Take the 2-minute tour ×
Server Fault is a question and answer site for professional system and network administrators. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Following this thread on super user, I now want to start installing all my vm on the hardware.

As a remainder, i have a (powerful enough) server on which i want to install 3 OS: there is a debian (general dev testbed purposes), an ipcop (network control/firewall) and a freenas (local network file sharing).

I'm wondering which scenario would be the best for me and if I will be able to share the hardware to do what i want; either

a - install an hypervisor like the free vmware esx and all three vms in it, or

b - install debian, and the other two running inside it with virtual box

My need being that:

  • the ipcop should handle all network traffic to the internet, meaning all traffic from my main computer but also all traffic from the other two vm

  • the freenas shares should be accessible from the other two vm and my main computer too

  • i don't really care about the debian access, i only need to access it from my main computer, not the other vms

Will I need to install additionnal network cards for each vm or can they all share the same one happily ? (right now I have two, one linking the server to my router [which only ipcop is gonna use] and one linking it to my switch [which i would like all three to use])

As for harddrives, I was going to use 1 harddrive cut in 3 partitions to install all three OSes, then add to that the freenas drives, will it be correct ?

Thanks a lot for anyone who can help me, this is kind of a vast area and I'm not sure which way to go at all

share|improve this question
    
one disk for 3 VM is going to be a lot of disk I/O which will probably kill your speed. –  RateControl Jan 8 '10 at 19:28
add comment

4 Answers

It's all about KVM for me.

I'm planning to deploy a fairly large-scale environment backed on KVM soon, 4 nodes, shared iSCSI storage, 32GB of ram per node, dual-quad core CPUs.

Best things about KVM:

  • True hardware virtualization support.
  • Physical device pass-through
  • iSCSI support
  • Can virtualize windows and other OSes without monkeying about with the guest (this is really useful for P2V scenarios)
  • qemu-convert can convert many different image formats, including RAW, and ESX(i).
  • libvirtd and virt-manager make Live Migration a piece of cake.

Drawbacks:

  • Doesn't work as cleanly on CentOS 5.4, the main reason being that the packages are quite a bit older than Ubuntu 9.10.
  • uhhh. There's only the one, for me.
share|improve this answer
add comment

Dont go for VMWare. It only has graphical management tools for windows. If you go for Ubuntu as host, KVM can easily be installed from apt-get :)

And more and more people are migrating to KVM from Xen.

  • They can all share a network card. Just set up bridged network interfaces.

  • You give your host os the entire harddrive. You then set up virtual harddrives inside the host os. For the host os they just look like a big file. So its easy when you wanna move your guests to another host.

share|improve this answer
add comment

I would say xen 10/10 because if any of your guest disk I/O for that your have paradriver for both os linux as well win that make more faster disk I/O...driver call xenpv for win..

share|improve this answer
add comment

If it is all going to be Linux I would use Xen instead of VMWare or VirtualBox. I think Xen will fit what you want to virtualize better too. A good place to start would be Xen on Debian. The challenge is going to be getting the firewall, here are a couple places to start for that ipcop and shorewall.

share|improve this answer
    
The future of Xen is anything but certain. Most Linux-distributions seem to be deprecating it in the future and using KVM instead –  ptman Jan 14 '10 at 9:29
    
Xen isn't going anywhere any time soon! –  Caleb Oct 2 '10 at 13:36
add comment

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.