From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F32CA1382C5 for ; Wed, 17 Jun 2020 05:48:17 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 64206E0A53; Wed, 17 Jun 2020 05:48:11 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mout.web.de (mout.web.de [212.227.15.14]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9A0C8E09EF for ; Wed, 17 Jun 2020 05:48:10 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=web.de; s=dbaedf251592; t=1592372879; bh=sfjhtQvIHOKb6cXjCV+u7JdKlqL2F69b1tf09UGyj10=; h=X-UI-Sender-Class:Subject:To:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To; b=onH0vgdWgIcBoM8UX1BcMCnPaOafdBXuy9UYrwtsg0pjdBckVlTadgGyObOY/udsp zOajJnI86BiRpWnmjXIXWfOb48qAH+xaVptY43PBrmdizps/pClx15yyzAmXksC/9u FS84NpbyY244uoHPi76FSGfy1GJ4rL9IA4hXdRKs= X-UI-Sender-Class: c548c8c5-30a9-4db5-a2e7-cb6cb037b8f9 Received: from [192.168.178.96] ([77.4.75.251]) by smtp.web.de (mrweb003 [213.165.67.108]) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 0MLxrY-1jojh42Zm0-007iu1 for ; Wed, 17 Jun 2020 07:42:54 +0200 Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] virtualbox in headless configuration broken after update: delayed echo [ RESOLVED, kinda ] To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org References: <3553213.kQq0lBPeGt@eve> From: n952162 Message-ID: <8715d566-6d8c-69ee-aed6-47e054e5b902@web.de> Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2020 07:42:30 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.9.1 Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org X-Auto-Response-Suppress: DR, RN, NRN, OOF, AutoReply MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <3553213.kQq0lBPeGt@eve> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Language: en-US X-Provags-ID: V03:K1:NDBTFCZ3lZ1mz/3Cut4oKfMXIASb8uxWBW8tObIiA0/wcXoYJl2 A4IEsIbEYaRv9vfhoiV+E9/psfGpiZjPpua1Q0hz9kGuk/Zq2S3vKtBslBOQrPe9X6NXzR4 CRITFNg//C4HofQG4edLqprJb2eOv1GyjrLdJd+bYy1AL2nD6EGCl56NPR0aE8Lqool2bLQ Iv6zJgF/wUfhGEV6AzUnw== X-Spam-Flag: NO X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V03:K0:eYZMRGhF2HI=:7qYvzHBy+crPWNiZWzibT5 82WH7ErAdMFM8gUva+Lsq3shSmCGc3E7bsA/r4jvp0GiNqXNkHkRoI/pKpXpiSlyZwDlrnSSE KnYpasfURDYu3Axq2bD+e6emgojTyJzYbcfF2yM3LY+KdZVgrQyyJBHIh2m+kOwGw2nVqPkVe +WdyLdnHgt620xqtbAlfZJdvK2PrBzigH+ZZAkhRN/GVSV5uJbhBKp3xq8g+NrkN6LAfZCzz1 KzRexlBipaKsaeHIhC/DyFqvYBDFra+k9nxzAu9jd5zGVqoIsNNJ6d+9HV1X3vf5yAip9SRYk 3HWU50bol2F2V/b6whYF5NOyInEEcYrC8b0vg9UJ8nYjtPrl9S5caXWMMFxAIyIP266znnROx ryrTC9za4mdALoS353cXao5B8LfoWFLTs5TT+3suIFhyqZME7LeOYuceKHlqUPjMzqge5Q4O/ bX7wPtuH9Hju0qE8eWpMHyPwujNHggIu5FV04nrbiAeDHBaW8k0ZaHERrJdZxdvUEajoP+MlP sNAN2NiG3/chnTfFQmNh4hyGfi3bPxUHNIOluNUYoVqvJlyfO4/qHK5dZt/8/hPdUHF4B9fC8 gDySUS7QjUYtOLDGptzi9OwuVF/nAy1sQBSjYL0+0Ycsu5BWzsUOv+sU2ZjkabiUvwkBhZseC 32L2A3gF0lCaVJRBZV3s+sJ0vr7oR+esmR7NSgi1MzP0n72l6/KslvScZ0OrcfC9Jn00pywYl Grp3hn4E/P/XdNEw0/7jNaymwWspKdcMcQuyN0prxezS0L4bLuvb1b2lbWqxOINYxvdpjM8rS 2JP74GpDYX5yw968YDc3MwGAK/ks3XXNzP8haPhViP+hfZB3zlVCkpKcnOsxb1qwf5RTQvOzK MQJevby0X6ol1gLdVT9d9VB1DdDD3r8eFdGMjay6z0bGjiIL8RKbZcY3jfzWZGlYpkvMaEyFL SdgAXxMLiBYVyvUroMmAJDIlMxgJoHkiVbSfpgLwcmRNxefKFjcCATXceKJ+7WZ1fl1NAO7RU w7nVO/2vKmLYNpS8A/EzFgVCoAHNQmPml/DUyZu4g45Hjq7TvQxjy1WzrJqdttWt35XIgb430 pVw4vgujXj2qt+8mwDKlAT21GK0lPa7HP00yaPgNgkHs6DnC3neiYKEVug1NYSOR+H17P5JYd 2SQiGcnIlpPD/RFfrqVlEJFuyBruNVdetywDxggc2O1b51K1d9CJFMpNYExCaqCBzxBsk= X-Archives-Salt: 071549cd-dba1-459b-8eb9-5757d9fb206e X-Archives-Hash: 99459f7313d0ec669fa068b87135e185 On 06/17/20 06:48, J. Roeleveld wrote: > On Tuesday, June 16, 2020 11:08:23 PM CEST n952162 wrote: >> On 06/16/20 22:36, J. Roeleveld wrote: >>> >>> Are these Virtualbox VMs critical? >>> If yes, I would suggest migrating them to a more reliable virtualisati= on >>> technology. >>> >>> I do not consider Virtualbox suitable for anything but a desktop based= VM >>> method for a quick test or simulation. >>> >>> Gor anything serious, I would suggest Xen, KVM or VMWare. >>> >>> -- >>> Joost >> Well, no, they're really not critical, but your comment surprises me. >> I've been using vbox for years, on various assignments, and never >> encountered anything else. Can you say a word or two to that, or >> provide a URL? Which free vm is "the best"? > I never bothered bookmarking URLs about this, but can elaborate on my > reasoning and experience. > > Virtualbox is a nice product and I do use it when it is convenient. It i= s > perfect for quickly starting a VM to test something. It integrates nicel= y with > the desktop to be able to quickly copy/paste data across and also easy t= o > connect to the filesystem on the host. > > This also mentions the reason why it is NOT suitable for actual producti= on > use. It is a virtualisation tool for a desktop. > > If you want your VMs to run as fast and stable as possible, you want the= host > to be as minimal as possible. This means: > - it runs headless (no GUI, just text) and the host has only 1 task: Run= VMs. > - it doesn't contain anything else (only exception is stuff for monitori= ng) > > Virtualbox does not (afaik) support block-devices for VMs. It only suppo= rts > file-based disks. This is fine as it allows you to "quickly" move these = to > different storage. But it adds another layer between the hardware and VM > (filesystem on the host) which adds it's own write-caching and potential > corruption (I have had this on several occasions). > > The virtualisation systems I mentioned in my previous email (Xen, KVM, V= MWare) > all support block-devices and sit as close to hardware as is possible. I= n the > case of VMWare, I am talking about the server product, not the desktop > product. The VMWare desktop product has the same problems as VirtualBox. > > As for which free one is best, I am reluctant to answer specifically as = both > Xen and KVM are good. > > Personally, I use Xen. I have been using it since one of the 2.x version= s and > KVM didn't exist back then. > Xen has the hypervisor in a small "kernel" and the host runs as a VM wit= h full > privileges. You can add additional privileges VMs to provide storage, fu= rther > seperating tasks between VMs. > Citrix also provides a free version of their Xen-product which can be ma= naged > remotely, but their remote-tool is windows-only last time I checked. I r= un Xen > on top of Gentoo and manage everything from the CLI. > > KVM runs inside a Linux kernel and this instance automatically is the ho= st. (I > don't know enough to properly compare the 2, there are plenty of resourc= es > about comparisons online, most are biased to one or the other) > > Both Xen and KVM can be managed with other tools like virt-manager. I do= n't as > I don't like the way those tools want to manage the whole environment. > > As for use of these systems, when only looking at companies where I have > experience with: > > - VMWare is often used for virtualising servers > - Xen (Citrix) is often used to provide Virtual Desktop to users > - KVM is used by most VPS providers > - Virtualbox is used for training sessions > > I have not come across MS HyperV outside of small businesses that need s= ome > local VMs. These companies tend to put all their infrastructure with one= of > the big cloud-VM providers (Like AWS, Azure, Googles,...) > > -- > Joost > > Thank you for this excellent survey/summary.=C2=A0 It tells me that vbox i= s good for my current usages, but I should start exposing myself to Xen as a possible migration path.