[ale] Virtualization

[JK]

Benjie wrote:
> JK, how old is your box?


Too old, apparently. No "vmx" in the cpuinfo :-(

It'll be interesting to see how this works on my new Phenom box
when it arrives... Hipefully Thursday.


>   I wouldn't go with VMWare Server or Xen
> for desktop use.


The guest OSs will actually be running servers and development
boxen, so "desktop" is not really part of my requirements. Mainly
I'm interested in "fast", with "not too bloody hard to configure"
a close second.  (I love that I can have a new instance running
in just a couple minutes with VirtualBox.)

Anyway, thanks heaps, that was really helpful :-)

-- JK



>  Newer Intel and AMD multi-core CPU's have
> extensions that provide better performance specifically for
> virtualization ( VTx and AMD-V.)  You can enable these extensions
> through the settings in VirtualBox. ( Although you will probably be
> forced to re-install the XP guest if you do.)  Your guest VM's are
> operating in para-virtualization mode which is going to provide less
> performance than full virtualization.  (  grep for vmx in
> /proc/cpuinfo, that will show wether or not your cpu supports full
> virtualization.  You should also check your BIOS to see if you need to
> turn on virtualization features if they are there.)  VirtualBox is
> great for desktop use; VMWare Workstation only edges it when you are
> running multiple VM's.  And its hard to beat free ( it definately
> outperforms VMWare Player.)  I wouldn't go with VMWare Server or Xen
> for desktop use.  As for VMWare Server, I would look into ditching it
> for VMWare ESXi.  It provides much improved performance and
> granularity in tuning VM's over the old Server product.  It is free,
> as in gratis.  You just need to register with VMWare's site and get a
> key.  It will time out after 60 days if you don't.
> 
> On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 9:50 PM, Christopher Fowler
> <cfowler at outpostsentinel.com> wrote:
>> JK wrote:
>>> So I'm running VirtualBox on a 3Ghz dual-proc P4 with 3GB of
>>> RAM.  (Maybe it's just hyperthreading, but /proc/cpuinfo
>>> reports two CPUs, and I haven't looked inside the box. Got
>>> the machine from my employer after a cancelled project.) The
>>> host OS is Ubuntu Intrepid, and the guests are mostly WinXP.
>>>
>>> Whenever a guest machine does the tiniest little thing --
>>> scroll a command window a couple of lines, for example --
>>> it seems to peg the guest's (virtual) CPU, and really
>>> elevate the CPU usage on the host.  This seems unnecessary,
>>> and I'm wondering if VMWare or Xen or some other virtualization
>>> technology makes better use of the underlying hardware.
>>>
>>> Any experiences to share?
>>>
>>>
>> This is my experience as well.  I think many companies look at
>> virtualization as a way to save
>> money on hardware.  Yes it does but the guest must be suited for it.
>>
>> I run about 5 guests on a CentOS 5.2 host with Server 2.0.  We have one
>> Windows 2003 Server guest
>> and the rest are CentOS 5.2.
>>
>> Sometimes when I edit a file on a guest with vim it may take a second
>> for vim to load it or for it to write
>> it.  It is almost as if the guest is blocking in I/O to the disk.  When
>> typing over SSH I can sometimes
>> feel a latency on the guest I do not feel on real servers.
>>
>> For the most part the average load on each guest is probably less than
>> 0.25.  This works well.  rarely
>> we get a runaway process on one of the guests.  When this happens, each
>> guest takes a major performance
>> hit.  They all share the same 2 CPUs on the host.  I wish there was a
>> way in server to limit a guest to
>> a certain percentage of the host's CPU.
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Ale mailing list
>> Ale at ale.org
>> http://mail.ale.org/mailman/listinfo/ale
>>
> 
> 
> 


-- 
I do not particularly want to go where the money is -
  it usually does not smell nice there. -- A. Stepanov