Will be purchasing an amd cpu and a mobo in a couple of days, which are compatible with virtualization, which I have never used before. After reading a bunch on virtualization (I thought), I had pretty much settled on kvm. Planning to load the virt software on ubuntu 10.10 server to run at least ubuntu amd64 and xp 32bit as clients. Last night however I was reading on a link from another main forum, that if you want to run graphics on the clients, you're better off using either virtualbox or vmware server. Now I'm in a quandary as to, which to choose. My xp would be used mainly for a couple of programs, which don't run in linux even with wine, but which I need to get data from to use in linux. My ubuntu 64 bit would be used for almost everything, with possible extra ubuntu 64 and/or 32 bit installations for testing. I'm not overly conversant with the command line, although I do want to learn. So I don't much mind within reason, whether the virtual management software is gui or command line based. Many thanks for your time.

Well, VMware Server has been discontinued by VMware. If you want direct console access to the virtual machines, you'll want VMware Workstation which costs money. ESXi would be the best way to go, but you'll need another laptop/computer to connect to the VM console over the network. I've seen Virtualbox do things with 3D graphics that VMware hasn't reproduced yet. If 3D graphics are your thing, I'd suggest Virtualbox over any platform as of 2010.

KVM, Xen, ESXi are tailored towards server virtualisation. They have features such as live migration, high availability. In the case of Citrix Xenserver and ESXi you have a hypervisor that runs on the hardware. The hypervisor's sole purpose is to run virtual machines.

KVM, and Xen are different in that you can have a full Linux system as the thing that runs on the metal enabling it to do much more than just run virtual machines.

The likes of VirtualBox and vmware workstation are virtualisation solutions for the desktop. They focus more on things like seemless integration between the guest windows and the host windows, support for adding and removing usb devices on the fly easily, 3d accleration in the guests.

I am a big fan of vmplayer or virtualbox. Easy, free, well supported, plenty of features, works great, easy gui, pre-made images are out there for almost any distro.

Many thanks for your advice friends! Getting closer to making a choice. Sounds more and more like virtualbox might be my best choice. Does anybody else have any advice for us virtual noobs? Cheers.

Oh? Like what?

VMware's 3-D driver capability for guests (at least, using Direct-X) is commonly seen as its biggest advantage over Virtualbox. I run a Windows 7 Professional VM in VMware Workstation that performs as well as a native install.

Also, VMware does a much better job in 3D with Windows guests than it does with Linux guests; the 3D support for Linux guests is still experimental.

VMware does apparently use software rendering for OpenGL, though. I don't know where Virtualbox stands on that one.

Thanks Jim18! I have now purchased my mobo and cpu online. Will definitely arrive by end of year, so I figure I have approx 11 days (new years doesn't count) to decide, what virt system I'm going to try first and hopefully settle on. My main useage will definitely be ubuntu for a client and then xp for two or three "legacy" windows programs (absolutely no need at present for win7 or vista to run my 2 or 3 applications). Don't want to give Redmond any more business, than I have to. Not a cheap##s here, but I really appreciate all the input. Does anyone else have any suggestions for my introduction to virtualization? I'll have 2GB of ram and an AMD Phenom X4 9850 quad core processor to work with. If I'll need to buy more ram to make a particular virtual system work, its no problem if that's the bottleneck holding me back. Don't imagine that's the case, but I stand to be corrected. cheers

You can virtualize XP with 2 gigs of RAM, though you'll have to keep the RAM available to the guest turned down. I run my XP VMs at 512 megs and they're happy. I don't know about Ubuntu; the latest Linux distros like a lot of RAM if you use a graphical desktop. I'm writing this post in an OpenSUSE 11.3 64 bit VM running in VMware workstation on my Mandriva 2010.1 32 bit host, and I have given this one VM a total of 2 gigs of RAM to use.

When I monitor this VM's memory usage, it looks to me like I could dial it back to 1 gig of RAM before it would start to get swappy.

My system is a Phenom-II x4 955 processor with 8 gigs RAM.

So if you have a 2 Gig system and devote 1 Gig to your VM, that leaves 1 Gig for the host...which is cutting it a bit tight in a modern system. Not un-doable, but you might be happier with 4 gigs of RAM.

You can run Ubuntu with 1GB of RAM quite happily. However, if you tend to have a lot of memory intensive apps running at the same time then it will start to swap.

You also need to consider how memory hungry your windows applications are, if they are pretty light and you will only use your virtual machines once in a rare while, 2GB will probably be OK, otherwise as jiml8 says - you might be happier with 4GB

Thanks Jim and Phil. I'll definitely add another 2GB and bring the total up to 4GB. Your input is much appreciated. Cheers.

Two further questions if I might. Just waiting for the mobo and 4GB of ram to arrive. In the meantime I see Virtualbox 4.0 has just been released. I'm going to try that for my first virtual foray. A couple of questions have arisen. If installing Virtualbox over ubuntu server 10.10 am I right in thinking I should use a stripped down non-gui server installation and just add dkms, Qt (4.4.7-0 is the latest) and libsdl (1.2.14-6 is the latest I think) prior to installing Virtualbox? Also for my subsequent guest ubuntu and xp installations, in the past, while dual booting, I've installed them into manually optimized partitions such as /boot, /, swap, /home, etc. This might seem a silly question, but being new to virtualization I'm wondering if doing this for guest installs would lead to any problems with the operation of Virtualbox afterwards. Many thanks.

First, the easy question: You can partition the virtual drive for the guests however you like, it makes no difference. There is no need to change your partitioning layout just because it's a virtual machine.

Can you explain how you intend to use this system a little more. What you have described is an architecture more commonly found in the data centre. IE you have a very cut down OS for the host whose only responsibility is to run virtual machines.

For a desktop environment you normally install the most commonly used OS on the hardware, and the less commonly used ones as virtual machines.

If you want to continue with the server style architecture then you will need the GUI in ubuntu server if you intend to drive the virtual machines with the host's monitor, keyboard and mouse. You won't need X if you are going to access your virtual machines with SSH or Remote Desktop.

Thanks for your reply Phil. As regards the server question, maybe I've been going about this all wrong. I was under the understanding, that the best way to install Virtualbox was to install a (in my case Ubuntu) server first onto the hardware and then Virtualbox on top of the server and that the server should be stripped of absolutely everything not needed for stability, etc. Next my usual day to day operating systems would be installed via Virtualbox.

I think you're telling me, that I should just install my normal day to day 10.10 ubuntu on top of the hardware, then Virtualbox and then my xp via Virtualbox. I have been planning this all wrong, if thats the case.

My desired use of this system is as follows: I use ubuntu for virtually everything and windows for as little as humanly possible. I do however have software for a few programs, not super demanding like gaming, but which will not run in linux even with wine. Virtual machines are something I've wanted to try and I see this as a way to eliminate 2 of the extra computers in the house, by running their software on my virtual machine.

There are also programs for linux, which will use some of the windows based data such as from my Computrainer cycling trainer (which uses continuous video) and from a Garmin 800 gps (which is also a cycling tool) and I think the virtual system could make it easier to access that data from windows. Once I'm comfortable with using Virtualbox, I think it is possible to clone the operating systems in Virtualbox, unless I'm mistaken. It would be nice to be able to clone my day to day Ubuntu system, so that I don't risk messing it up, when I'm experimenting with new programs. This last thing caught me up recently, when I was experimenting trying to get mail server software up and running and I ended up trashing my system. Fortunately my home directory was in a separate /home partition, so reinstalling ubuntu was super quick. As I understand it if I had tried this on a virtual clone os, I could have just rolled the clone back to a previous state and tried again, without risking my main installation. My priorities may change in future but as it stands now, I think I'm looking at 1 main desktop installation each of ubuntu and xp, certainly 1 extra (or clone) ubuntu desktop and maybe for some as yet undetermined reason 1 clone of my xp. Many thanks Phil.

To date I don't run any other operating systems, except Knoppix occasionally. But that has been live cd use.

I would do this:

Install Ubuntu on the hardware, this will be your main day to day environment. Then install your virtualisation software and create your XP vm and another Ubuntu one.

The Ubuntu vm is where you try out new software and configurations, and when you're happy you can implement them on your main installation. Both VirtualBox and VMware Workstation allow you to snapshot your virtual machines so you can revert if you break them.

As regards your games. Chances are they use Direct3D. VirtualBox supports OpenGL in the guests only, however you can try wined3d which translates Direct3D calls to OpenGL. VMware Workstation supports Direct3D natively so that may be a better choice.

Seems I've fallen a bit behind the times.

VMWare Workstation supports Direct3D natively
For VirtualBox you need to install the guest additions in safe mode. I managed to get dxdiag to report that Direct3D v8 and v9 worked. Though I haven't tried anything else that uses Direct3D yet.

Thank you so much for your patience and help Phil! Now I think I'm on the right track. Since my last post my mobo and ram arrived at the house. So now comes the task of setting up/swapping out hardware with my old systems (partly due to Windows "genuine advantage" vs oem and not-oem xp versions) and getting two workable systems up and running with legal xp's. I'll plug away at it and mark this thread a solved ;-D

A very Merry Christmas to you and all the Linux users of the world.