Boston Linux & UNIX was originally founded in 1994 as part of The Boston Computer Society. We meet on the third Wednesday of each month at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, in Building E51.

BLU Discuss list archive


[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Headless back-end (Re: Notes on VirtualBox)



Jarod Wilson <jarod-ajLrJawYSntWk0Htik3J/w at public.gmane.org> observed in response to the query:
>> * Can one remotely manage a VirtualBox server?
>
> Sort of. But its really more geared towards desktop use, more similar
> to vmware workstation than vmware server. You can of course ssh to
> your server and use some of the included cli tools for management, or
> run the management gui over ssh x11 forwarding.

Well Chapter 7 of the VirtualBox User manual states the following about
VBoxHeadless:

"In particular, if you are running servers whose only purpose is to
host VMs, and all your VMs are supposed to run remotely over VRDP, then
it is pointless to have a graphical user interface on the server at all"

This chapter seems to describe a mechanism for turning a base Linux install
onto an ESXi-like system, on which you'd put a lightweight 64-bit distro of
your choice as the host and then use the VRDP management package to control
one or more VM instances running on one ore more systems (perhaps a whole data
center).

> Last I knew, you can't have virtualbox auto-start VMs at boot time at
> all, without the aid of a 3rd-party initscript/config file, which
> doesn't integrate w/the management gui at all.

This chapter of the manual conflicts with your statement here; probably this
is new functionality since the last time you set up VirtualBox.  The front-end
for managing the VBoxHeadless servers is called VBoxManage.

I haven't looked at the UI but the manual section 7.1.3 is a cookbook for
scripting VM-instance creation and startup.  Even if the GUI doesn't include
auto-start, all you'd have to do is create a shell/perl script that brings up
your VMs in whatever order you want.

> For server use like this, VMware is definitely still superior.

Looks to me from this document (just download the 3.1.6 pdf from
virtualbox.org) like Sun has gone balls-to-the-wall making this product better
in the past couple of years.  By comparison, VMware Inc. has been sitting on
its laurels, presumably solving problems that I don't happen to have within my
own data center.

VMware Inc's pricing strategy is so stratospheric that I'm going down the path
of building these headless servers as soon as I can get some benchmarks run. 
I've been perpetually out of capacity on the several VMware servers I have at
work; if we can actually go open-source, such limits will completely vanish.

-rich







BLU is a member of BostonUserGroups
BLU is a member of BostonUserGroups
We also thank MIT for the use of their facilities.

Valid HTML 4.01! Valid CSS!



Boston Linux & Unix / webmaster@blu.org