From owner-freebsd-virtualization@freebsd.org Sun Dec 20 15:25:48 2015 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-virtualization@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F0999A4CF8C for ; Sun, 20 Dec 2015 15:25:47 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from sm@ara-ler.com) Received: from mail-io0-x234.google.com (mail-io0-x234.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c06::234]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "smtp.gmail.com", Issuer "Google Internet Authority G2" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C3A001759 for ; Sun, 20 Dec 2015 15:25:47 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from sm@ara-ler.com) Received: by mail-io0-x234.google.com with SMTP id o67so133391804iof.3 for ; Sun, 20 Dec 2015 07:25:47 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ara-ler-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=date:from:to:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=5H2vMP9oiQi2EnusL0NsmUP6IzsZkKTa+HJ7dTJ/ako=; b=JJEeDg7DaeIWHZ+gbNURB8au/oXf9VwSfMd0k7vvRu8Qn4FVfQfJ3xhio4OUSLmCwQ J1zwvi0Tow0MmWEkL9Ft5oC08fQ1PnwpoXc5d2K7OUn5zTnG+osCAXy8K3/jbx1YgoZn E2q0bGAtyFTXS3h9lNgeRuNSL0EvwEm5Rm3uQZdwtWDz8VRpFSpPsGRtiTcwEgV/BncY LsD3VpztTpa+rEibujIf1eo8AnUNOrYjrWU5zqNwsdYo+R+AYUWg+OKqfAA+DIREGM4F ySnFSdRWBlmN3LfrcSIz2ro8GtxhbfQjSqZu7P9PaA+3y2zNxO4R/gtUv7xpdo5Prks7 zswg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to :user-agent; bh=5H2vMP9oiQi2EnusL0NsmUP6IzsZkKTa+HJ7dTJ/ako=; b=jJEhk9LEG4j3K51AQRktCOKmIxgzU+pmcNuB4F8nVVFvkqxKoFPEvJ7Ko7vKY94y/2 NI4a2bHSV8CJ2fUG0gnf96lMvg3OSScfsUhlRS/5/Kxim3pZ3Qb3vdzZ8dU4DY90zUGQ kn6/IzJkVCovP6QGZ3nkoG2DMIL2NEsvQRmKmca1WrQBKVANWEtVjO106aDP3JUq7UXK Nsf/W1d7YTCzIjErSs+qeNLiJLkoD/Gej+8c+vNiYYu+QVO446p4SrEh8a0q31sBjdMv vZbJBjMGPR0iK3aKELzazWL1ifUKb5B+02GcgwoUYviJ7EtVuclnoDLDmVs41i7HS4Qn iGqw== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnjnonMCwtAckUIKk5Z6i03H8sIJYh5aUNkOK5yR50WaMPowqfFnDg9qa45uQOciXBK5C4zF6ZBiBSwTbcD0MaJyggUPg== X-Received: by 10.107.169.27 with SMTP id s27mr14524393ioe.192.1450625146930; Sun, 20 Dec 2015 07:25:46 -0800 (PST) Received: from dendrobates.araler.com (70-59-19-232.hlrn.qwest.net. [70.59.19.232]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id s13sm10290857ioi.29.2015.12.20.07.25.46 for (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Sun, 20 Dec 2015 07:25:46 -0800 (PST) Date: Sun, 20 Dec 2015 08:25:44 -0700 From: Sergey Manucharian To: freebsd-virtualization@freebsd.org Subject: Re: available hypervisors in FreeBSD Message-ID: <20151220152544.GA4053@dendrobates.araler.com> References: <551BC8B3.2030900@bestsolution.at> <56766D93.9030808@quip.cz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <56766D93.9030808@quip.cz> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30) X-BeenThere: freebsd-virtualization@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 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: Sun, 20 Dec 2015 15:25:48 -0000 Excerpts from Miroslav Lachman's message from Sun 20-Dec-15 09:57: > Peter Ross wrote on 12/20/2015 09:15: > >> As far as my homework digging revealed, FreeBSD supports four > >> hypervisors: > >> > >> * bhyve > >> * KVM > >> * QEMU > >> * VirtualBox > > > > .. and later Xen was mentioned. > > ........ > > 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. > > VirtualBox is the most usable and you can use it in headless mode. If > you are really not satified with VirtualBox, you can try Xen. I agree that VirtualBox is really stable, and I'm using it in production environments for many years. However, there are a couple of possible drawbacks: It does not support VRDP (remote console) and USB2/3 on FreeBSD. Tha latter is probably not really important (although I needed it too). The lack of remote console is bad for troubleshooting and/or remote (re)installation. Currently I have one bhyve Windows Server 2012 machine, which works fine, although it's not really loaded at the moment. Sergey