On Tuesday 11 January 2011 09:00:02 [email protected] wrote: > Hi David > > All the linux big boys are moving fast to KVM. Redhat and IBM have > abandoned Xen completely, making it an out of kernel patch set > maintained by Citrix and perhaps code from Oracle. Youll find that > Debian has also elected to discontinue Xen in the next release. > > Virtualbox is still nice for desktop quasi-trivial virtualisation. (Im > sure someone objects to that, and has taken it to a huge scale...) > > KVM is still the only in kernel hypervisor (if thats what it is, which > it sort of isnt). > > VMware is free as in beer. > > At my telco of employ, we are using KVM extensively. Im of the opinion > is the most sane design, gives you the most control and follows the unix > way of re-using existing components to the nth degree. > > Chances are its already installed on your reasonably recent release > distribution of choice. > > Dean > > On 10/01/11 20:57, david wrote: > > I've migrated a server to virtualbox for the purpose of experimentation > > (namely, to resolve upgrade issues going from Ubuntu 8.04 to 10.04). I > > used MondoArchive to clone the hardware server onto a Virtualbox virtual > > server. All good so far. > > > > I'm thinking of building future servers within virtual environments - > > ie: the server built as a solitary virtual machine within its host. > > > > I'm hoping that will make future upgrades, migration and back-up easier. > > I currently run 3 public servers, none of which are heavily loaded. > > > > What virtualisation solutions would people suggest? and is there any > > reason this is not a good idea?
David I totally agree, but I think 'For me at home wanting to virtualize a server or two' VirtualBox offers simple quick and easy way that is much easier than KVM. My two servers have no desktop, rdesktop makes it easy from boot onwards. I use ssh and console. James -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
