Re: [Fwd: Re: What VM technology to use?]
Cary Bielenberg wrote: > My references to it being a pig to install is borne out of frustration, > I didn't articulate my feelings well! What I was trying to say is that > unless you are dedicated to learning the intricacies of the software it > is a struggle to grasp & install. Again, I can't see where the problem lies. Installing the "python-virtinst" package gives you the "virt-install" command. Run it, and it starts a simple wizard prompting you for the name of your virtual machine, how much RAM and disk you want to give it, where the boot/install device lives (typically a CDROM or ISO for a Windows install), and whether you want GUI capabilities or not (necessary for Windows and Linux GUI installs). Answer these simple questions, and it creates your virtual machine and config files for you, booting into the system to do the initial install and reboot to live system. Said config files are plain text, and very easily modified if you want to change things like adding extra disks, changing how many CPUs the VM can access, etc. No, it's not a point and click GUI. But GUIs don't necessarily make things easier by virtue of being graphical (try using some of the GUI SAN management tools or 3D modelling programs out there and you'll see what I mean). A 10 line text config file generate by a wizard is what you get, and starting/stopping the virtual machines are one-line commands. Dead simple stuff. At my previous job myself and another sysadmin consolidated two server rooms full of physical servers down to 6 physical boxes running Xen/QEmu. We both left the role within a month of each other (long story, which I won't go into here), but I was charged with training the existing helpdesk staff on how to use the virtualisation systems before I left. I took two helpdesk-level staff there, and gave them a two hour lesson on the complete ins and outs of how to use the system, and that was enough for them to maintain the existing infrastructure and create new systems as needed. Six months later the both of them are still maintaining and extending the system without problems. If you are still finding frustration, I suggest reading a few articles here: http://www.virtuatopia.com VirtuaTopia is one of the better virtualisation communities, and their articles are simple, no-BS walkthroughs on how to build and maintain VMs under various virtualisation systems. They cover a variety of distro-specific examples and methods of installation (either via the virt-install commands, or by manual installation via dpkg/debbootstrap/rpm, which is what I prefer). They also cover a few of the gotchas inherent in all virtualisation systems, and tips and tricks on how to maximise performance and resource allocation on heavily utilised systems. -Dan -- ubuntu-au mailing list ubuntu-au@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-au
Re: [Fwd: Re: What VM technology to use?]
Karl Bowden wrote: > able to fault it. Dont get me wrong. I still think Xen is the best > solution for businesses, but with it's flakey 32bit support in ubuntu > and lack of out-of-the-box support for nvidia gpus, although it runs I should mention that KVM's "solution" to the Nvidia thing is to pass kernel level instructions from the host to the guest. This is not "support" for Nvidia GPUs, but rather a dirty and (if you're a purist) slightly insecure hack to make this work. Xen on the other hand does no such thing, ensuring that no kernel level information in the guest be shared with the host. End result is until Nvidia (or other GPU manufacturers) themselves add proper and correct Hypervisor support at a hardware level, Xen will most likely not support this level of hardware abstraction. With that said, Xen was designed from the get-go for server virtualisation. 3D offloading is not a focus of theirs for that very reason. -Dan -- ubuntu-au mailing list ubuntu-au@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-au
Re: [Fwd: Re: What VM technology to use?]
I guess I'm going to pipe in on this too. I'd been a die hard fan of VMware since I was a windows only guy (admittedly 9 years ago). But since testing out Xen and KVM I have found place for virtualisation in business use. VMware is a very nice polished product, but I have always found installing VMware tools in linux guests a headache, and their support for new linux kernels to be reasonably slow. I have not been able to faulter their windows support on the other hand. But windows is not what I want to use virtualisation for. I have been using Xen for the last year or so on the servers at work (5 x 32 and 64 bit, 2 - 4 core servers). And while I have found it invaluable, I have started lately migrating to KVM for nvidia support and stability. The main issue holding me back was vm migration between hosts, but since putting KVM through it paces lately I have not been able to fault it. Dont get me wrong. I still think Xen is the best solution for businesses, but with it's flakey 32bit support in ubuntu and lack of out-of-the-box support for nvidia gpus, although it runs ok on some of the servers, desktop testing use have been frustrating. KVM on the other hand has never crashed on me once and has been working out-of-the-box with ubuntu for the last couple of releases. I have almost finished migrating the last of my vm's to kvm. ATM I use it both for testing of win xp thru 2003 to linux on desktop and server. Using mostly libvirt and virt-manager. I still 'revert' to vmware every now and then for it good usb support on being able to flash a phone's firmware from a xp vm under linux (I so wish I could fo it all from linux but). So I guess my conclusions on the subject would be: virtualbox is my preference for 'free' desktop gui vm solutions for end users. vmware is a necessity for communicating with nokia phones in a windows vm under linux. kvm is now where my money is for business vm solutions. xen is a great product that lacks in kernel support (my nvidia probs were neither the kernels or xen fault, but ther still existed), but it just dosnt seem to be the 'future' for linux based vm support. - Uncle Karlos On Wed, Aug 13, 2008 at 9:34 PM, Cary Bielenberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Daniel Mons wrote: > > Cary Bielenberg wrote: > > > I guess the main problem from my perspective is documentation & "spit & > polish" of Xen & KVM makes it hard if you only administer 10 odd > machines, It's ok if you eat sleep & breath these apps but to the > sysadmins who have to multi skill it is almost prohibitive to setup. > What I'm trying to say is Vmware is bundled so that it is easy to > implement! I want to use open source solutions & am sceptical of > commercial companies who have "free" & commercial offerings. I want to > try the alternatives but to say the least KVM is a pig to implement > considering *buntu has made this the default. I googled for how to's but > there was a fair bit of ambiguity & confusion in the implementation. > > > > I'm struggling to understand why you consider it "a pig" to use these > things. > > Virt-install and virt-manager make installing VMs about as easy as > falling off a log. And if you insist on pretty pictures, OVirt is for you: > http://www.ovirt.org/ > > If you only need desktop virtualisation (not server side stuff), then > use something more purpose-fit like VirtualBox (also free): > http://www.virtualbox.org/wiki/Screenshots > > Honestly, if the only thing holding you to VMWare is a pretty GUI, get > out there and check out the competition. VMWare is fast becoming > redundant due to their technology rapidly becoming commoditised. > > ArsTechnica have a marvellous write up on the situation: > http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080711-a-victim-of-its-own-success-troubled-times-ahead-for-vmware.html > > VMWare's glory days are long gone, and they face stiff competition from > a rising number of free competitors. Even if you live and breathe > VMWare, my suggestion to you is to at least learn an alternative before > VMWare vanish for good. :) > > -Dan > > > > My references to it being a pig to install is borne out of frustration, I > didn't articulate my feelings well! What I was trying to say is that unless > you are dedicated to learning the intricacies of the software it is a > struggle to grasp & install. I have about 25 servers to install & maintain & > because virtualization is not my core duties it is easy to install a more > intuitive app like Vmware. That does not mean that I think it is better, but > because I can get it to work it triumphs on my network :-( I will use a > open source alternative an day of the week If I can get it to work & get > comfortable with the app. > > > > Cary > > -- > ubuntu-au mailing list > ubuntu-au@lists.ubuntu.com > https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-au > > -- ubuntu-au mailing list ubuntu-au@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-au
Re: [Fwd: Re: What VM technology to use?]
Daniel Mons wrote: Cary Bielenberg wrote: I guess the main problem from my perspective is documentation & "spit & polish" of Xen & KVM makes it hard if you only administer 10 odd machines, It's ok if you eat sleep & breath these apps but to the sysadmins who have to multi skill it is almost prohibitive to setup. What I'm trying to say is Vmware is bundled so that it is easy to implement! I want to use open source solutions & am sceptical of commercial companies who have "free" & commercial offerings. I want to try the alternatives but to say the least KVM is a pig to implement considering *buntu has made this the default. I googled for how to's but there was a fair bit of ambiguity & confusion in the implementation. I'm struggling to understand why you consider it "a pig" to use these things. Virt-install and virt-manager make installing VMs about as easy as falling off a log. And if you insist on pretty pictures, OVirt is for you: http://www.ovirt.org/ If you only need desktop virtualisation (not server side stuff), then use something more purpose-fit like VirtualBox (also free): http://www.virtualbox.org/wiki/Screenshots Honestly, if the only thing holding you to VMWare is a pretty GUI, get out there and check out the competition. VMWare is fast becoming redundant due to their technology rapidly becoming commoditised. ArsTechnica have a marvellous write up on the situation: http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080711-a-victim-of-its-own-success-troubled-times-ahead-for-vmware.html VMWare's glory days are long gone, and they face stiff competition from a rising number of free competitors. Even if you live and breathe VMWare, my suggestion to you is to at least learn an alternative before VMWare vanish for good. :) -Dan My references to it being a pig to install is borne out of frustration, I didn't articulate my feelings well! What I was trying to say is that unless you are dedicated to learning the intricacies of the software it is a struggle to grasp & install. I have about 25 servers to install & maintain & because virtualization is not my core duties it is easy to install a more intuitive app like Vmware. That does not mean that I think it is better, but because I can get it to work it triumphs on my network :-( I will use a open source alternative an day of the week If I can get it to work & get comfortable with the app. Cary -- ubuntu-au mailing list ubuntu-au@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-au
Re: [Fwd: Re: What VM technology to use?]
Cary Bielenberg wrote: > I guess the main problem from my perspective is documentation & "spit & > polish" of Xen & KVM makes it hard if you only administer 10 odd > machines, It's ok if you eat sleep & breath these apps but to the > sysadmins who have to multi skill it is almost prohibitive to setup. > What I'm trying to say is Vmware is bundled so that it is easy to > implement! I want to use open source solutions & am sceptical of > commercial companies who have "free" & commercial offerings. I want to > try the alternatives but to say the least KVM is a pig to implement > considering *buntu has made this the default. I googled for how to's but > there was a fair bit of ambiguity & confusion in the implementation. > I'm struggling to understand why you consider it "a pig" to use these things. Virt-install and virt-manager make installing VMs about as easy as falling off a log. And if you insist on pretty pictures, OVirt is for you: http://www.ovirt.org/ If you only need desktop virtualisation (not server side stuff), then use something more purpose-fit like VirtualBox (also free): http://www.virtualbox.org/wiki/Screenshots Honestly, if the only thing holding you to VMWare is a pretty GUI, get out there and check out the competition. VMWare is fast becoming redundant due to their technology rapidly becoming commoditised. ArsTechnica have a marvellous write up on the situation: http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080711-a-victim-of-its-own-success-troubled-times-ahead-for-vmware.html VMWare's glory days are long gone, and they face stiff competition from a rising number of free competitors. Even if you live and breathe VMWare, my suggestion to you is to at least learn an alternative before VMWare vanish for good. :) -Dan -- ubuntu-au mailing list ubuntu-au@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-au
Re: [Fwd: Re: What VM technology to use?]
Dave Hall wrote: On Wed, 2008-08-13 at 19:40 +1000, Cary Bielenberg wrote: I guess the main problem from my perspective is documentation & "spit & polish" of Xen & KVM makes it hard if you only administer 10 odd machines, It's ok if you eat sleep & breath these apps but to the sysadmins who have to multi skill it is almost prohibitive to setup. What I'm trying to say is Vmware is bundled so that it is easy to implement! I want to use open source solutions & am sceptical of commercial companies who have "free" & commercial offerings. I want to try the alternatives but to say the least KVM is a pig to implement considering *buntu has made this the default. I googled for how to's but there was a fair bit of ambiguity & confusion in the implementation. What information are you missing about implementing KVM? I will try to blog a complete howto using libvirt (and if needed virt-manager). I do it all a bit manually, but it works and I am happy to share it with others. If there is a genuine need for it, I will put something together in the coming days. +1 for me Cheers Dave Dave, I have struggled for 2 days to set KVM up! I have 5 Vmware & 2 new servers that could do with this knowledge. Thanks Cary -- ubuntu-au mailing list ubuntu-au@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-au
Re: [Fwd: Re: What VM technology to use?]
On Wed, 2008-08-13 at 19:40 +1000, Cary Bielenberg wrote: > I guess the main problem from my perspective is documentation & "spit > & polish" of Xen & KVM makes it hard if you only administer 10 odd > machines, It's ok if you eat sleep & breath these apps but to the > sysadmins who have to multi skill it is almost prohibitive to setup. > What I'm trying to say is Vmware is bundled so that it is easy to > implement! I want to use open source solutions & am sceptical of > commercial companies who have "free" & commercial offerings. I want to > try the alternatives but to say the least KVM is a pig to implement > considering *buntu has made this the default. I googled for how to's > but there was a fair bit of ambiguity & confusion in the > implementation. What information are you missing about implementing KVM? I will try to blog a complete howto using libvirt (and if needed virt-manager). I do it all a bit manually, but it works and I am happy to share it with others. If there is a genuine need for it, I will put something together in the coming days. Cheers Dave -- ubuntu-au mailing list ubuntu-au@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-au
[Fwd: Re: What VM technology to use?]
Owen Townend wrote: 2008/8/13 Senectus . <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: 2008/8/13 Daniel Mons <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Paul Gear wrote: | If you want to virtualise Windows, nothing comes close to VMware in | terms of functionality. Paul, Could you please expand on this? I'm currently running 4x HP BL680c (16 cores, 64GB RAM) with Xen/QEmu to virtualise a number of Linux and Win2K3 machines. [snip] And before anyone says anything about VMWare being "free" - the "free" version is not only proprietary, but it is limited to 4 CPUs and 4GB RAM. And if you refer to the top of this email, you'll see I'm playing with much bigger toys. - -Dan Interesting... is anyone aware of a non biased comparison survey of the products side by side? Hey, Not guaranteed unbiased, but at least side-by-side info including the afore-mentioned core limitations: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_virtual_machines cheers, Owen. I guess the main problem from my perspective is documentation & "spit & polish" of Xen & KVM makes it hard if you only administer 10 odd machines, It's ok if you eat sleep & breath these apps but to the sysadmins who have to multi skill it is almost prohibitive to setup. What I'm trying to say is Vmware is bundled so that it is easy to implement! I want to use open source solutions & am sceptical of commercial companies who have "free" & commercial offerings. I want to try the alternatives but to say the least KVM is a pig to implement considering *buntu has made this the default. I googled for how to's but there was a fair bit of ambiguity & confusion in the implementation. Cary -- ubuntu-au mailing list ubuntu-au@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-au
Re: What VM technology to use?
2008/8/13 Senectus . <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > 2008/8/13 Daniel Mons <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> Paul Gear wrote: >> | If you want to virtualise Windows, nothing comes close to VMware in >> | terms of functionality. >> >> Paul, >> >> Could you please expand on this? I'm currently running 4x HP BL680c (16 >> cores, 64GB RAM) with Xen/QEmu to virtualise a number of Linux and >> Win2K3 machines. >> [snip] >> >> And before anyone says anything about VMWare being "free" - the "free" >> version is not only proprietary, but it is limited to 4 CPUs and 4GB >> RAM. And if you refer to the top of this email, you'll see I'm playing >> with much bigger toys. >> >> - -Dan > > Interesting... is anyone aware of a non biased comparison survey of the > products side by side? > > Hey, Not guaranteed unbiased, but at least side-by-side info including the afore-mentioned core limitations: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_virtual_machines cheers, Owen. -- ubuntu-au mailing list ubuntu-au@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-au
Re: What VM technology to use?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Paul Gear wrote: | If you want to virtualise Windows, nothing comes close to VMware in | terms of functionality. Oh and I forgot to mention, where I work we ran some head-to-head tests of ESX server versus Xen/QEmu (via RHEL5-AP). http://www.stickfreaks.com/images/vm_compare.xls (Apologies for the MS Excel file, but this was prepared for corporate suits) The tests was to load up Windows Server 2003 with all the latest service packs on both systems. From there I ran OpenSSL benchmarks (contained in the spreadsheet above), and the other sysadmins ran various other benchmarks. On average, Xen was 2 to 4 percent slower than bare metal. On average, VMWare was 6 to 16 percent slower than bare metal. The other tests performed (a variety of database tests on MS-SQL and other systems) mirrored these results. So again, with all bias aside and looking only at he empirical evidence, Xen/QEmu is not only cheaper, but runs substantially faster than VMWare. ~ Thus far I've had extensive experience with both products, and Xen continues to impress me much more than VMWare. - -Dan -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFIon7jeFJDv0P9Qb8RAt9oAJ9FeVa4qAaQZOGnBJHsTOvaWYIkTwCeI5Vp gYx1SAOq1Bb2fftkZtE2Y6k= =q9E0 -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- ubuntu-au mailing list ubuntu-au@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-au
Re: What VM technology to use?
2008/8/13 Daniel Mons <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > Paul Gear wrote: > | If you want to virtualise Windows, nothing comes close to VMware in > | terms of functionality. > > Paul, > > Could you please expand on this? I'm currently running 4x HP BL680c (16 > cores, 64GB RAM) with Xen/QEmu to virtualise a number of Linux and > Win2K3 machines. > > Xen/QEmu has thus far given me all the features I need, including live > migration of virtual hosts, dynamic resource allocation (CPUs, RAM and > disk added on the fly), as well as LVM or CLVM/GFS mounts from the > company SAN to cluster commonly-accessed resources. > > I'm curious to know what it is that VMWare (I'm assuming ESX server) can > do for you that Xen/QEmu or KVM/QEmu cannot. So far I've spoken to a > few die-hard VMWare fans, and most of the time the features they seem to > think are missing in other virtualisation systems are there, but they > are just named something different. Once the "language barrier" is > broken, most people quickly realise that Xen/QEmu and KVM/QEmu offer > everything they need at $0. > > And before anyone says anything about VMWare being "free" - the "free" > version is not only proprietary, but it is limited to 4 CPUs and 4GB > RAM. And if you refer to the top of this email, you'll see I'm playing > with much bigger toys. > > - -Dan Interesting... is anyone aware of a non biased comparison survey of the products side by side? -- Ubuntu Hardy 8.04 The ancients who wished to demonstrate illustrious virtue throughout the empire first ordered well their own states. Wishing to order their own states, they first regulated their families. Wishing to regulate their families, they first cultivated their persons. Wishing to cultivate their persons they first rectified their hearts. Wishing to rectify their hearts, they first sought to be sincere in their thoughts. Wishing to be sincere in their thoughts, they first extended to the utmost their knowledge. Such extension of knowledge lay in the investigation of things - Confucius -- ubuntu-au mailing list ubuntu-au@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-au
Re: What VM technology to use?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Paul Gear wrote: | If you want to virtualise Windows, nothing comes close to VMware in | terms of functionality. Paul, Could you please expand on this? I'm currently running 4x HP BL680c (16 cores, 64GB RAM) with Xen/QEmu to virtualise a number of Linux and Win2K3 machines. Xen/QEmu has thus far given me all the features I need, including live migration of virtual hosts, dynamic resource allocation (CPUs, RAM and disk added on the fly), as well as LVM or CLVM/GFS mounts from the company SAN to cluster commonly-accessed resources. I'm curious to know what it is that VMWare (I'm assuming ESX server) can do for you that Xen/QEmu or KVM/QEmu cannot. So far I've spoken to a few die-hard VMWare fans, and most of the time the features they seem to think are missing in other virtualisation systems are there, but they are just named something different. Once the "language barrier" is broken, most people quickly realise that Xen/QEmu and KVM/QEmu offer everything they need at $0. And before anyone says anything about VMWare being "free" - the "free" version is not only proprietary, but it is limited to 4 CPUs and 4GB RAM. And if you refer to the top of this email, you'll see I'm playing with much bigger toys. - -Dan -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFIonv/eFJDv0P9Qb8RAkc3AJwKZFPiU3cRIKPoAjK0eeUx/GmxcgCdFylb gvwZwgWVEGqhotjECgGkDqI= =hUMh -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- ubuntu-au mailing list ubuntu-au@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-au
Re: What VM technology to use?
Cary Bielenberg wrote: > I'm currently knocking up some virtual servers at work, I will be using > Hardy x64 on HP DL585 servers (dual amd processors, 16Gb ram etc) I have > used the free Vmware server 1.6/Hardy on other boxes but I fell that > that performance leaves a lot to be desired. Today I tried KVM but it > seems a pig to setup. I want to run 2 x Citrix/Win2k3 on 1 server & 1 x > Citrix & 1 x Hardy on the 2nd. What is the consensus to what is a good & > intuitive setup VM solution? I've worked with a number of virtualisation technologies, and what i believe is that there are no *really* good ones. If you want to virtualise Windows, nothing comes close to VMware in terms of functionality. If you want to run a lot of Linux VMs, VMware becomes a pain because of having to recompile the stupid VMware drivers every time you upgrade the kernel. Also keeping accurate system time is problematic, although if you run Ubuntu server as guest under an Ubuntu desktop platform with VMware server, it should do pretty well, due to the 100 Hz clock that Ubuntu server defaults to. Xen seems to perform better than VMware for Linux solutions, and apparently runs Windows OK, too, but the Linux kernel developers hate it, and therefore you should too. This is not just a "Linus is my homeboy" thing, but if the kernel developers hate it, you can expect problems whenever you upgrade the kernel. KVM is loved by the kernel developers (evidenced by the fact that it's integrated with all kernels now), but it still seems Beta quality. It certainly hasn't eaten any of the Windows versions i've thrown at it (including XP and 98), and it didn't co-exist happily with VMware for me. The one i like best for Linux virtualisation is VServer, since it is very lightweight. It works like a chroot on steroids. Unfortunately, it requires a patched kernel, which thankfully Debian provides. So my summary is: - Windows-centric - use VMware (possibly the new ESXi - haven't tried it) - Linux-only - try VServer - best performance in a mixed environment - Xen - hope for the future - KVM This article has some useful and brief comparisons: http://www.shorewall.net/Linuxfest-2008.pdf And of course there's always the ever-useful Wikipedia - just search for "comparison of virtual machines" and you're sure to find more information than you could ever use. Paul begin:vcard fn:Paul Gear n:Gear;Paul org:Liberty Systems & Software adr;dom:;;;Birkdale;Q;4159 email;internet:[EMAIL PROTECTED] title:Director tel;work:07 3122 2198 tel;cell:04 3183 7656 x-mozilla-html:FALSE url:http://www.libertysys.com.au/ version:2.1 end:vcard smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature -- ubuntu-au mailing list ubuntu-au@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-au
Re: What VM technology to use?
On Tue, 2008-08-12 at 20:07 +1000, Cary Bielenberg wrote: > I'm currently knocking up some virtual servers at work, I will be using > Hardy x64 on HP DL585 servers (dual amd processors, 16Gb ram etc) I have > used the free Vmware server 1.6/Hardy on other boxes but I fell that > that performance leaves a lot to be desired. Today I tried KVM but it > seems a pig to setup. I want to run 2 x Citrix/Win2k3 on 1 server & 1 x > Citrix & 1 x Hardy on the 2nd. What is the consensus to what is a good & > intuitive setup VM solution? KVM with libvirt running on the server and virt-manager on a linux box controlling it works well for me. I have 2 boxen running this setup. I hand craft my xml files for libvirt. It is also the easiest way to get bridged networking up and running. Keep in mind that you do lose some KVM config options when using libvirt - use friendliness always has a trade off :) Cheers Dave -- ubuntu-au mailing list ubuntu-au@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-au
