Re: Using Debian to manage a multiple OS machine

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

  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'.

That terminology is totally exotic. You're probably mixing up NVMe and
NVRAM.

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.

Incorrect. Never had to do 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.

Debian Buster does not have a package that matches linux-image and
KVM. What are you refering to?

Ubuntu has a KVM _guest_ kernel that just doesn't include drivers that
you don't use in a VM.

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.

Can you give me a link to VBox please?

   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.

Of course. Any software is not going to be smaller on a VM than on
bare metal. But you can't blame that to virtualizatin.

  Anyway, mem is still fairly cheap, so why buy 4g when 8g
  barely costs any more ?

Because housing machines can get expensive pretty quickly. The APU I
am running those five VMs on comes with 4 GB and is not expandable.
And it does the job silently and doesn't get hot.

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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