Date: Sun, 19 Jul 2009 11:02:59 +0300 From: Manolis Kiagias <sonicy@otenet.gr> To: "Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy@hub.org> Cc: Tom Rhodes <trhodes@freebsd.org>, "doc@FreeBSD.org" <doc@freebsd.org>, Gabor PALI <pgj@freebsd.org>, Daichi GOTO <daichi@freebsd.org>, "Simon L. Nielsen" <simon@freebsd.org>, freebsd-emulation@freebsd.org, Giorgos Keramidas <keramida@freebsd.org>, Rene Ladan <rene@freebsd.org>, Manolis Kiagias <manolis@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH] Add a VirtualBox section to Handbook's 'Virtualization' chapter Message-ID: <4A62D333.9090203@otenet.gr> In-Reply-To: <alpine.BSF.2.00.0907181436540.90690@hub.org> References: <4A5C5F13.7030607@FreeBSD.org> <4A5D5ED7.5000101@freebsd.org> <20090717215636.GA1141@arthur.nitro.dk> <4A61733D.9010702@FreeBSD.org> <alpine.BSF.2.00.0907181436540.90690@hub.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Marc G. Fournier wrote: > On Sat, 18 Jul 2009, Manolis Kiagias wrote: > >> But isn't qemu distinctly different in the way it works from a >> virtualization program like VMWare or VirtualBox? I think the first >> paragraph serves well as a gentle introduction to the topic. > > How different? Wine, I could see, but qemu? Please elaborate ... > AFAIK qemu also provides processor emulation, thus is mostly referred to as an emulator rather than a virtual machine. I am no expert on this though - I've used qemu in the past but could never get the level of performance possible with VirtualBox or VMWare (which beats them both I believe). The paragraph was loosely based on the original one stating "No virtualization solution for FreeBSD as a host". Seems the original author also did not consider qemu as a virtual machine in this sense.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4A62D333.9090203>