Server virtualization

[satimis]

Hi folks,


Server virtualization.


What will be the best planning, strategy, etc. on server virtualization? Google found me tons of article sufficient for me reading a month. Can any folk shed me some light on;

- whether the host should not run any server or application on it except VMware/Xen/Virtualbox/qemn etc. there ?

- if there is only one fixed IP/public IP can it satisfy all servers running on the virtural box? OR multiple fixed IP/public IP are needed?

- Which servers can't be co-exist

- Network arrangement.

- Can I run Vyatta on the same box
http://www.vyatta.com/


Pointer would be appreciated. TIA


B.R.
satimis

[vermaden]

If you run Xen, you will not be able to run VirtualBox or VMware at the same time and vice versa, you must decide which virtualization sollution to choose, you may also go with KVM if you CPU supports Intel-VT or AMD-V.

You can of course run vyatta and many other OSes at the same time.

[satimis]

If you run Xen, you will not be able to run VirtualBox or VMware at the same time and vice versa, you must decide which virtualization sollution to choose,

Thanks for your advice.

Sorry for the confusion on my late posting. What I meant is running either Xen or VMware or VirturalBox etc. Most likely I'll test Xen. I have a box here running VMware. Any suggestion? Thanks



you may also go with KVM if you CPU supports Intel-VT or AMD-V.

What will be the advantage running KVM on a virtual box?



You can of course run vyatta and many other OSes at the same time.
Noted with thanks.


What I'm concerned is following points;

- Whether we should not run anything on the host other than VMware/Xen/VirturalBox, etc.


- Can I run a workstation as host? Because I don't install X packages on server. I do headless installation. If YES I can configure/install the servers on the workstation.


B.R.
satimis

[vermaden]

Sorry for the confusion on my late posting. What I meant is running either Xen or VMware or VirturalBox etc. Most likely I'll test Xen. I have a box here running VMware. Any suggestion?
Download Solaris from solaris.com and boot with xVM.

What will be the advantage running KVM on a virtual box?
KVM is like QEMU, you can start it without display with --nographic option, so it will be more like Xen, you will be able to ssh to the VM of course, a good sollution for vyatta for example, but KVM is limited to Linux host only, while VirtualBox is also avialable on Solaris.


- Whether we should not run anything on the host other than VMware/Xen/VirturalBox, etc.
You can use Solaris containers, which will secure everything and you will have no performance drops at the same time since is OS level virtualization like FreeBSD Jails.

- Can I run a workstation as host? Because I don't install X packages on server. I do headless installation. If YES I can configure/install the servers on the workstation.
Generally X11 is not a standart package for servrs, but Solaris will install it anyway as part of the default install, so you will have to disable it manually by SMF later.

You may do some "startup" administration at the box in x11 and then after all Xen/xVM setup is done disable X11.

[satimis]

Download Solaris from solaris.com and boot with xVM.
Hi vermaden,

Good suggestion. Never run Solaris before. In the past for Unix I selected either OpenBSD or FreeBSD. A side question what will be the difference btw Solaris and Open Solaris?



Generally X11 is not a standart package for servrs, but Solaris will install it anyway as part of the default install, so you will have to disable it manually by SMF later.

You may do some "startup" administration at the box in x11 and then after all Xen/xVM setup is done disable X11.
It seem NOT a problem to me if I can run Solaris as workstation. Since it is host I won't build server on it only for remote config the server on the virtual box.


Others noted with thanks


B.R.
satimis

[vermaden]

Good suggestion. Never run Solaris before. In the past for Unix I selected either OpenBSD or FreeBSD. A side question what will be the difference btw Solaris and Open Solaris?

BSDs are great systems but they have very little to offer if it comes to virtualization sollutions (Jails in FreeBSD + QEMU only currently).

Solaris is based on OpenSolaris + some binary addons that are not avialable in source. Solaris is avialable only in binary form while OpenSolaris comes with full sources.

Every two weeks there is new build (annunced on opensolaris.org/os JIVE forums) of OpenSolaris SXCE (Solaris Express Community Edition), currently build 90, about every quater Sun creates SXDE (Solaris Express Developer Edition) which is then tweaked/fixed to be a Solaris 10 $MONTH / $YEAR update.

For Solaris resources check docs.sun.com lots of good docs there, especially for virtualization, a near 40 chapter book about virtualization for example ;)

[satimis]

BSDs are great systems but they have very little to offer if it comes to virtualization sollutions (Jails in FreeBSD + QEMU only currently).

Solaris is based on OpenSolaris + some binary addons that are not avialable in source. Solaris is avialable only in binary form while OpenSolaris comes with full sources.

Every two weeks there is new build (annunced on opensolaris.org/os JIVE forums) of OpenSolaris SXCE (Solaris Express Community Edition), currently build 90, about every quater Sun creates SXDE (Solaris Express Developer Edition) which is then tweaked/fixed to be a Solaris 10 $MONTH / $YEAR update.

For Solaris resources check docs.sun.com lots of good docs there, especially for virtualization, a near 40 chapter book about virtualization for example ;)
Just browsing;

http://www.sun.com/software/solaris/get.jsp#download

and the licence of Solaris 10. It need Entilement document to use it, not so free as OpenSolaris.

It seems no BT download available. Is 64bit version available? Where to download it? Thanks


B.R.
satimis

[vermaden]

It seems no BT download available.

Have you checked torrents?

check youtorrent.com

also but you can use wget for that:
http://wikis.sun.com/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=28448383

Is 64bit version available?
Solaris detects if you host machine is 64bit or 32bit and loads 32bit or 64bit kernel automatically, but you may force using 32bit kernel on 64bit if you would want to.

Where to download it?
From the link you gave me, you have to register first.

[satimis]

Have you checked torrents?

check youtorrent.com
I'm running rtorrent.

On;
https://rtorrent.com

--> search --> solaris 10 / sun solaris 10 / solaris 10 download

can't find *iso.torrent. Usually *iso.torrent can be found on the download site. But I can't find it on Sun download site.



also but you can use wget for that:
http://wikis.sun.com/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=28448383

Noted with thanks.



Solaris detects if you host machine is 64bit or 32bit and loads 32bit or 64bit kernel automatically, but you may force using 32bit kernel on 64bit if you would want to.

It is possible that user may download the image on another PC. If I need 64bit version and the PC to download the ISO image is running 32bit OS then what can I do? Thanks



From the link you gave me, you have to register first.
Thanks


B.R.
satimis

[vermaden]

I'm running rtorrent.

On;
https://rtorrent.com

--> search --> solaris 10 / sun solaris 10 / solaris 10 download

can't find *iso.torrent. Usually *iso.torrent can be found on the download site. But I can't find it on Sun download site.

youtorrent is not a torrent client, it is a search engine.


It is possible that user may download the image on another PC. If I need 64bit version and the PC to download the ISO image is running 32bit OS then what can I do?

It is just a regular ISO file you know ...

[Eam404]

I've been down this road a few times -- Ive tested various soltuions Xen/Vmware/KVM/Qemu/VirtualBox/Viz/ -- a few others...

Anyway the solution I found that I liked best was a NetBSD/Xen setup. Dom0 on Netbsd (well supported) and then made all the DomU's -- You might be wondering why I choose NetBSD. Well first, I didnt want to use linux, granted it works well I just perfer BSD style scripts. Also with NetBSD i was able to use PF natively, which is always nice. I was able to keep the features of a slim small footprinted BSD box and use Xen to its fullest potential. Many might argue and perfer a Linux setup - while this is perfectly fine and works well; I believe the way BSDs work is a supireror design.

Also the scalable performance with NetBSD according to benchmarks Ive performed my self, and others Ive seen seems to do a little better then the Linux kernel. Granted this is on the hardware I was using, results may vary.

Just my 2cents :)

[lvlamb]

Qemu is a hardware emularor, Xen, VMWare, KVM are virtualizers.

If you want virtualization for learning purposes, I would say, test them all. :)
If you need industrial/commercial grade virtualization, this means reliable hardware and reliable software support, see what the big boys have to offer.

Server virtualization is something you would not run on your kid's super quad core play system.

I've seen server offers at Sun, at prices far below "PC Compatible" best offers.

[vermaden]

Qemu is a hardware emularor, Xen, VMWare, KVM are virtualizers.

QEMU is BOTH emulator and virtualizer, without kqemu kernel module it is an emulator, with kqemu it is virtualizer. QEMU also shares code with many other virtualization projects like VirtualBox, Xen, KVM ...

[lvlamb]

QEMU also shares code with many other virtualization projects ...

Many other virtualization projects use the qemu code :p
Not always contributing upstream.

All in all, start with qemu as the learning process will be used for almost virtualizer.

[satimis]

youtorrent is not a torrent client, it is a search engine.

Notthing found. Most links are music and vedio


satimis

[satimis]

Hi folks,


What I need is a reliable OS, light weight, running as host with GUI browser and filer running for file management. All servers installed on the Virtual machine will be headless. Installation/configuration will be done via the host. I need a GUI browser for Internet browsing for help and techical doc during config. I need a filer managing the files download.


What will be a good combination qemu and *.OS? Thanks


B.R.
satimis

[lvlamb]

Slackware (or zenwalk)

[satimis]

Slackware (or zenwalk)
Hi lvlamb,


Thanks for your advice.


I ran Slackware previously. IIRC 32bit Slackware and 64 bit Slackware are 2 projects?


I never use zenwalk before, interesting. I'll test it. Standard Edition or Live Edition for my use? TIA


Any suggestion on selecting a Virtual server to match zenwalk?


B.R.
satimis

[lvlamb]

On qemu, emu;ating a Klamath II, you should install the i386-486 kernels.
When installing, install lilo (or grub), and enter clock=pit as options to pass to kernel (see qemu doc). Helps a lot.

Zenwalk: any would do, just install the minimum.
Upgrade and install first via netpkg. Zenwalk core has all the toolchain but does not insrall X by default. => betpkg xorg
Zenwalk is almost compatible with Slakware.
Hence, pure Slackware night be a better choice.

[scottro]

Slack is 32 bit. There's a few 64 bit versions, I think one is considered the quasi-official one but I don't remember which.

As for which virtualization, on Linux, I have a page with my VERY subjective opinion....

http://home.nyc.rr.com/computertaijutsu/vmcomp.html

[phoenix]

If all your hardware is supported by Linux kernel 2.6.18, and your CPU doesn't support hardware virtualisation, and you will only be running NetBSD or Linux in your virtual machines, then Xen 3.0 (not 3.1 or 3.2) is very nice. Fairly easy to use, very fast, very lightweight.

However, if your CPU support hardware virtualisation, then go with with a Linux distro that uses kernel 2.6.24, and use Kernel-based Virtual Machine (KVM). With that, you can create virtual machines you can run *any* 32-bit or 64-bit PC-based OS (any BSD, any Linux, any Windows, etc). KVM is very easy to use, is very lightweight, is very easy to understand, and performance is very close to native (around 80% in most benchmarks). There's also paravirtual disk and network drivers available for Linux and Windows which give native I/O performance. For more info, check http:///kvm.qumranet.com/kvmwiki/ and http://www.linux-kvm.com

We're moving all our VM hosts to KVM. It's just better than Xen.

[vermaden]

Notthing found. Most links are music and vedio
You should use torrents.to then, I have found many Solaris releases there.

[horizon]

If all your hardware is supported by Linux kernel 2.6.18, and your CPU doesn't support hardware virtualisation, and you will only be running NetBSD or Linux in your virtual machines, then Xen 3.0 (not 3.1 or 3.2) is very nice. Fairly easy to use, very fast, very lightweight.

However, if your CPU support hardware virtualisation, then go with with a Linux distro that uses kernel 2.6.24, and use Kernel-based Virtual Machine (KVM). With that, you can create virtual machines you can run *any* 32-bit or 64-bit PC-based OS (any BSD, any Linux, any Windows, etc). KVM is very easy to use, is very lightweight, is very easy to understand, and performance is very close to native (around 80% in most benchmarks). There's also paravirtual disk and network drivers available for Linux and Windows which give native I/O performance. For more info, check http:///kvm.qumranet.com/kvmwiki/ and http://www.linux-kvm.com

We're moving all our VM hosts to KVM. It's just better than Xen.
Interesting post phoenix, I've been looking at Xen recently but will now be checking out KVM. Thanks.

[satimis]

You should use torrents.to then, I have found many Solaris releases there.
I got it. Thanks


B.R.
satimis

[satimis]

If all your hardware is supported by Linux kernel 2.6.18, and your CPU doesn't support hardware virtualisation, and you will only be running NetBSD or Linux in your virtual machines, then Xen 3.0 (not 3.1 or 3.2) is very nice. Fairly easy to use, very fast, very lightweight.

However, if your CPU support hardware virtualisation, then go with with a Linux distro that uses kernel 2.6.24, and use Kernel-based Virtual Machine (KVM). With that, you can create virtual machines you can run *any* 32-bit or 64-bit PC-based OS (any BSD, any Linux, any Windows, etc). KVM is very easy to use, is very lightweight, is very easy to understand, and performance is very close to native (around 80% in most benchmarks). There's also paravirtual disk and network drivers available for Linux and Windows which give native I/O performance. For more info, check http:///kvm.qumranet.com/kvmwiki/ and http://www.linux-kvm.com

We're moving all our VM hosts to KVM. It's just better than Xen.
Hi phoenix,


I have no hardware problem.


I'll take your advice installing Zenwalk Linus as host and run KVM on it as virtual server. Thanks


B.R.
satimis

[windependence]

Hi folks,


What I need is a reliable OS, light weight, running as host with GUI browser and filer running for file management. All servers installed on the Virtual machine will be headless. Installation/configuration will be done via the host. I need a GUI browser for Internet browsing for help and techical doc during config. I need a filer managing the files download.


What will be a good combination qemu and *.OS? Thanks


B.R.
satimis

Well I have some VMs running on CentOS 5, some on OpenSuSE 10.3 and some on Ubuntu server. The Ubuntu sever does not have a GUI installed and all my VMs are headless and all *BSD. I didn't want Linux either but if I didn't go that way for the host OS I am severely limiting my choices. All of my hosts run VMware server because the other VMs seem limited in choice of OS and processor, etc. I have had great luck with all of these host OS's and my SuSE box has been in production for over a year now. CentOS seems to perform quite well also and has a GUI installed by default but you could just run in runlevel 3 if you don't need the GUI.

The day VMware supports *BSD as a host OS I am there.

-Tim

[scottro]

The latest KVM's, on boxes with the virtualization built into the processor, also do 64 bit and SMP--actually, more CPUs than VMware server. VMware server does have the ease of use thing, especially with bridged networking.

There is, by the way, a bounty out for VMware on FreeBSD and Orlando, the fellow who did the VMware 3 port, has taken it up, so there's hope that you'll get your VMware on FreeBSD one of these days.

I do find VMware rather resource intensive. I don't like the direction that they seem to be going with their 2.0 beta, though I guess it's aimed at a very powerful server running several VMs. Rather than give you the console of the machine by default, it gives you a web management interface.

I don't want to post misinformation, and my memory is hazy on this, but I think (and maybe someone can confirm this or correct it if it's wrong) that the 2.0 beta puts in its own version of java, and uses up port 80 (by default, which can be changed.) Not realizing this, I messed up a test installation of nagios, which could no longer use port 80 because VMware had it. In contrast, nagios and cacti can play nicely together, both using port 80.

[phoenix]

VMware server does have the ease of use thing, especially with bridged networking.

If by ease-of-use, you mean "there's one way to do it, using one interface, and there's no configuration possible". :) (And don't get me started on how horrible the network setup in Xen has become.)

The really nice thing about KVM is that you don't have to learn a new way of networking. You use the tools in the host OS to configure the network. If you want eth0 to be your bridge, you can. If you want eth3 through eth6 to be separate bridges assigned to separate VMs, without IPs, with eth0 a management interface with an IP, you can. If you want to create a large bond0 using eth1 through eth6, and then use that for the bridge, you can. Anything you can do normally in Linux networking, you can configure for the networking for the VMs.

I do find VMware rather resource intensive. I don't like the direction that they seem to be going with their 2.0 beta, though I guess it's aimed at a very powerful server running several VMs. Rather than give you the console of the machine by default, it gives you a web management interface.

Yes, that is really going in the wrong direction, IMO. I participated in the beta process for a bit, and wrote up a report for them on how bad the web GUI was, how slow it was, how unstable it was, how resource intensive it was, and to please, please, please bring back a native management console. Not everything needs to be web-based.