[olug] VMWare Player vs VirtualBox

[aric at omahax.com]

+1 for Xenserver

I use both Xenserver and VMware vSphere hypervisor on production servers
at work.

1.  When I was evaluating a solution several years ago Xen beat ESXi in
the benchmark testing that I performed.... It could be different now.

2.  I don't know how to easily* pre-assign MAC addresses or change MAC
addresses of virtuals in ESXi/vSphere/VMWare workstation.

3.  Most of the advanced features that I use that you have to pay VMware
for are free with Xenserver.  (SAN boot, pooling, hot
migration(VMotion/live motion)).

I have more 64-bit processors with VT-x than I do NICs that vSphere
hypervisor supports.  I had a NIC go out and was running all over trying
to find an Intel GT 1000 as a temporary fix.


phpVirtualBox looks cool.

> +1 on ESXi/vSphere.
>
> The top 2 reasons I don't use Xen: a desire for a consistent
> virtualization platform and the system requirements - a 64-bit processor
> with VT-x.
>
> A lot of the spare hardware I have won't run unmodified guests in Xen -
> 32-bit only or no VT-x. ESXi/vSphere is the only hypervisor platform
> that will run on all of it; ESXi VMs are compatible with vSphere, and
> you can create VMs in vSphere that will run in ESXi.
>
> On 11/23/2010 1:44 PM, Jason N wrote:
>> If you have a spare box lieing around, why not try Vmware's Free
>> vSphere Hypervisor (formerly ESXi) or Xen or Xenserver (Citrix)?
>
> --
>
> Phil Brutsche
> phil at brutsche.us
> _______________________________________________
> OLUG mailing list
> OLUG at olug.org
> https://lists.olug.org/mailman/listinfo/olug
>