Re: VirtualBox
From: stevencrowder <stevencrowder_at_gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 4 Nov 2011 16:48:14 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <2ea17981-89ae-4546-86dc-d45d53ad19ed_at_i15g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>
On Nov 3, 7:20 pm, Robert Klemme <shortcut..._at_googlemail.com> wrote:
> On 11/03/2011 11:43 PM, Geoff Muldoon wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > matthias.h..._at_gmail.com says...
>
> >> On Nov 3, 6:12 pm, Mladen Gogala<gogala.mla..._at_gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> So far, I've been using KVM to create virtual machines on my Linux boxes.
> >>> KVM is sort of tricky to set up but works well once you get through the
> >>> initial hurdles. I decided to give Oracle's VirtualBox a shot and was
> >>> pleasantly surprised. It's simple, it installs without much fuss, it
> >>> works well and it's free. There is also a Windows version. I
> >>> wholeheartedly recommend it to anyone.
>
> >> This year I switched from VMWare to Oracle VirtualBox for running
> >> virtual Linux servers with Oracle on my desktop (first Windows XP, now
> >> Windows 7), and I also like it a lot. I had some annoying issues with
> >> VirtualBox 4.1.x so I'm still running version 4.0.12 which is pretty
> >> stable.
>
> > I too have switched from using VMWare to VirtualBox, mainly because of
> > the ease of use in building new virtual machines - VMWare Player is
> > free, but you need the pay-for VMWare Workstation or Server to create
> > images from scratch.
>
> VMWare Server is free - and it can create images from scratch. The
> major drawback which drove me from VMWare Server to Virtual Box is the
> limitation that you can only have a single snapshot.
>
> > The pleasing additional benefit is that (apart from a sometimes more
> > complex arrangement for sharing host<-> guest filesystems) it appears
> > to be a superior product in terms of performance and functionality.
>
> I am not so sure about performance.
>
> Kind regards
>
> robert
Date: Fri, 4 Nov 2011 16:48:14 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <2ea17981-89ae-4546-86dc-d45d53ad19ed_at_i15g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>
On Nov 3, 7:20 pm, Robert Klemme <shortcut..._at_googlemail.com> wrote:
> On 11/03/2011 11:43 PM, Geoff Muldoon wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > matthias.h..._at_gmail.com says...
>
> >> On Nov 3, 6:12 pm, Mladen Gogala<gogala.mla..._at_gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> So far, I've been using KVM to create virtual machines on my Linux boxes.
> >>> KVM is sort of tricky to set up but works well once you get through the
> >>> initial hurdles. I decided to give Oracle's VirtualBox a shot and was
> >>> pleasantly surprised. It's simple, it installs without much fuss, it
> >>> works well and it's free. There is also a Windows version. I
> >>> wholeheartedly recommend it to anyone.
>
> >> This year I switched from VMWare to Oracle VirtualBox for running
> >> virtual Linux servers with Oracle on my desktop (first Windows XP, now
> >> Windows 7), and I also like it a lot. I had some annoying issues with
> >> VirtualBox 4.1.x so I'm still running version 4.0.12 which is pretty
> >> stable.
>
> > I too have switched from using VMWare to VirtualBox, mainly because of
> > the ease of use in building new virtual machines - VMWare Player is
> > free, but you need the pay-for VMWare Workstation or Server to create
> > images from scratch.
>
> VMWare Server is free - and it can create images from scratch. The
> major drawback which drove me from VMWare Server to Virtual Box is the
> limitation that you can only have a single snapshot.
>
> > The pleasing additional benefit is that (apart from a sometimes more
> > complex arrangement for sharing host<-> guest filesystems) it appears
> > to be a superior product in terms of performance and functionality.
>
> I am not so sure about performance.
>
> Kind regards
>
> robert
On my dual core desktop (Intel Core 2) I generally see 30-40% CPU utilization from Virtual Box running a mostly idle VM. Do others see similar? Is this expected?
--Steven Received on Fri Nov 04 2011 - 18:48:14 CDT