Date: Sun, 20 Dec 2015 08:25:44 -0700 From: Sergey Manucharian <sm@ara-ler.com> To: freebsd-virtualization@freebsd.org Subject: Re: available hypervisors in FreeBSD Message-ID: <20151220152544.GA4053@dendrobates.araler.com> In-Reply-To: <56766D93.9030808@quip.cz> References: <551BC8B3.2030900@bestsolution.at> <alpine.BSF.2.20.1512201857180.1075@sams.my.domain> <56766D93.9030808@quip.cz>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20151220152544.GA4053>