From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Feb 22 04:51:35 2007 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 73E5516A400 for ; Thu, 22 Feb 2007 04:51:35 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from lists@jnielsen.net) Received: from ns1.jnielsen.net (ns1.jnielsen.net [69.55.238.237]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3D4A413C4A3 for ; Thu, 22 Feb 2007 04:51:35 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from lists@jnielsen.net) Received: from insp.local (jn@c-76-23-109-98.hsd1.sc.comcast.net [76.23.109.98]) (authenticated bits=0) by ns1.jnielsen.net (8.12.9p2/8.12.9) with ESMTP id l1M4pWlB035959; Wed, 21 Feb 2007 23:51:33 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from lists@jnielsen.net) From: John Nielsen To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 23:50:54 -0500 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.5 References: <200702220150.l1M1oPVT012406@dc.cis.okstate.edu> In-Reply-To: <200702220150.l1M1oPVT012406@dc.cis.okstate.edu> X-Face: #X5#Y*q>F:]zT!DegL3z5Xo'^MN[$8k\[4^3rN~wm=s=Uw(sW}R?3b^*f1Wu*.<=?utf-8?q?of=5F4NrS=0A=09P*M/9CpxDo!D6?=)IY1w<9B1jB; tBQf[RU-R<,I)e"$q7N7 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200702212350.55348.lists@jnielsen.net> X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV version 0.88.4, clamav-milter version 0.88.4 on ns1.jnielsen.net X-Virus-Status: Clean Cc: Martin McCormick Subject: Re: vmware Questions X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2007 04:51:35 -0000 On Wednesday 21 February 2007 20:50, Martin McCormick wrote: > If one has a FreeBSD system that has 1 gigabyte of RAM > and a 1-GHZ processor, would it be possible to run a couple of > vmware instances of FreeBSD? I want to set up a DHCP server on > each virtual machine and configure one to be optimized for DHCP > failover and dynamic leases while the other is dedicated to > static bootp service. It would be much easier for the 2 > instances of dhcpd to run in separate machines, so to speak, > since they normally use the same named files for logging and > configuration. > > What sort of a performance hit does one usually see on a > virtual machine? Depends a lot on the virtual machine. VMware Server runs VM's pretty efficiently, but there is a moderate hit. ESX server has almost n performance penalty. > When we run dhcpd on a normal FreeBSD system of the type > described above, the system is normally loaded around 0.05 or so > so it isn't having to work too hard. > > Thanks for any help as to what vmware port is best. The > platform is FreeBSD and the 2 virtual machines will also be > FreeBSD if that makes any difference. Modern versions of VMware don't run under FreeBSD. If you really want VMware then install a supported Linux distro and run VMware server. (Or go out and buy ESX or GSX server or one of the Workstation products). FreeBSD 6.2 works great as a guest under most VMware products. > There will be no X windows involved, just hopefully 2 > DHCP servers running as if they were on two separate boxes. > > Any information to point me in the right direction or > reasons why this is not a good idea are appreciated. For what you're talking about, jails make a lot more sense than virtualization or emulation. If you really want to run virtual machines under FreeBSD, take a look at qemu. qemu (even with the kqemu_kmod port (highly recommended) definitely has a noticeable performance impact, but DHCP is so lightweight that it probably won't matter. JN