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-
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
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:
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/downlo
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 al
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
>>
-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?
Y
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,
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
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
instan
10 matches
Mail list logo
