Re: Using Debian to manage a multiple OS machine

On 8/18/24 1:31 PM, Marc Haber wrote:

"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?

   Def : "NvRAM" - Non-Volatile-Random-Access-Memory ...
   the 'e-disk' you now find in every laptop and oft
   even desktops these days. Most commonly "M2" but
   the tech can be put in other things/formats. First
   saw one in the Asus EEEPC as the main 'drive'.
   AT THAT TIME, GRUB really only looked at mag and USB
   drives as potentially "bootable".
   I miss that EEEPC ... dropped it off a ladder while
   trying to position a new security cam  :-(

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.

   With KVM ??? No, you have to make two edits in the
   main config file. Even that doesn't entirely get you
   there - there's a utility for expanding the logical
   partition into the new space also. Can't do it with
   GParted as it won't let you re-size what you're currently
   running from. The utility acts like - when you install
   to an SD card on a Pi there's an automatic re-size to
   completely expand '/' to fill the card. Same idea,
   maybe 95% the same code.

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.

   Ummm ... not always - the last place I used KVM was
   a Debian, "Buster" I think. It DID install a KVM
   optimized kernel - which SCREWED UP. Had to go
   back to the previous kernel and nuke KVM.

You confusing KVM and XEN?

   I remember each distinctly. Xen worked "ok", but
   just didn't seem as comprehensive as KVM/VBox.
   Never benchmarked the two against each other.

   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.

   As said somewhere, KVM is *good* ... I just came to
   pref VBox because some aspects were "easier". Either
   can now be set to auto-boot the VMs.

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

   Of course - entirely different code. The ENDS are kinda
   the same, and kinda equally achieved. As Oracle could
   get all greedy someday, I'm happy KVM & Xen are out there.

   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.

   4 gig ? DO-able, but kinda TIGHT. The 32g unit ought to
   be better. As for "gobs" ... depends on WHAT you're running
   on the VMs. Some apps/servers are more memory-intensive
   than others ... ArcGIS for example.
   Anyway, mem is still fairly cheap, so why buy 4g when 8g
   barely costs any more ? The little BMax boxes I recently
   bought came with 16gb - and were still under $150. They
   run Manjaro and Fedora real fine. Looking to put FreeBSD
   on the last one plus some simple NAS setup.
   Hey ... how about a vm under fBSD running OpenMediaVault ?
   I can use bhyve or Xen, there's a BSD port of VBox too. :-)