Posted by: Administrator
on January 11, 2007 09:18 AM
I've used many of the virtualization products for Linux (QEMU, VMware, Parallels, Linux-Vserver, Xen, and OpenVZ). I've done so mostly for educational purposes although I do run Linux-Vserver some at work and OpenVZ for hosting hobby websites.
Anyway... to address your concerns...
I think the benefits well outweigh the slight amount of extra overhead added to the kernel.
Do you need lots of RAM and hardware to run virtualization? Depends. Any machine made in the last 2-4 years or newer has tons of resources that are usually just sitting there doing nothing. Why not use those wasted resources? Is a tiny bit of overhead added to the kernel going to be noticed on modern hardware? Not really.
There are some virtualization methods that will run Microsoft Windows as well as other x86 compatible OSes... and those include KVM, QEMU, Xen, VMware, Parallels, and Virtual Iron. Oh, and yes KVM *WILL TOO* run Windows... but does require VT features in the CPU. Yes, Xen and KVM were the only two mentioned in the article but they were mentioned.
If you want light-weight, OpenVZ and Linux-Vserver are fantastic. One can easly create 10 or more VPSes with OpenVZ on a Pentium 4 machine with 1GB of RAM and get very close to native performance. How is that possible? Because OpenVZ and Linux-Vserver create virtual machines (aka Virtual Environments or Virtual Private Servers) just by grouping processes together into a container. That means a VPS is little more than a handful of extra processes. A typical VPS default install is like 16 processes which includes sshd, syslogd, xinetd, sendmail, and httpd... although it kinda depends on the distro you install into your VPS. Your average desktop runs well over a hundred when in a popular desktop environment. How much overhead is 16 or so additional processes? Not much... and that is why a bunch of VPSes can be created on common hardware.
No, Joe-Sixpack home user probably has no need for virtualization... but who wants to run a Joe-Sixpack OS anyway?
Learn about Linux
Download Linux
Get Linux help
Why virtualization
Posted by: Administrator on January 11, 2007 09:18 AMAnyway... to address your concerns...
I think the benefits well outweigh the slight amount of extra overhead added to the kernel.
Do you need lots of RAM and hardware to run virtualization? Depends. Any machine made in the last 2-4 years or newer has tons of resources that are usually just sitting there doing nothing. Why not use those wasted resources? Is a tiny bit of overhead added to the kernel going to be noticed on modern hardware? Not really.
There are some virtualization methods that will run Microsoft Windows as well as other x86 compatible OSes... and those include KVM, QEMU, Xen, VMware, Parallels, and Virtual Iron. Oh, and yes KVM *WILL TOO* run Windows... but does require VT features in the CPU. Yes, Xen and KVM were the only two mentioned in the article but they were mentioned.
If you want light-weight, OpenVZ and Linux-Vserver are fantastic. One can easly create 10 or more VPSes with OpenVZ on a Pentium 4 machine with 1GB of RAM and get very close to native performance. How is that possible? Because OpenVZ and Linux-Vserver create virtual machines (aka Virtual Environments or Virtual Private Servers) just by grouping processes together into a container. That means a VPS is little more than a handful of extra processes. A typical VPS default install is like 16 processes which includes sshd, syslogd, xinetd, sendmail, and httpd... although it kinda depends on the distro you install into your VPS. Your average desktop runs well over a hundred when in a popular desktop environment. How much overhead is 16 or so additional processes? Not much... and that is why a bunch of VPSes can be created on common hardware.
No, Joe-Sixpack home user probably has no need for virtualization... but who wants to run a Joe-Sixpack OS anyway?
#