It seems to me that this is an important question due to the increasing prevalence of "The Cloud" and for companies that use VM's for assorted needs.
Specifically the question is: How do the Disruptor libraries perform on a RHEL virtual machine vrs. RHEL installed directly on hardware? Also very useful to know if there is improvement using it vrs. not on a VM?
Related
I have a windows 10 host operating system that supports virtualization. Next, I have an Ubuntu 16.04 virtual machine I created using virtualbox. For development purposes, I need to create a virtual machine inside my guest Ubuntu virtual machine. Unfortunately, I can't enable VT-x option in my guest Ubuntu machine to create a create a virtual machine inside my Ubuntu guest. Any information on how enable VT-x option on my virtual box inside my virtual Ubuntu machine would be appreciated.
Edit: I had that this may be accomplished through PCI Passthrough for VirtualBox. If so please detail how.
Lastly, my problem is similar to this guy's but with exception I can't seem to create an UBuntu32bit box.
Any information on how enable VT-x option on my virtual box inside my virtual Ubuntu machine would be appreciated.
You simply CAN'T.
VT-x is a hardware capability:
In 2006, both Intel (VT-x) and AMD (AMD-V) introduced limited hardware virtualization support that allowed simpler virtualization software but offered very few speed benefits. Greater hardware support, which allowed substantial speed improvements, came with later processor models.
Since VT-x requires hardware capabilities to work, there's no way for the "outer" virtual machine in your nested VMs to provide that capability to the "inner" VM. The "outer" VM doesn't have any actual hardware.
If you have to run a VM inside your VM that requires some of the capabilities that VT-x provides - such as the ability to run a 64-bit OS - you can try QEMU for the "inner" virtual machines. It'll be slower since it's an emulator and not true virtualization, though.
Currently running Windows 10 (native) and VMware Workstation 12 Player. I am running various LTS releases of Ubuntu in VMware.
I am wondering if there is way for me to run SikuliX on my main OS, Windows 10, and have the script interact with a virtual machine, running an Ubuntu OS, that I have open.
The quickstart documentation on the download site isn't very specific about the limitations of SikuliX on this topic. It simply says that you can't run it on a headless system (which VMware is not), and you need to have a monitor - the only problem is that I have no idea if SikuliX considers VMware to be a legitimate monitor or not.
I am aware of the fact that you can install Sikulix on the virtual machine itself, but this is not preferable as I would have to possibly reconfigure my VM settings to allocate more memory OR just deal with running the script at a slower pace.
Any help would be greatly appreciated.
The answer is yes, if you run SikuliX on a native host, it is possible to interact with the the interface of the virtual machine the same as running SikuliX on the virtual machine itself.
Now that I think about it, I should have probably tested this out before posting the question, but hey, if anyone has the same question as I do, now you know.
Am starting to learn openstack. As per my understanding (after reading all the docs) is that the compute nodes run a host OS (ubuntu or other linux) and on top of that you have your hypervisor (like KVM) and then the VMs run on top of it i.e HW -> OS -> Hypervisor -> VMs . This is similar to having a VM running on Virtualbox which runs on a host operating system i.e HW-> Host OS ->VBox -> VMs.Please correct me if my understanding is incorrect.
Assuming my first understanding is correct, How will the performance of the VMs on the this architecture be compared to running the VMs directly on hypervisor i.e HW-> Hypervisor (KVM)->VMs ?
Comparing this with VMWare openstack architecture where Nova speaking to VMWare vCenter and then vCenter manages the ESXi nodes (vCenter and ESXi are on different nodes). This way my VMs are directly running on top of hypervisor connected to HW (HW->ESXi->VMs).And all the overlay networking is handled by NSX. This looks much more performant compared to the other architecture. Am i missing something here ?
Thanks in advance.
~exp8
Since kvm runs on linux kernel, and runs instructions directly on the cpu, it is the hypervisor (HW -> HyperVisor -> VM). On the VMware side, there is a tiny proprietary tuned version of linux as hypervisor.
To find out which one is more efficient, you should do benchmarking. But if you think Vmware's linux consumes less resources (less process, memory, cpu), it may be better.
I am using Windows 8, and I need to install Linux. I have searched a lot, but I still cannot decide which virtual machine is the best for Linux. I am thinking between VMware and VirtualBox. Could anyone advise me which virtual machine I can use for installing Linux and for free, or give me any helpful links?
Thank you!
As you mentioned, you could use VMWare Workstation or VirtualBox. However, VMWare workstation is not free. You could have an option of using VMWare Player, but you'd have to start elsewhere and I would not recommend that. Here's a pretty good article comparing them:
http://www.infoworld.com/d/virtualization/review-vmware-workstation-9-vs-virtualbox-42-203277
Additionally, if you have 64-bit Windows 8 Professional or Enterprise and recent hardware, you can just use Hyper-V, which works quite well and will cost you nothing. Here's an article that will help you get it installed:
http://www.techrepublic.com/blog/windows-and-office/get-started-with-windows-8-client-hyper-v-the-right-way/
As far as recommendations, if you truly want free, you are looking at either Hyper-V or Virtual Box. If you use Hyper-V, that is Microsoft specific and works quite well -- on windows machines only. If you want to end up with a virtual machine that you could use over on different systems/platforms, I would use Virtual Box.
If you are willing to spend the money, I'd most recommend VMWare Workstation. It is cross-platform and works really well and generally has more features, plus it will have better performance that Virtual Box, which you can expect to be the slowest of the bunch.
When testing our software on several different systems (98-XP-Vista-Seven-Linux-etc), I think that the best choice is to use virtualized systems.
What's your choice: VMware, Virtual Box or MS Virtual PC/Server? and why?
We use VMWare here at work. Really any VM software that supports snapshots (or some way of saving the state of the machine) will work well. Snapshots make it easier for testing installs and rolling back. It can also help if you program goes and modifies files for returning back to a known-good state.
Virtual Box is the way to go. It has snapshots and is platform independent (Good for Mac users who want to test on other OS's). And it is free.
If it's available, Hyper-V on Windows Server 2008 is a powerful and full-featured entry including snapshot trees and all the niceties you'd expect with a quality UI.
If you're planning on using the VM on your local dev machine so you can (e.g.) bring it home on your laptop to work from there, then the more client-oriented virtualization software is probably the way to go.
If you're planning on using the virtualization in a primarily professional environment, a number of Hyper V machines in a computer lab that you can remote into is a powerful paradigm that we've been using at my office for a few months now.
My own preference is to use a local VM (Virtual PC is the easiest one for me) as my development environment because I can bring my work laptop home and use the VM there also (I don't VPN into the office). I then use the lab's Hyper-V machines for tests, deployments, etc because they have a better story for taking and restoring snapshots.
Go VMware. My reason is simple: before VMware released VMWare player and VMware server (the virtualisation platform formerly known as VMware GSX), the market for VM hosts was limited and expensive.
When VMware released these for free, all the other manufacturers (yes, I'm looking at Microsoft here) had to follow suit, so if it wasn't for the beneficence of VMware, we'd still be looking at having to buy our VM host software.
So, support VMware for being the good guys.
Oh, and their enterprise products are the business, they work well with Linux, have some excellent memory-saving tricks (here's the tech details), multiple snapshots and snapshots off a base image, and have features such as VMotion (load spreading) that other products don't support nearly as well (if at all).
Microsoft's VirtualPC. It free and simple.
One bit of functionality that is nice is the differenced VHDD that makes it easy (and space wise cheep) to keep backing up/reverting the image
VMWare, that's what we use here. We have both the full blown ESX for virtual servers and the VMWare workstations for development / testing. ESX resource management is very good, and easy to configure.
I've used VMWare (when the company would pay for it), VMWare Server (when the company would not), VirtualBox (because it's free, decent, and supports snapshots), Parallels on the Mac (which I bought), and Xen.
All work fine.
My current workhorse is VirtualBox, largely because it's free, supports snapshots, and runs on the various host platforms I have to use.
VMWare works pretty well, but for high cpu server apps we have found that Microsoft's Hyper-V works better because it has better cpu reservation abilities.
The key is that the system has snapshots, so you can easily roll back to several states (most do) and we have found that both VMWare and Hyper-V have excellent API's allowing us to kick off our automated tests when a new build completes.
Microsoft Virtual PC for Microsoft OS's, Virtual Box for *nix.
Virtual PC seem to be slightly faster and more stable, but it does not support linux.
We might have used VMWare if it was free,but our company would not spend the money.
Virtual box is great. It does have some stability issues if you run it inside Mac OS X. if you need a single solution to run multiple OS's this would be the one.
Linux/OpenSolaris on top of Virtual Box on top of Linux.