I'm using VBox on Windows XP on my wife's laptop for a couple of Xubuntu VMs (don't ask why!). I'm very happy with it in that role except for one thing - every time an updated kernel is installed it has to re-compile the VBox client extensions, which makes the updates slow.
Otherwise, there doesn't seem to be that much in it. VBox has a nice point-and-click front end, which saves me from the horrors of scripting Windows. The basic KVM set up on Linux is very lean without a lot of extraneous GUI tools that you don't need. I guess it's up to you which you prefer. BTW, I think there are some tools around to migrate between the two. Does anyone else have experience of both? I'd be really interested to hear if you have. Tony Cowderoy On 02/10/2012 15:15, Mark Rogers wrote: > On 02/10/12 10:57, Tony Cowderoy wrote: >> Pretty much any AMD or Intel processor that supports hardware >> virtualisation should work OK with KVM. > > OK, I'm looking at a Gigabyte GA-78LMT-USB3 (mainly for its 4 RAM > slots supporting 32GB RAM), with an Athlon II X4 640 and 16GB RAM, > which works out at about £130 ex-VAT. > >> I have no experience of software RAID, but IIRC LVM supports it and KVM >> works fine with LVM volumes. > > Cool. > > So, I'm now looking at two options: > - KVM (on Ubuntu as it's what I know) > - VirtualBox (also on Ubuntu). > > The reason VBox is still in the equation is that I have a lot of > experience of it, it runs on most of my PCs and therefore I have loads > of VBox VMs kicking around that I can just migrate to the new > "server". KVM is no doubt the "right" way to go so what are the > arguments in its favour to counter the convenience of VirtualBox? > > Mark > _______________________________________________ Peterboro mailing list Peterboro@mailman.lug.org.uk https://mailman.lug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/peterboro
