Linux - SoftwareThis forum is for Software issues.
Having a problem installing a new program? Want to know which application is best for the job? Post your question in this forum.
Notices
Welcome to LinuxQuestions.org, a friendly and active Linux Community.
You are currently viewing LQ as a guest. By joining our community you will have the ability to post topics, receive our newsletter, use the advanced search, subscribe to threads and access many other special features. Registration is quick, simple and absolutely free. Join our community today!
Note that registered members see fewer ads, and ContentLink is completely disabled once you log in.
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us. If you need to reset your password, click here.
Having a problem logging in? Please visit this page to clear all LQ-related cookies.
Get a virtual cloud desktop with the Linux distro that you want in less than five minutes with Shells! With over 10 pre-installed distros to choose from, the worry-free installation life is here! Whether you are a digital nomad or just looking for flexibility, Shells can put your Linux machine on the device that you want to use.
Exclusive for LQ members, get up to 45% off per month. Click here for more info.
ive been reading about KVM and VB. i already researched that KVM is lighter and also performs a lot better
however, one question that I have, that I was not able to find yet, is, when you run an image on KVM, does it open up a window like virtual box; or does it just open up as a process, and I can remote desk into it? if were to open all 4 images in virtual box, it will definitely be heavy for my server. ( giving 2 rams for each server) so would KVM be a better choice?
and when people say light; how is KVM lighter than virtualbox if they still use the amount of ram you specify?
my goal is to virtualize everything and be able to rdesktop into a DNS server, DHCP server, and windows active directory. I know I can also get this done with virtualbox, but I heard KVM is more reliable and not so heavy on your virtual server.
a perfect example would be, if I had KVM, and I opened up all 4 virtual OS @ 2 gigs, it will still be using 8 gb of ram just like virtualbox, correct? I will still have the virtual interface popping out just like virtual box, or everything is strictly running through the command line and/or kernel?
what would be best for leaving all the virtual servers on without having too much stress on the server? and also which would you say is more reliable? less likeley to fail or come up with an error of some sort out of nowhere
Both of these are reliable, well-tested technologies that are in widespread use. The "stress on the server" will come from the guest machines, not from the hypervisor. As always, be sure that you are running VM's using microprocessors of recent vintage, thus with the most up-to-date hardware support for virtualization.
One thing to point out with Virtualbox is that you can run it in headless mode and even from a command line / terminal to reduce resource usage which I think makes it pretty lightweight. One thing I found VB best for was setting up virtual networks easily so having a Domain controller, SQL server, Web server, etc. The other feature that I like is that hardware acceleration and guest add-ons create a very fast and slick experience within the guest itself - better than any other VM technology out there - for many this is not important, but I found it useful for running software like Visual Studio and doing software development.
Most VMs are "headless." You usually don't need a graphic user-interface running alongside them, slurping up cycles to draw pretty pictures. Instead, if you need to control them, you connect to them through a socket interface.
The software is often called a hypervisor, in the same way that an operating-system is often called a supervisor. The CPU hardware provides support for virtualization, and the hypervisor does the VM-switching. The hypervisor is also responsible for brokering some (but not all) of the I/O requests that are issued by any of the guests. (For instance, if you map "a hard drive" to a physical "file," the hypervisor is the one doing the I/O to the file and interacting with the host filesystem.)
Looking at your requirement, it superficially seems to me that one VM-image might well be able to handle all four-or-five roles. You don't need to be doing KVM-context switches unnecessarily. Just let the hypervisor run one VM which, in turn, runs a slew of processes and daemons.
so it seems virtualbox might be a better choice for me.
when you say headless, you mean no window pop up correct? just a backbone program running?
Indeed, I set my VB VMs up using the GUI - makes life easier, then I set a shortcut to a headless command line to fire up the VM with no front-end for ongoing use. Then I remotely connect to the VM(s).
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing
Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute
content, let us know.