Pick a virtualization platform, besides ESX(i)

[keenan]

Just curious what hardware you're running where 'Xen kernel based drivers blows' is a problem. You obviously need a Linux kernel with the necessary drivers in the first place, so why is rebuilding it as a Xen kernel a problem? Are you using binary blob drivers that only work on certain kernels or something (does anyone even do this anymore?)? Obviously in any serious setting you'd provision hardware that is known working, and most server-class hardware has excellent open-source drivers anyway.

As for wireless, this is probably due to most wireless hardware (or drivers, not sure) being unable to rewrite the source MAC, which breaks bridging. Using NAT it should work, as long as you can get the wireless linked up in dom0 (is the driver issue you mentioned really the issue here?).

FWIW, I've had basically zero problems with Xen for my semi-trivial use as a testbed and lightweight production server environment for small clients. I run on Debian with pretty standard server hardware and it's basically a couple packages and a reboot away from working perfectly (after configuration of course). All headless of course; if you're not running Windows, I see no reason to have a 'desktop' on a virtualized server (or a physical one, for that matter).

It sounds like you might be looking for a desktop virtualization solution though?

 

[groebuck]

CItrix Xen Server is by far the best choice IMHO since it is - free and gives you pretty darn close to esx performance - has a much smaller footprint install.

versus esxi

it's a 64 bit bare metal hV
max of 8 virtual cpus
does p2v and v2v
supports paraviritualization for redhat, suse, debain, oracle and leverages VT and AMD V for windows.


What you get free with Citrix Xen Server is amazing over VM Ware -

you can check out the marketing stuff here http://citrix.com//site/resources/dynamic/salesdocs/XS_vs_VMware.pdf

 

[lopoetve]

CItrix Xen Server is by far the best choice IMHO since it is - free and gives you pretty darn close to esx performance - has a much smaller footprint install.

versus esxi

it's a 64 bit bare metal hV
max of 8 virtual cpus
does p2v and v2v
supports paraviritualization for redhat, suse, debain, oracle and leverages VT and AMD V for windows.


What you get free with Citrix Xen Server is amazing over VM Ware -

you can check out the marketing stuff here http://citrix.com//site/resources/dynamic/salesdocs/XS_vs_VMware.pdf

ESXi is 64bit, has 8vcpus, and does p2v as well, and has paravirt scsi drivers, and uses VT/AMD-V as well.

 

[geiger]

Hee is my take on the current major player virtualization offerings:

1. Server OS Virtualization - ESX/ESXi - They are rock solid in this area.
2. VDI/User OS Environment - XenServer - The endpoint control mechanisms are well seasoned and integrate well with proven application delivery mechinisms of their sister products.

 

[sabregen]

for now, I have stopped testing. Here's the cliffs:

Hyper-V Server - needs A LOT of work before I'll fuck with it again. I don't have 2 days to figure out how to have the damned thing to get it to work the way that it should

Server 2k8 w/Hyper-V - not impressed by the management of the VMs. Hyper-V definately feels like every other part of the Windows Server snap-in features though. I guess I expected more. Poor guest support makes this unattractive.

Xen Server - very nice. I especially liked the remote server console option from the management station. Would use this if I couldn't get ESXi running.

CentOS 5.4 x84 w/Xen - I don't even know where to begin, but mostly what kept me from getting where I wanted to go (rolling out VMs) were driver issues. Yes, I know, I am doing this on a laptop, and that shouldn't be my platform. I did not care for RPM hell.

Ubuntu 9.04 x64 Server w/KVM - Ubuntu is a great Debian distro, IMO. KVM was easy enough to install. Management is compeltely lacking. Maybe good for someone that spends all day in Terminal...but I didn't care for having to do all VM creation, management, and remote console via command line.

ESXi - the best free Type 1 Hypervisor, IMO

ESX - the best, period...

That's all I tested. Then I got sidetracked putting Ubuntu 9.04 Desktop x64, iDeneb OSx86, and Windows 7 Ultimate x64 into a triple boot config, on the same machine.

 

[groebuck]

ESXi is 64bit, has 8vcpus, and does p2v as well, and has paravirt scsi drivers, and uses VT/AMD-V as well.

was looking at 3.5 so yeah esxi 4.0 and xen server 5.5 seem pretty even.

Does the vmware management console still require a sql backend?

 

[lopoetve]

was looking at 3.5 so yeah esxi 4.0 and xen server 5.5 seem pretty even.

Does the vmware management console still require a sql backend?

Yes - includes SQL express for small installs

 

[sabregen]

management client does not require a SQL backend (which is probably not what you were asking, but I'm clarfying for others, as well).

the management server, or vCenter server, does still rely on SQL (of some type) to keep it's DB info. However, with vSphere 4, there is no longer a license server implementation, which is a good thing. Features are now parsed through serial numbers, instead of the .LIC file + server.

 

[sabregen]

Yes - includes SQL express for small installs

beat me to it.

 

[Flak Pyro]

We run ESX in our core data center but we have many other sites on our WAN that we couldnt afford ESX for, ended up using CentOS + KVM, KVM is replacing XEN in RHEL so we jumped on the band wagon early, stability and speed has been great running Server 2008 VMs.

You can find RPMs for for all the needed components online via 3rd party YUM repos, it will be in the main Base Repos as of 5.4 i believe. Use virt-manager as the management GUI, newer builds are coming along nicely but nowhere need the level of VMwares management tools. Redhat will probably rapidly add new features since they acquired quamnet.