| 1 |
On Sun, Sep 6, 2009 at 1:14 PM, walt<w41ter@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 09/06/2009 09:38 AM, 7v5w7go9ub0o wrote: |
| 3 |
>> |
| 4 |
>> walt wrote: |
| 5 |
>> [] |
| 6 |
>> |
| 7 |
>>> |
| 8 |
>>> I don't use vmware but I do use virtualbox every day and I love it. |
| 9 |
>>> It's extremely fast even compared to kvm, which I also use on my |
| 10 |
>>> newest machine with hardware virtualization support. |
| 11 |
>>> |
| 12 |
>> |
| 13 |
>> Some questions, please: |
| 14 |
>> |
| 15 |
>> 1. How would you contrast these two packages for "security" use? |
| 16 |
>> |
| 17 |
>> (I'm planning on setting up a server on my desktop, and would think |
| 18 |
>> running it in a VM would be appropriate) |
| 19 |
>> |
| 20 |
>> 2. Should someone get a shell in either of these VM clients, would they |
| 21 |
>> even be able to determine that they're not on hardware (using full |
| 22 |
>> virtualization)? |
| 23 |
>> |
| 24 |
>> 3. Do the VMs see themselves as being on a LAN (e.g. 192.168.x.x), or do |
| 25 |
>> they actually share the hardware with the host? |
| 26 |
>> |
| 27 |
>> 4. Do you communicate with them via, e.g. SSH and/or X? |
| 28 |
> |
| 29 |
> I'm not a computer professional, so I'm not the best one to give advice |
| 30 |
> about security. I can tell you that both vbox and kvm are built on top |
| 31 |
> of a qemu base so they share a lot of code. |
| 32 |
> |
| 33 |
> The principal advantage for vbox is its nice gui interface to the massive |
| 34 |
> list of qemu command-line options, and its highly optimized virtual graphics |
| 35 |
> driver, which is what make vbox faster than kvm. |
| 36 |
> |
| 37 |
> If you don't need the fancy fast graphics driver (for your server) then |
| 38 |
> it's just about a tossup between the two, both being based on qemu.(Oh, |
| 39 |
> but vbox is very fast even without hardware virtualization support, and |
| 40 |
> kvm isn't.) |
| 41 |
> |
| 42 |
> Networking is anywhere between trivial and a nightmare, depending on what |
| 43 |
> you need it to do. Both by default "just work" when a guest is talking to |
| 44 |
> the internet via your host machine, but then it's difficult communicating |
| 45 |
> with the guest locally. There are ways to do bridging, firewalling, making |
| 46 |
> a virtual lan between guests, and lots of fancy stuff, but then you really |
| 47 |
> need to know how to use all those fancy options (which I don't). |
| 48 |
> |
| 49 |
> I use both of them to run Windows guests using the default network settings |
| 50 |
> (no custom configuration whatever) and I use samba on the host to share |
| 51 |
> files |
| 52 |
> with the guests, which is very easy. |
| 53 |
> |
| 54 |
> I suspect that running a virtual server might require some network tweaking |
| 55 |
> to make a decent job of it, but I'm only guessing. |
| 56 |
> |
| 57 |
> I hope some experts can add to or correct the above. |
| 58 |
|
| 59 |
Well, not an expert by any measure here, but I have been using Vbox |
| 60 |
for about a year (with a variety of both hosts and guests), and I will |
| 61 |
mention that networking with it is an absolute breeze 9 out of 10 |
| 62 |
times. Bridged connections, internal networks (client to client |
| 63 |
visible only, great for hosting mysql on one guest and apache on |
| 64 |
another), host-only (internal with a virtual connection into it on the |
| 65 |
host, only worked with this on Windows hosts), NATed connections |
| 66 |
through the host (not optimal for servers, but the default and great |
| 67 |
for initial builds and 'simple' work with a guest). I also run 3-4 |
| 68 |
guests at a time with no problem on my meager little Core 2 duo, |
| 69 |
3.0ghz, 4gb ram. |
| 70 |
|
| 71 |
-- |
| 72 |
Poison [BLX] |
| 73 |
Joshua M. Murphy |
Archives