Re: Installing VirtualBox on Hardy
On Tue, Jul 01, 2008 at 05:20:46PM -0500, James Dinkel wrote: > If you don't have the processor extensions, then my vote would be for > qemu+kqemu. Someone may want to verify this (have to go get my kids > right now), but I think you can now create and manage virtual machines > remotely with virt-manager, to make things easier. Yes, you can indeed manage such VM's with libvirt (and hence virt-manager). -- Soren Hansen | Virtualisation specialist | Ubuntu Server Team Canonical Ltd. | http://www.ubuntu.com/ signature.asc Description: Digital signature -- ubuntu-server mailing list ubuntu-server@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-server More info: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ServerTeam
Re: Installing VirtualBox on Hardy
If you don't have the processor extensions, then my vote would be for qemu+kqemu. Someone may want to verify this (have to go get my kids right now), but I think you can now create and manage virtual machines remotely with virt-manager, to make things easier. James -- ubuntu-server mailing list ubuntu-server@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-server More info: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ServerTeam
Re: Installing VirtualBox on Hardy
Soren Hansen wrote: > On Tue, Jul 01, 2008 at 03:48:13PM -0500, Michael Hipp wrote: >> VB has their feature known as "headless" that says it does allow full >> remote control with no control software on the host. Can't find any >> explanation other than in the pdf manual in section 7.4.1: >> http://www.virtualbox.org/download/1.6.2/UserManual.pdf > > Indeed. However, looking at http://www.virtualbox.org/wiki/Editions, > you'll see the following under the "Closed-source features" heading: > > > * Remote Display Protocol (RDP) Server > > This component implements a complete RDP server on top of the > virtual hardware and allows users to connect to a virtual machine > remotely using any RDP compatible client. Yes, you're correct. I wasn't thinking about the difference between the two different versions. Thanks, Michael -- ubuntu-server mailing list ubuntu-server@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-server More info: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ServerTeam
Re: Installing VirtualBox on Hardy
On Tue, Jul 01, 2008 at 03:48:13PM -0500, Michael Hipp wrote: > VB has their feature known as "headless" that says it does allow full > remote control with no control software on the host. Can't find any > explanation other than in the pdf manual in section 7.4.1: > http://www.virtualbox.org/download/1.6.2/UserManual.pdf Indeed. However, looking at http://www.virtualbox.org/wiki/Editions, you'll see the following under the "Closed-source features" heading: * Remote Display Protocol (RDP) Server This component implements a complete RDP server on top of the virtual hardware and allows users to connect to a virtual machine remotely using any RDP compatible client. > That's 3 or so votes that I look at Xen or KVM. But I thought these > technologies only worked with Linux guests and you need one of the > very new processors with some extended instruction set for this. If you have the cpu support for it, both Xen and KVM will run any OS unmodified. If you don't have the cpu extensions, you can run specialised Linux guests inside Xen. -- Soren Hansen | Virtualisation specialist | Ubuntu Server Team Canonical Ltd. | http://www.ubuntu.com/ signature.asc Description: Digital signature -- ubuntu-server mailing list ubuntu-server@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-server More info: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ServerTeam
Re: Installing VirtualBox on Hardy
On Tue, Jul 01, 2008 at 03:54:50PM -0500, Michael Hipp wrote: >>> I've read good things about VirtualBox so I'm hoping it will not >>> have the many deficiencies of VMWare Server. (If there are other >>> "free" server virtualization products worth trying, I'd like to hear >>> of them.) >> KVM is all the rage these days. >> https://help.ubuntu.com/community/KVM > Thanks. But this appears to be an option only for the well-heeled > whose fancy servers support the extended instructions. My P4 likely > doesn't. :-( Perhaps not. It's easy to check, though. There are instructions for that on that page. > >> But I don't want all that graphical X-Windows and Qt bloat > > Then VirtualBox is not for you. At least not the free version. It > > doesn't have a headless mode. The non-free version... Well, we can't > > really help you with that :) > Actually they do have the ability to run headless as of v1.6. Looking at their webpage and documentation I see nothing that would suggest that this feature has been included in their OSE version now. It still seems to be only in their "full" edition. -- Soren Hansen | Virtualisation specialist | Ubuntu Server Team Canonical Ltd. | http://www.ubuntu.com/ signature.asc Description: Digital signature -- ubuntu-server mailing list ubuntu-server@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-server More info: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ServerTeam
Re: Installing VirtualBox on Hardy
Soren Hansen wrote: > On Tue, Jul 01, 2008 at 12:40:26PM -0500, Michael Hipp wrote: >> I've read good things about VirtualBox so I'm hoping it will not have >> the many deficiencies of VMWare Server. (If there are other "free" >> server virtualization products worth trying, I'd like to hear of >> them.) > > KVM is all the rage these days. https://help.ubuntu.com/community/KVM Thanks. But this appears to be an option only for the well-heeled whose fancy servers support the extended instructions. My P4 likely doesn't. :-( >> But I don't want all that graphical X-Windows and Qt bloat > > Then VirtualBox is not for you. At least not the free version. It > doesn't have a headless mode. The non-free version... Well, we can't > really help you with that :) Actually they do have the ability to run headless as of v1.6. Otherwise it would be a no-go as you said. Thanks, Michael -- ubuntu-server mailing list ubuntu-server@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-server More info: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ServerTeam
Re: Installing VirtualBox on Hardy
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Michael Hipp wrote: > That's 3 or so votes that I look at Xen or KVM. But I thought these > technologies only worked with Linux guests and you need one of the very new > processors with some extended instruction set for this. Is that not correct? Yes for KVM. If you don't have the hardware support, you could use qemu with the kqemu kernel module, which is a good speedup against plain qemu. - -- Andreas Hasenack [EMAIL PROTECTED] -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFIapjteEJZs/PdwpARAnuhAKDsHVCNzbBMxJ/DLtvP2kbjxMihMQCg44O0 MB/BISm9AuWS1RL0SwlPZSE= =xAX2 -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- ubuntu-server mailing list ubuntu-server@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-server More info: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ServerTeam
Re: Installing VirtualBox on Hardy
I've had several off-list replies: Nicolas Valcarcel wrote: > Better to use kvm or xen. Thanks. See below. James Dinkel wrote: > Personally, if (when) I move away from VMWare, I would go to KVM on > servers. This is largely because KVM is much lighter on dependencies > (it's already there, in the kernel) and better to manage on a command > line-only system. In fact, IIRC, VirtualBox is incapable of being > managed remotely or from anything other than it's local gui > application. VB has their feature known as "headless" that says it does allow full remote control with no control software on the host. Can't find any explanation other than in the pdf manual in section 7.4.1: http://www.virtualbox.org/download/1.6.2/UserManual.pdf "7.4.1 VBoxHeadless, the VRDP-only server While the VRDP server that is built into the VirtualBox GUI is perfectly capable of running virtual machines remotely, it is not convenient to have to run VirtualBox if you never want to have VMs displayed locally in the first place. 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 – especially since, on a Linux or Solaris host, VirtualBox comes with dependencies on the Qt and SDL libraries, which is inconvenient if you would rather not have the X Window system on your server at all. VirtualBox therefore comes with yet another front-end that produces no visible output on the host at all, but instead only delivers VRDP data. With VirtualBox 1.6, this “headless server” is now aptly called VBoxHeadless. (In previous versions, it was called VBoxVRDP. For the sake of backwards compatibility, the VirtualBox installation still installs an executable with that name as well.)" Jim Rosser wrote: > So you don't have a desktop like KDE or Gnome installed? If the answer > is no then you wont be able to run VirtualBox as it is a GUI > virtualization application. You might try Xen which doesnt need a GUI, > in fact i think VirtualBox was actually built off Xen, though i wont > sware to it. Correct. This is a server. Which (IMHO, by definition) means it does not run a desktop or GUI. See above about the "headless" option for VB, which is part of the reason I was interested in it. It will surely be an improvement over VMware's console thing. That's 3 or so votes that I look at Xen or KVM. But I thought these technologies only worked with Linux guests and you need one of the very new processors with some extended instruction set for this. Is that not correct? (My host runs a P4). Can you run A Windows guest on Linux in Xen or KVM on a garden-variety processor? Thanks everyone, Michael Michael Hipp wrote: > > I've read good things about VirtualBox so I'm hoping it will not have the > many > deficiencies of VMWare Server. (If there are other "free" server > virtualization > products worth trying, I'd like to hear of them.) > > So, anyways, I'm trying to set up VirtualBox on a Hardy server so I can run > an > instance of W2k Server. I downloaded the .deb from VirtualBox.org? But when I > attempt to install it it gives me: > > # dpkg -i virtualbox_1.6.2-31466_Ubuntu_hardy_i386.deb > Selecting previously deselected package virtualbox. > (Reading database ... 1 files and directories currently installed.) > Unpacking virtualbox (from virtualbox_1.6.2-31466_Ubuntu_hardy_i386.deb) ... > dpkg: dependency problems prevent configuration of virtualbox: > virtualbox depends on libglib2.0-0 (>= 2.12.0); however: >Package libglib2.0-0 is not installed. > virtualbox depends on libidl0; however: >Package libidl0 is not installed. > virtualbox depends on libqt3-mt (>= 3:3.3.8-b); however: >Package libqt3-mt is not installed. > virtualbox depends on libsdl1.2debian (>= 1.2.10-1); however: >Package libsdl1.2debian is not installed. > virtualbox depends on libx11-6; however: >Package libx11-6 is not installed. > virtualbox depends on libxcursor1 (>> 1.1.2); however: >Package libxcursor1 is not installed. > virtualbox depends on libxml2 (>= 2.6.27); however: >Package libxml2 is not installed. > virtualbox depends on libxslt1.1 (>= 1.1.20); however: >Package libxslt1.1 is not installed. > virtualbox depends on libxt6; however: >Package libxt6 is not installed. > dpkg: error processing virtualbox (--install): > dependency problems - leaving unconfigured > Errors were encountered while processing: > virtualbox > > But I don't want all that graphical X-Windows and Qt bloat as I don't plan to > run any of it on this server (I'll be using the "headless" console). Is there > any way to install this without having to resort to the "alternative" > installer > and compile a bunch of stuff. I really don't want development tools on this > system either. -- ubuntu-server mailing list ubuntu-server@lists.ubuntu
Re: Installing VirtualBox on Hardy
On Tue, Jul 01, 2008 at 12:40:26PM -0500, Michael Hipp wrote: > I've read good things about VirtualBox so I'm hoping it will not have > the many deficiencies of VMWare Server. (If there are other "free" > server virtualization products worth trying, I'd like to hear of > them.) KVM is all the rage these days. https://help.ubuntu.com/community/KVM > But I don't want all that graphical X-Windows and Qt bloat Then VirtualBox is not for you. At least not the free version. It doesn't have a headless mode. The non-free version... Well, we can't really help you with that :) -- Soren Hansen | Virtualisation specialist | Ubuntu Server Team Canonical Ltd. | http://www.ubuntu.com/ signature.asc Description: Digital signature -- ubuntu-server mailing list ubuntu-server@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-server More info: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ServerTeam
