| 1 |
On Tue, Dec 30, 2014 at 2:52 PM, Mick <michaelkintzios@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 2 |
> For years now I have been running VirtualBox for testing purposes. |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
|
| 5 |
I used to run vbox, but ran into some issues along the way and |
| 6 |
switched to KVM, with virt-manager as a front-end. It is a bit more |
| 7 |
complicated to get bridged networking set up, but it doesn't require |
| 8 |
any 3rd-party kernel modules to run. You might want to look into it. |
| 9 |
It isn't as user-friendly as VirtualBox, but all the features are FOSS |
| 10 |
(I forget if all the VirtualBox features are open-source - haven't |
| 11 |
used it in a while). You can run VMs via the front-end, or as |
| 12 |
daemons/etc. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
This wouldn't really fit your needs, but in general I'd advise anybody |
| 15 |
doing virtualization of linux guests to consider running containers |
| 16 |
instead. They are fairly mainstream technology now - the isolation |
| 17 |
isn't as good as virtualization from a security standpoint, and I have |
| 18 |
no idea if you can use one with a graphical console, but otherwise |
| 19 |
they give you almost all the benefits of running a linux guest with |
| 20 |
much better performance and far less overhead (no double-caching, |
| 21 |
etc). I've been moving to containers for more of my daemons as it |
| 22 |
generally reduces the hassle of updates (more updates to do, but when |
| 23 |
you do an update only one service can break at a time). Containers |
| 24 |
can even get their own network interfaces/IPs/etc - just like a VM. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
-- |
| 27 |
Rich |
Archives