Date: Sat, 01 Jan 2011 10:26:29 +1000 From: Da Rock <freebsd-questions@herveybayaustralia.com.au> To: Adam Vande More <amvandemore@gmail.com> Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: How can I implement true vps with FreeBSD as a host? Message-ID: <4D1E74B5.8030100@herveybayaustralia.com.au> In-Reply-To: <AANLkTi=_vPRmXv%2Bm8AiMADZhQk=HRfd5uO5RGsnJ0zHf@mail.gmail.com> References: <4D1E061E.9070306@mgwigglesworth.net> <4D1E68BA.9080001@herveybayaustralia.com.au> <AANLkTi=_vPRmXv%2Bm8AiMADZhQk=HRfd5uO5RGsnJ0zHf@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 01/01/11 10:19, Adam Vande More wrote: > On Fri, Dec 31, 2010 at 5:35 PM, Da Rock > <freebsd-questions@herveybayaustralia.com.au > <mailto:freebsd-questions@herveybayaustralia.com.au>> wrote: > > On 01/01/11 02:34, Martes G Wigglesworth wrote: > > Thanks in advance, for any input. > > Have you checked into Xen specifically and how it works? I think > you're where I was at a while ago, and a little investigation will > change your mind. FWIW Xen is a hypervisor, and platforms need to > be able to run in it, not the other way around. Have a read up on > it anyway. > > > Well yes Xen is a hypervisor, a type 1 and your OS needs to be > specifically modified to run as a Dom0 or a paravirtualized DomU. > > What you want I think is something like VirtualBox- comparatively > slower, but about the best for what it is. > > > Whatever that means. Vbox is just as fast as Xen for most > applications give or take a little depending on what you're doing. > About the only place Xen can beat out Vbox is with in networking > performance with a guest using the virtio driver, however since I've > not tested the newer Vbox which is supposed to better performance > there. It's pretty hard to get accurate meaningful benchmarks across > a variety of hosts/guests/usage styles, but generally speaking Xen, > KVM, and Vbox are in the same performance league despite the > differences in hypervisors(Vbox and KVM are fairly similar here). > VBox guests may also have significantly better IO performance. > > > Xen's advantage now days lies in it's pci-pass-through support and all > the tools built for using/managing it. I think KVM may have pci > pass-through support too, but haven't messed with it. A lot of the > tools support is more abstracted as well with things like libvirt. > > I like Vbox on FreeBSD for several reasons, but one of the main > benefits is using ZVOL's as the storage backend. You get a lot of the > ZFS goodies in your VM that way. You can create scripts to automate > your functions, everything done in the GUI can be done in the CLI and > more. > > http://www.virtualbox.org/manual/ch08.html > Benchmarks were taken on comparatively similar platforms with the same hardware with the same battery of tests- although not all could be run in all cases (I'll try and find the link again if I can). Xen guest was found to be as close to running on bare hardware, whilst VBox and KVM were about a quart slower. Each of those had their strengths and weaknesses, though. I'd recommend VBox too- but anyone know the status of USB support on FreeBSD? That and RDP would be good.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4D1E74B5.8030100>