LinuxQuestions.org

LinuxQuestions.org (/questions/)
-   Linux - Distributions (http://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/linux-distributions-5/)
-   -   which distro for virtualization? (http://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/linux-distributions-5/which-distro-for-virtualization-656984/)

ArjanL 07-20-2008 10:02 AM

which distro for virtualization?
 
I am starting to build a new pc which I want to use as a homeserver (webserver, mailserver) and desktop pc.

Therefore I am thinking to install a very stripped down linux distro where I want to run Virtualbox on it or VMware Server.

Which distro should I use as a host system?
I already have some experience with Redhat and Slackware.

here are some details of my new pc:

- 4GB intern memory
- 640GB Harddisk
- Intel Core 2 Duo E7200 (2,53Ghz)

Like to know if somebody has done this before and what they have used.

teddyt 07-20-2008 12:52 PM

Honestly, given the hardware you've got, you can use any Linux distro and you won't have a problem.

I'd recommend Slackware, only because that's what I currenly use.

b0uncer 07-20-2008 01:46 PM

Considered KVM as well?

Yeah, with those specs it doesn't matter much which distribution you pick. Or if it does matter, you should probably upgrade your hardware a bit (because it's a server, it shouldn't be at limit).

Ubuntu makes it fairly easy to get started, Fedora too, RedHat (commercial distributions) would suite you if you want to pay for it, but if you really want to strip it down, either create a LFS system or try Slackware -- that's my personal thought about it, and you might easily find something else that suits you better.

Virtualization is (or at least used to be) media sexy, but what made you pick it up instead of a non-virtualized operating system? I mean, surely you don't need several distributions to do those tasks as one can do them all, and virualization does eat up some resources and limit some things that non-virtualized operating systems don't..

slackhack 07-20-2008 02:22 PM

I sometimes think people start threads like these just to brag about their new hardware. :p

use any distro you want, it's not really going to matter.

ArjanL 07-20-2008 04:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by b0uncer (Post 3220816)
Considered KVM as well?


Virtualization is (or at least used to be) media sexy, but what made you pick it up instead of a non-virtualized operating system? I mean, surely you don't need several distributions to do those tasks as one can do them all, and virualization does eat up some resources and limit some things that non-virtualized operating systems don't..

Well I am thinking that running my home server and desktop system separate it can be managed properly but maybe that is something which is not applicable/suitable in my home situation.
Therefore I am asking here what people think about this with their linux experience. At the moment i have the choice to go for virtualization or not...
I am still thinking if it is wise to install a stripped down linux system where I install virtualbox (or KVM) on it and 2 guests machines.

b0uncer 07-21-2008 09:54 AM

I would personally make the server and your personal pc two physically different machines; you're right about keeping desktop and server away from each other, and if you can't afford more than one machine, then virtualization might make sense. But on the other hand a mail server and a (home) web server don't necessarily require as much horsepower as your desktop pc does (at least if you like to play games or do other "intensive" things), so I think you could get decent hardware for the server without paying too much. Of course it's the better if the server hardware is capable of dealing with whatever you throw at it, but again if you run two virtual operating systems side by side, the server won't get the fullest out of your hardware either. It's a little tricky situation, but luckily it's just a home server so you can make a decicion now and change that later if you need :) with a big commercial-use server the thing would not be that..

Having a stripped-down system has some benefits, but on the other hand you'll still need to take care about the security things (not just in the virtual environments), so a not-so-stripped-down system could make that easier. Well, it depends, but I'd maybe go for something like Slackware in this case, at least if it's a 32-bit system. What I would strip down is the graphical environment: change KDE or Gnome to a lot lighter desktop environment (if you're going to do your work inside the virtual machines, you don't need the bells and whistles behind them).

Go ahead with your virtualization plans if you find you get some use out of them, and if nothing else, you'll get experience. In your situation it's not the worst choice anyway :)

jlgreer1 07-21-2008 10:06 AM

I have been experimenting with home servers for some time now. I also have two self managed dedicated commercial servers. I have found that CentOS with selinux active the best choice. I have a tutorial that is based on CentOS 4 located at linuxagora.com/vbforum in the howto section if you would like to look at it. I probably need to update the links. I can send you a link to my currently running home server if you would like to test it for speed, etc.

With CentOS virtualization with Xen is available and well documented on their site and at Redhat. They just released a LiveCD version of the recently released CentOS 5.2. You can check out their website at:

http://www.centos.org

Jeff

bnsouls 08-06-2009 07:52 AM

install another distribution of Linux as a Virtual Machine in Fedora
 
Someone plese help me on this question:

You must do some research, and discover how to install another distribution of Linux as a Virtual Machine in Fedora. You may use the distro and virtualization software of your choice. Once your research is complete, carry out the procedure to accomplish the task.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:47 PM.