Actually Rob, I do almost all my virtualization on my Macbook which does 
support the Intel VT extensions.  Also, my client work laptop which I 
use much more than my company laptop supports the Intel VT extensions.

  I admit I have been doing virtualization much more for personal 
reasons rather than business reasons.  This means that I am working on 
development environments rather than production and don't have the need 
for moving a running Virtual Machine from one piece of hardware to 
another.  So take it all with a grain of salt.

MAIH..

Andy

Rob Huffstedtler wrote:
> I would assume you are talking about the processor extensions like 
> Intel VT (for IA32) and VT-i (for IA64) or AMD-V (I think that's their 
> name for the concept).  As I'm sure you know since you are probably 
> using the same laptop as I am, the Dell D830s don't come with a 
> processor that supports it.  If I were doing this for real hosting in 
> a data center (as opposed to just having multiple dev environments to 
> carry around), I'd definitely look for host hardware that supported 
> hardware assisted virtualization.
>  
> That adds another interesting layer to the comparison of options - 
> it's possible that one hypervisor might perform better than another 
> without hardware assistance, but the results might reverse with the 
> hardware assistance.
>
> On Fri, Nov 7, 2008 at 7:15 PM, Andrew Farnsworth <[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote:
>
>
>     Performance of virtual machines can be fairly significantly
>     improved if
>     you have hardware that specifically supports it and virtualization
>     software (a hypervisor) that does as well.  I read a fairly recent
>     article on this about a week ago but cannot find it now.  I'll post it
>     when I find it again.
>
>     Andy
>
>
>
>     Rob Huffstedtler wrote:
>     > Do you have any performance stats on virtual box?  I use it for
>     > running Fedora hosted on my Windows laptop, and (subjectively) the
>     > performance seems pretty bad compared to VirtualPC (which isn't
>     known
>     > for being lightning fast).  Based on that experience, I would be
>     > skeptical of using it for server virtualization.  That said, my
>     > skepticism could easily be overcome by data.
>     >
>     > On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 5:31 PM, Alex Smith (K4RNT)
>     > <[EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>     <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>>>
>     wrote:
>     >
>     >     I like VirtualBox.
>     >
>     >     www.virtualbox.org <http://www.virtualbox.org/>
>     <http://www.virtualbox.org/>
>     >
>     >     They have a rather good enterprise solution as well.
>     >
>     >
>     >     On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 4:28 PM, Chris McQuistion
>     >     <[EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>     <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>>>
>     wrote:
>     >
>     >         I've used VMWare, in the past, and I currently use Virtual
>     >         Iron, because it has fairly simple administration and is far
>     >         cheaper than VMWare, if you want the bells and whistles.
>     >
>     >         The big reasons to use VMWare or Virtual Iron (in my
>     opinion)
>     >         is the nice gui administration tools and their ability
>     to run
>     >         virtualized Windows guests very well, which has not worked
>     >         well for me, with Xen based virtualization under Red Hat
>     or SuSE.
>     >
>     >         Chris
>     >
>     >
>     >         On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 4:24 PM, andrew mcelroy
>     >         <[EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>     <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>>> wrote:
>     >
>     >             Greetings,
>     >
>     >             I am not trying to start a flame war or a rant, but I am
>     >             trying to get a feel for what Open Source virtualization
>     >             solutions are actually used.
>     >
>     >             Currently I have a few servers virtualized inside Xen.
>     >             However, I keep hearing that KVM is "the way to
>     go"TM for
>     >             hosting websites if you must stick to something open
>     source.
>     >
>     >             The purpose of these virtualized servers are to
>     serve out
>     >             either wordpress mu sites or ruby on rails sites.
>     >
>     >             In the arena of hosting I have ran across OpenVZ,
>     KVM and Xen.
>     >
>     >             I was wondering what everyone is using and why.
>


--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"NLUG" group.
To post to this group, send email to nlug-talk@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/nlug-talk?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to