Date: Sun, 09 Jan 2011 21:11:32 -0800 From: Ted Mittelstaedt <tedm@mittelstaedt.us> To: Adam Vande More <amvandemore@gmail.com> Cc: freebsd-emulation@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Testing Luvalley with FreeBSD as dom0 Message-ID: <4D2A9504.7070109@mittelstaedt.us> In-Reply-To: <AANLkTim0cfNkEEq7daR=iCD1kaKTpqBdMXavLZoJP3ri@mail.gmail.com> References: <20100418191752.GA72730@triton8.kn-bremen.de> <w2r3b0605b31004181554tb90de59u6df8ebd5b1206caa@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTi=nhk%2BeCG6kbe4LfeaTQWkKaVcr%2BRx2LrKparDO@mail.gmail.com> <20110107194516.GA28544@triton8.kn-bremen.de> <AANLkTikvP8SezKEZYSUimaj3u8fkk2Vw6-aY09KV=RF3@mail.gmail.com> <20110107213643.GA32645@triton8.kn-bremen.de> <AANLkTi=2Nn8xeKudxb2uSR=aLx0GW43gVPCdL-=hjP7z@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTikbuWJbtPYaLW=8BEH4f5oiumzEN6rgwOB5tC=R@mail.gmail.com> <20110109110022.GA10789@triton8.kn-bremen.de> <AANLkTik9Ckh2UAaed=YYbBFCP6yyd6kOmSXdEYmZPiEd@mail.gmail.com> <4D2A55F4.6010704@mittelstaedt.us> <AANLkTim0cfNkEEq7daR=iCD1kaKTpqBdMXavLZoJP3ri@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 1/9/2011 6:51 PM, Adam Vande More wrote: > On Sun, Jan 9, 2011 at 6:42 PM, Ted Mittelstaedt <tedm@mittelstaedt.us > <mailto:tedm@mittelstaedt.us>> wrote: > > The practical reality of it is I can go out and buy a brand new, > super-fast computer and run FreeBSD 8 on it then VirtualBox on that, > then my guest OS's under VirtualBox - and get the same performance > as a bare-metal hypervisor like ESXi or Luvalley on older hardware. > And, with the FreeBSD/VirtualBox way, I get access to a far wider array > of hardware including disk RAID hardware. > > > Now days, there is very little, if any difference in guest speed(cpu > based operations) in either type 1 or 2 hypervisors. Both types > basically let the code run directly on the cpu, except they aren't > allowed to touch ring 0. I was having a great of difficulty a few > months ago with virtualization debian host I had set up. One of the > Windows guests saw some high peak in network traffic which caused > various issues which the virtio drivers didn't resolve. With it being a > file server among other things, the flakiness had to be resolved. The > physical box was a recent Dell Xeon with pair of broadcom and intel nics > and the orginal hypervisor I used was KVM. The one in Debian's > repository at the time was somewhat old, but that's what the client > originally requested. Since this setup didn't work, I moved it over to > the current proprietary version of Virtualbox which did better, but not > satifactory because issues were still present. Finally, I moved it to > Xen 4 because I knew it had pci-pass-through support and those broadcoms > were sitting there doing nothing. The pci-pass-through of the broadcoms > to the Windows guest works great. I haven't had another problem with > the box. > > So the point of my story is that I think a modern KVM is just as fast > and featureful as Xen since they both have pci-pass-through and you > should expect the same(roughly) performance on your guests withever > recent hypervisor you choose. Virtualbox is fast too, maybe even a bit > faster than KVM but until it gets pci-pass-through it won't be as > feature complete as the others. > > I think the luvalley approach is quite innovative and interesting, but > honestly the main reason for my inquiry into it is that IMO it's only a > matter of time till Oracle decides they need to make money from Vbox, > and I don't want to see FreeBSD lose this technology which has been such > a boon for me and many others. kqemu is only good for so much ;) > Unless Microsoft makes Hyper-V a cost item, this won't happen. The situation is like the Firefox/Internet Explorer Chinese finger trap. And VirtualBox is under the same dual GPL/proprietary licensing setup that Mysql and that Qt uses so even if Oracle stopped development on the OSE edition, some other group would pick it up. Ted
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4D2A9504.7070109>