhyve only supports raw disk images.. I'ts quite early in it's > developement life so some features may not > be present yet. thanks for your insights. what you write about bhyve sounds quite good, so I'll give that a try as well. Raw disks are fine with us as we do not overprovision storage (at least not yet). I read that bhyve is now supported by libvirt as well [1], so that may open a road for good manageability (with our existing external tooling). https://libvirt.org/drvbhyve.html ___ freebsd-virtualization@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-virtualization To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-virtualization-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: available hypervisors in FreeBSD
On 04/01/2015 12:41 PM, Roger Pau Monné wrote: > El 01/04/15 a les 12.30, Udo Rader ha escrit: >> As far as my homework digging revealed, FreeBSD supports four hypervisors: >> >> * bhyve >> * KVM >> * QEMU >> * VirtualBox > > Make that 5: > * Xen: http://wiki.xen.org/wiki/FreeBSD_Dom0 > > Altough FreeBSD doesn't run KVM, and I'm not sure whether QEMU fits > under the hypervisor category, it's an emulator instead, so the list > should probably be 3 (Bhyve, VirtualBox and Xen). thanks for pointing Xen out. I was indeed not aware of Xen running on FreeBSD, an intriguing (and well known) alternative. The wiki says, that migrate/save/restore are missing from the *BSD port. Is that still valid? ___ freebsd-virtualization@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-virtualization To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-virtualization-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: available hypervisors in FreeBSD
On 4/1/15 6:30 PM, Udo Rader wrote: Hi all, first please excuse if this may be a FAQ, but even though I am a long time linux admin (~1996), I am quite new to the *BSD world and I am trying to evaluate if FreeBSD fits our virtualization needs. So, for my many questions: As far as my homework digging revealed, FreeBSD supports four hypervisors: * bhyve * KVM * QEMU * VirtualBox KVM is a linux beast and while some work was done a long time ago to try port it, I believe it was never really completed.. Bhyve is FreeBSD's "KVM". it requires hardware support but is actively supported and reliable (for me). QEMU... yes.. but I haven't used it in a long time VB.. seems to work fine.. it's packaged with PBSD as an integrap part and has a UI, unlike Bhyve. Xen. works but I've not tried it. I understand, that bhyve is native to BSD and will probably be the most effective. But given its relatively 'young age', is it production ready for (non nested) x86/amd64 linux guests? While I know the differences between KVM, QEMU and VirtualBox quite well for myself under linux, how do they compare when being run on FreeBSD? For example, KVM is tightly integrated with the linux kernel and thus outperforms the other two. Is that still true under FreeBSD? s/KVM/Bhyve/ Do the FreeBSD ports of QEMU and/or KVM support ARM guests? I think QEMU does. For KVM guests, are the virtio features working (like memory ballooning)? s/KVM/Byhve/.. yes though people are still working on it. Right now, we are virtualizing mostly using linux+KVM. Will there be major differences (aka glitches ;) if we switch the host OS to FreeBSD for existing KVM guests? Bhyve only supports raw disk images.. I'ts quite early in it's developement life so some features may not be present yet. VB should just work with VB machines from Linux on the same architecture as long as you are not using more esoteric features.. (usb passthrough?). Thanks Udo ___ freebsd-virtualization@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-virtualization To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-virtualization-unsubscr...@freebsd.org" ___ freebsd-virtualization@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-virtualization To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-virtualization-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: available hypervisors in FreeBSD
El 01/04/15 a les 12.30, Udo Rader ha escrit: > Hi all, > > first please excuse if this may be a FAQ, but even though I am a long > time linux admin (~1996), I am quite new to the *BSD world and I am > trying to evaluate if FreeBSD fits our virtualization needs. > > So, for my many questions: > > As far as my homework digging revealed, FreeBSD supports four hypervisors: > > * bhyve > * KVM > * QEMU > * VirtualBox Make that 5: * Xen: http://wiki.xen.org/wiki/FreeBSD_Dom0 Altough FreeBSD doesn't run KVM, and I'm not sure whether QEMU fits under the hypervisor category, it's an emulator instead, so the list should probably be 3 (Bhyve, VirtualBox and Xen). Roger. ___ freebsd-virtualization@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-virtualization To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-virtualization-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
available hypervisors in FreeBSD
Hi all, first please excuse if this may be a FAQ, but even though I am a long time linux admin (~1996), I am quite new to the *BSD world and I am trying to evaluate if FreeBSD fits our virtualization needs. So, for my many questions: As far as my homework digging revealed, FreeBSD supports four hypervisors: * bhyve * KVM * QEMU * VirtualBox I understand, that bhyve is native to BSD and will probably be the most effective. But given its relatively 'young age', is it production ready for (non nested) x86/amd64 linux guests? While I know the differences between KVM, QEMU and VirtualBox quite well for myself under linux, how do they compare when being run on FreeBSD? For example, KVM is tightly integrated with the linux kernel and thus outperforms the other two. Is that still true under FreeBSD? Do the FreeBSD ports of QEMU and/or KVM support ARM guests? For KVM guests, are the virtio features working (like memory ballooning)? Right now, we are virtualizing mostly using linux+KVM. Will there be major differences (aka glitches ;) if we switch the host OS to FreeBSD for existing KVM guests? Thanks Udo ___ freebsd-virtualization@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-virtualization To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-virtualization-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
