From owner-freebsd-virtualization@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Apr 1 11:43:23 2015 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-virtualization@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [8.8.178.115]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E2C89851 for ; Wed, 1 Apr 2015 11:43:23 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vps1.elischer.org (vps1.elischer.org [204.109.63.16]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "vps1.elischer.org", Issuer "CA Cert Signing Authority" (not verified)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B37C9F2C for ; Wed, 1 Apr 2015 11:43:23 +0000 (UTC) Received: from Julian-MBP3.local (ppp121-45-255-201.lns20.per4.internode.on.net [121.45.255.201]) (authenticated bits=0) by vps1.elischer.org (8.14.9/8.14.9) with ESMTP id t31BhJwe024489 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO) for ; Wed, 1 Apr 2015 04:43:22 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from julian@freebsd.org) Message-ID: <551BD9D1.7030404@freebsd.org> Date: Wed, 01 Apr 2015 19:43:13 +0800 From: Julian Elischer User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.10; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: freebsd-virtualization@freebsd.org Subject: Re: available hypervisors in FreeBSD References: <551BC8B3.2030900@bestsolution.at> In-Reply-To: <551BC8B3.2030900@bestsolution.at> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-BeenThere: freebsd-virtualization@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18-1 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion of various virtualization techniques FreeBSD supports." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 01 Apr 2015 11:43:24 -0000 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-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" >