Date: Sun, 20 Dec 2015 09:08:48 -0600 From: Adam Vande More <amvandemore@gmail.com> To: Peter Ross <Peter.Ross@alumni.tu-berlin.de> Cc: FreeBSD virtualization <freebsd-virtualization@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: available hypervisors in FreeBSD Message-ID: <CA%2BtpaK0QW%2B2qCCo9mN_B3w_G7brWd80opXxUDP-_25uDrS8Gyg@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <alpine.BSF.2.20.1512201857180.1075@sams.my.domain> References: <551BC8B3.2030900@bestsolution.at> <alpine.BSF.2.20.1512201857180.1075@sams.my.domain>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, Dec 20, 2015 at 2:15 AM, Peter Ross <Peter.Ross@alumni.tu-berlin.de> wrote: > Hi all, > > I read through an older threat I kept in my archive. It started like this: > > On Wed, 1 Apr 2015, Udo Rader wrote: > > As far as my homework digging revealed, FreeBSD supports four hypervisors: >> >> * bhyve >> * KVM >> * QEMU >> * VirtualBox >> > > .. and later Xen was mentioned. > > I ask myself which of the solutions are most mature at the moment and > immediately usable in production. > > Reason is a potential company move from VMware ESXi/Centos(6/7) with some > critical Windows 2008 and 2012 IIS/.NET applications) involved. > > While most of open source may go into FreeBSD jails, we have a few > CentOS6/7 boxes with proprietary software we have to keep, as well as the > Windows VMs to maintain (there is a long term effort to move them to Open > Source too but the final migration of all may be years away). > > We may phase out ESXi gradually, or just keep it, depending on the > performance and maturity of FreeBSD based solutions. > > I have experience with Linux on VirtualBox and it worked well if the load > was not high but the performance wasn't too good when under stress (but it > never crashed, I might add). > > Which of the solutions are worth testing? Do you have recommendations? > > I am thinking of server software and "containerisation" only, so USB > passthrough or PCI etc. is not really important. > > Stability, performance and resource utilisation (e.g. possible > over-allocation of RAM) are matter most. > VBox is fine, it works well and really has all the features of vitalization of the big 3 except for clustering and a few side things. I've been using bhyve and I like it. I have no stability issues on dozens of guests some with a lot of IO net and disk. I had hoped VPS[1] would make it in, but that seems to have stalled. [1] http://www.7he.at/freebsd/vps/ -- Adam
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CA%2BtpaK0QW%2B2qCCo9mN_B3w_G7brWd80opXxUDP-_25uDrS8Gyg>