COMPUTING: Virtualisation

[Kyuuketsuki]

Suse & Fedora both use the RPM package manager. If you can get the KVM/QEMU package from fedora, you should be able to install it on a Suse build.

Thanks

So anyway (here's the thing) ... it seems I have choices!

There are at least 3 virtual systems (and I'm talking hyper-visors) worth considering:

These are ESXi, Xen and the new MS one. All are baremetal (or can be) i.e. the install includes hosting OS as well as the virtualisation software. The MS baremetal hypervisor is essentially a hypervisor loaded on top of a restricted version of server core but that's OK ... it works the same and I suppose they all are really.

ESXi is the most mature and in many ways the best but lacks one thing I wanted, the ability to template i.e. convert a pre-built machine to a template and deploy a new system from it. XEN has the ability to create templates and deploy from them but configuring the IOS repository is a pain in the a*** (if I could do it all I wouldn't mind, it only needs to be done once, but I haven't figured how yet)! The MS hypervisor is the new boy on the block ... I do not know if it can deploy virtual machines from templates but I do know it has poor legacy OS and Linux support.

Nevertheless the MS solution is appealing because it opens the door to something I had rejected before, the idea of installing the hypervisor on top of a full copy of server 2008. A physical server offers the specific advantage of maintaining a console operable server on the network (none of the baremetal hypervisors can do much at the console).

Yes I am an MS boy but I am also VMWare certified and the new ERSXi is very like ESX in operation ... but I am edging towards MS because the Linux support will come in time, they do support SuSE Enterprise so I'm guessing OpenSuSE would probably run OK and migrating my domain would be an awful lot easier since I know how to migrate DC's in a single DC domain.

Intriguing huh?

Kyu

[leo-rcc]

Migration of a DC in a single DC domain is pretty simple, since there is no synchronization issue and just one GC.

But if you want to run a Virtualization on an existing OS, why not Virtuabox or Qemu? They come standard for any semi-modern flavor Windows and Linux and are even cross-platform interchangable. Just no live migration, but MS doesn't have that in the free version either.

[Kyuuketsuki]

But if you want to run a Virtualization on an existing OS, why not Virtuabox or Qemu? They come standard for any semi-modern flavor Windows and Linux and are even cross-platform interchangable. Just no live migration, but MS doesn't have that in the free version either.

It's a question of what each virtualisation system offers me.

Primarily I wanted a baremetal hypervisor so in principle we're talking ESXi, XenServer or MS Hyper-V.

ESXi is, in my opinion, the standard against which all others are measured: it is stable, works well, but not necessarily the best (the kind of Rolls Royce of virtualisation). It doesn't do templates.
XenServer is pretty good, it's faster and somewhat nattier than ESXi but real use of it seems to depend on a thorough grounding in Linux (which I do not have) and the ISO repository thing is a problem for me.
MS Hyper-V gets good write ups: It's the new boy on the block, effectively Hyper-V installed on top of a restricted core build.

I am only considering these three BUT because there isn't a whole load of difference between MS Hyper-V Free Baremetal and MS Server 2008 with Hyper-V installed I am prepared to consider it:

• My experience and more to the point my future is largely in Windows.
  
• Few VM's properly support USB so a physical server will help with that.
  
• I'll have a physical machine that will support my Ultrium 1 tape drive.
  
• I'll be able to work effectively from the console
  
• Many people will soon be using MS Hyper-V in a server with virtualisation configuration and that means I need to know stuff about it.

Essentially that's why ... I'm edging towards ESXi or MS Hyper-V, if I could have configure the ISO repository on XenServer it would be a serious contender but right now it's dropping to 3rd place.

Kyu

[leo-rcc]

Have you tried this one yet?

http://community.citrix.com/blogs/citrit...rver5+Host

I cant imagine that creating a nfs based repository would pose many issues, apart from those described in the comments below that article.

[Kyuuketsuki]

Have you tried this one yet?

http://community.citrix.com/blogs/citrit...rver5+Host

I cant imagine that creating a nfs based repository would pose many issues, apart from those described in the comments below that article.

Apparently is does for most people who have responded:

While trying to create NFS VHD storage via XenCenter5.5
"The NFS server version is unsupported. Check your settings and try again."

While trying to create NFS ISO Librarystorage via XenCenter5.5
"Unable to mount the directory specified in device configuration request. Check your setting and try again."

Oh well

EDIT: I have been reading about Sun's Virtualbox ... it looks interesting but I don't think it's what I want.

Kyu

[leo-rcc]

Did you read further down?

Had the same Problem and just added the iptable rules tcp/udp port 111/2049 and it works now fine.

[Kyuuketsuki]

Did you read further down?

No

Had the same Problem and just added the iptable rules tcp/udp port 111/2049 and it works now fine.

Oh ... well we'll see ... I think I'm getting close to decision time and having trashed an ESXi installation AND a XenServer installation (currently on the MS baremetal and that's about to get trashed too)

Kyu