From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Oct 13 03:55:21 2011 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BA90D10656AE for ; Thu, 13 Oct 2011 03:55:21 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from carlj@peak.org) Received: from redcondor2.peak.org (redcondor2.peak.org [69.59.192.56]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8460B8FC08 for ; Thu, 13 Oct 2011 03:55:21 +0000 (UTC) Received: from zmail-mta01.peak.org ([207.55.16.111]) by redcondor2.peak.org ({6c724cae-de34-4c5f-b615-3072b86419fa}) via TCP (outbound) with ESMTP id 20111013035520842 for ; Thu, 13 Oct 2011 03:55:20 +0000 X-RC-FROM: X-RC-RCPT: Received: from maple.localnet (unknown [207.55.106.132]) by zmail-mta01.peak.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 764024905A1 for ; Wed, 12 Oct 2011 20:55:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from oak.localnet (oak.localnet [IPv6:2001:1938:266::6f:616b]) by maple.localnet (Postfix) with ESMTP id DB05D61F12 for ; Wed, 12 Oct 2011 20:55:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from oak.localnet (localhost.localnet [127.0.0.1]) by oak.localnet (Postfix) with ESMTP id A213DBC36 for ; Wed, 12 Oct 2011 20:55:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from carlj@localhost) by oak.localnet (8.14.4/8.14.4/Submit) id p9D3tD6c004610; Wed, 12 Oct 2011 20:55:13 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from carlj@peak.org) X-Authentication-Warning: oak.localnet: carlj set sender to carlj@peak.org using -f From: Carl Johnson To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org References: <3401304023-313529491@intranet.com.mx> Mail-Followup-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2011 20:55:13 -0700 In-Reply-To: (Adam Vande More's message of "Wed, 12 Oct 2011 18:14:17 -0500") Message-ID: <87lispk0ke.fsf@oak.localnet> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.2 (berkeley-unix) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Subject: Re: Freebsd, Virtual OSs and GUI X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2011 03:55:21 -0000 Adam Vande More writes: > On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 5:38 PM, Jorge Biquez wrote: > > It is better to install KDE or GNOME as the base GUI or it is better to have >> any other ? (I do not know what could be). >> > > This is one of those ask a hundred different people get 100 different > answers. I prefer KDE which would work well for you because both KDE and > VirtualBox are built on QT4, a rather large system. KDE isn't really that > heavy though relatively speaking. VirtualBox runs great for me and does all > you indicated. > > >> >> What do you think is the best option to save hardware resources and >> accomplish this task ? Something important is that this lab machine will be >> connected directly with the ISP (public IP's) and I will need to connect >> remotely to control the server and the other OS's. >> > > You will probably want a CPU and chipset that has hardware assist for > virtualization, and plenty of RAM for both host and guests. Disk choice > should reflect your data capacity, redundancy, and speed needs. A good > quality Intel NIC is always nice. If the OP is going to run a 64-bit OS, then hardware vitualization assist is *required* for VirtualBox to handle it. It is not required when VirtualBox is running a 32-bit OS. Just another minor detail to consider. -- Carl Johnson carlj@peak.org