Re: Using Debian to manage a multiple OS machine

"186282@ud0s4.net" <186283@ud0s4.net> wrote:

On 8/17/24 5:16 AM, Marc Haber wrote:

"186282@ud0s4.net" <186283@ud0s4.net> wrote:

On 8/14/24 9:31 AM, The Doctor wrote:

So far, I am liking it.
>
I can use Debian to Boot Between Debian and FreeBSD.
>
Can Debian grub look after other systems?

>
   GRUB can work multi-boots ... most any Linux will
   install GRUB and you can add on from there. GRUB
   is not Linux, not Debian, its own app.

 
A big part of grub is building the configuration, which is done by
scripts that come from the respective distribution. And yes, there are
differences in those scripts.

>
  I noticed that when trying to put Linux on laptops
  with the early nvram 'disks'.

What do you mean? What are nvram disks?

I prefer KVM/libvirt/virt-manager. Virtualbox needs out of tree kernel
modules, which can be a hassle during upgrades. I don't agree on the
flexibility point. Virtualbox caters more for the novice user because
its GUI is a bit more polished.

>
  KVM is perfectly good - UNTIL you want to maybe ENLARGE
  a virtual disk. Then you've gotta edit config files and
  do some other weird stuff.

Resize the LV the virtual disk resides on and the VM will behave as if
you exchanged the disk with a new one.

With VBox its just sliding
  a control and VBox does the rest.

Including partitions and filesystem resize inside the VM? As
impressive that is, the old fart in my isnt comfortable with that
level of magic. This is bound to break some time.

KVM also uses a custom
  kernel wheras VBox generally doesn't need that.

This doesn't parse. KVM has been integral part of the mainline Linux
kernel tree for a decade while VBox still requires out-of-tree
Modules.

Are you confusing KVM and XEN?

  All in all, I'd say the two were kinda "even".

I disagree. KVM/libvirt is way more flexible. For me, it's KVM because
I'm using it in my own fleet to maintain my proficiency in case I need
to work with it again some time in the future. That's not going to
happen with Virtualbox due to its license.

Stupid question: Is there a difference between VirtualBox and VBox?

  Hey, if you've got a hot i9 with gobs of ram then lots
  of usable VMs are kinda the logical step.

I am running five server VMs on a machine with 4 Gig of RAM. My "big"
virtualization server has 32 Gigs and runs 22 VMs, with more than 10
Gig free to use for disk cache. So the "gobs of RAM" is lore from two
decades ago, any decently modern machine can handle a handful Linux
VMs just fine.

Greetings
Marc
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Marc Haber         |   " Questions are the         | Mailadresse im Header
Rhein-Neckar, DE   |     Beginning of Wisdom "     |
Nordisch by Nature | Lt. Worf, TNG "Rightful Heir" | Fon: *49 6224 1600402