Home
| Calendar
| Mail Lists
| List Archives
| Desktop SIG
| Hardware Hacking SIG
Wiki | Flickr | PicasaWeb | Video | Maps & Directions | Installfests | Keysignings Linux Cafe | Meeting Notes | Linux Links | Bling | About BLU |
On 12/02/2010 11:03 AM, Rich Braun wrote: > Derek Atkins asked about migrating off VMware Server 2.0. (I used that for a > while last year). Check out VirtualBox, as I noted earlier: it directly > addresses at least 6 out of 8 questions posted, and it'd be easy to craft > scripts and a wrapper page to address the first 2. > > Matthew Gillen asked for clarification about my benchmark comparing ext4 vs. > LVM storage: I'd guess one minor performance penalty of ext4 is its blocksize > (4K) vs. that of LVM (4M is default), but that can't be the full explanation > for the substantial difference I saw (and that any of y'all should be able to > observe). When I create a vm, I always preallocate its storage, and yes, > VirtualBox does support the alternative (growable). I wouldn't know anything > about ext3-compatbility mode; my ext4 volumes are generated under OpenSuse via > 'mkfs -t ext4'. > > Alas I haven't tried KVM so I can't comment on the comparison with VMware > Server (which sux and as noted is end-of-lifed), VMware ESXi (which is solid > and high-performing but more of a full-time engineering job to administer, > costs money, and doesn't provide a standalone UI), and VirtualBox. > > -rich > > I've recently started using partitions for my disk devices with VMWare and KVM. They work well, (as in no problems yet.) My original KVM setup hosting a windows vista client, had extreemly poor disk IO performace. The disk device was defined as a file on my OS. When I switched to using a partition on a free disk I had, the disk IO improved dramatically. Steve.
BLU is a member of BostonUserGroups | |
We also thank MIT for the use of their facilities. |