I may have a need to run some version of Windows (XP?) on my desktop.
As this will likely be a short-term thing, and since I have never used Windows, I would like to do this in the most painless way possible. A method that requires me to make the least changes to my Centos computer would be nice, since I'll probably want to back it out again later.
I have never used any of the current virtualization technologies, so it's all new to me.
My objective is to have Window run in a window on my desktop. I don't want to dual-boot my computer.
I was looking at virtualbox. Is this the best approach? I get the impression that there are special kernel modules that are required for virtualbox, but if I install dkms then that will be automatically handled for me whenever there is a kernel upgrade. Install dkms, install the virtualbox repo, install virtualbox rpms, set up image, done. Is that all there is to it? Would something other than virtualbox be better?
Any recommendations or suggestions will be appreciated.
Thanks!
Virtualbox works very well for such situations as you describe. I've done the same thing using it.
On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 3:20 PM, Frank Cox theatre@melvilletheatre.comwrote:
I may have a need to run some version of Windows (XP?) on my desktop.
As this will likely be a short-term thing, and since I have never used Windows, I would like to do this in the most painless way possible. A method that requires me to make the least changes to my Centos computer would be nice, since I'll probably want to back it out again later.
I have never used any of the current virtualization technologies, so it's all new to me.
My objective is to have Window run in a window on my desktop. I don't want to dual-boot my computer.
I was looking at virtualbox. Is this the best approach? I get the impression that there are special kernel modules that are required for virtualbox, but if I install dkms then that will be automatically handled for me whenever there is a kernel upgrade. Install dkms, install the virtualbox repo, install virtualbox rpms, set up image, done. Is that all there is to it? Would something other than virtualbox be better?
Any recommendations or suggestions will be appreciated.
Thanks!
-- MELVILLE THEATRE ~ Real D 3D Digital Cinema ~ www.melvilletheatre.com _______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
On 2/19/2014 12:20 PM, Frank Cox wrote:
I was looking at virtualbox. Is this the best approach? I get the impression that there are special kernel modules that are required for virtualbox, but if I install dkms then that will be automatically handled for me whenever there is a kernel upgrade. Install dkms, install the virtualbox repo, install virtualbox rpms, set up image, done. Is that all there is to it? Would something other than virtualbox be better?
VBox is darn simple, and works quite well.
On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 12:33 PM, John R Pierce pierce@hogranch.com wrote:
On 2/19/2014 12:20 PM, Frank Cox wrote:
I was looking at virtualbox. Is this the best approach? I get the impression that there are special kernel modules that are required for virtualbox, but if I install dkms then that will be automatically handled for me whenever there is a kernel upgrade. Install dkms, install the virtualbox repo, install virtualbox rpms, set up image, done. Is that all there is to it? Would something other than virtualbox be better?
VBox is darn simple, and works quite well.
There is a nice CentOS wiki article :
http://wiki.centos.org/HowTos/Virtualization/VirtualBox
Akemi
On Wed, 19 Feb 2014 12:54:05 -0800 Akemi Yagi wrote:
On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 12:33 PM, John R Pierce pierce@hogranch.com wrote:
VBox is darn simple, and works quite well.
There is a nice CentOS wiki article : http://wiki.centos.org/HowTos/Virtualization/VirtualBox
Gosh, that was slick. Now I have virtualbox up and running.
Thanks to all for the help!
On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 12:33 PM, John R Pierce pierce@hogranch.com wrote:
On 2/19/2014 12:20 PM, Frank Cox wrote:
I was looking at virtualbox. Is this the best approach? I get the impression that there are special kernel modules that are required for virtualbox, but if I install dkms then that will be automatically handled for me whenever there is a kernel upgrade. Install dkms, install the virtualbox repo, install virtualbox rpms, set up image, done. Is that all there is to it? Would something other than virtualbox be better?
VBox is darn simple, and works quite well.
Another nice feature about VirtualBox is it has the option of "Remote Desktop" access to the VMs built in, if you chose to select that option in the Admin tool. Comes in real handy for Windows VMs, which don't lend themselves well to being managed.
On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 4:49 PM, Joseph Spenner joseph85750@yahoo.com wrote:
On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 12:33 PM, John R Pierce pierce@hogranch.com wrote:
On 2/19/2014 12:20 PM, Frank Cox wrote:
I was looking at virtualbox. Is this the best approach? I get the impression that there are special kernel modules that are required for virtualbox, but if I install dkms then that will be automatically handled for me whenever there is a kernel upgrade. Install dkms, install the virtualbox repo, install virtualbox rpms, set up image, done. Is that all there is to it? Would something other than virtualbox be better?
VBox is darn simple, and works quite well.
Another nice feature about VirtualBox is it has the option of "Remote Desktop" access to the VMs built in, if you chose to select that option in the Admin tool. Comes in real handy for Windows VMs, which don't lend themselves well to being managed.
Once the guests are configured to the point where their networking is up, you can install vnc for remote access or use their own remote desktop service - as you would with a physical machine.
On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 2:20 PM, Frank Cox theatre@melvilletheatre.com wrote:
I may have a need to run some version of Windows (XP?) on my desktop.
As this will likely be a short-term thing, and since I have never used Windows, I would like to do this in the most painless way possible. A method that requires me to make the least changes to my Centos computer would be nice, since I'll probably want to back it out again later.
I have never used any of the current virtualization technologies, so it's all new to me.
My objective is to have Window run in a window on my desktop. I don't want to dual-boot my computer.
I was looking at virtualbox. Is this the best approach? I get the impression that there are special kernel modules that are required for virtualbox, but if I install dkms then that will be automatically handled for me whenever there is a kernel upgrade. Install dkms, install the virtualbox repo, install virtualbox rpms, set up image, done. Is that all there is to it? Would something other than virtualbox be better?
Any recommendations or suggestions will be appreciated.
Virtualbox will work, but if you want to stick to stock packages and aren't concerned about running your images on other types of hosts, try KVM first.
Yum groupinstall Virtualization "Virtualization Client" "Virtualization Platform" "Virtualization Tools" might be overkill but should have everything you need. And then you'll find the GUI under Applications ->System Tools -> Virtual Machine Manager.
If you want to give the guest VM bridged access to your NIC, you also need the bridge-utils package and have to move your host network setup to the bridge device.
On 2/19/2014 12:39 PM, Les Mikesell wrote:
Virtualbox will work, but if you want to stick to stock packages and aren't concerned about running your images on other types of hosts, try KVM first.
KVM is great for virtualizing linux systems, but I found it pretty hard to work with for virtualizing anything else, so much so that I've reverted to vmware esxi (which is NOT suitable for workstations, this is server virtualization).
YMMV, of course.
On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 3:24 PM, John R Pierce pierce@hogranch.com wrote:
On 2/19/2014 12:39 PM, Les Mikesell wrote:
Virtualbox will work, but if you want to stick to stock packages and aren't concerned about running your images on other types of hosts, try KVM first.
KVM is great for virtualizing linux systems, but I found it pretty hard to work with for virtualizing anything else, so much so that I've reverted to vmware esxi (which is NOT suitable for workstations, this is server virtualization).
YMMV, of course.
When I got a server with too much RAM for the free version of ESXi, I copied over a vmdk disk image from a windows guest and can't really tell the difference with it running under KVM. The only issue I have is that when running the GUI console in a freenx/NX session the mouse pointer is way out of sync. But normally I connect directly to the guests with vnc or rdesktop once the network is set up anyway, and I don't know if the same problem happens at the physical console of the host (which I almost never use).
On 2/19/2014 2:25 PM, Les Mikesell wrote:
When I got a server with too much RAM for the free version of ESXi
that limit was rescinded in August. ESXI 5.5 is now free for unlimited memory. about the only restriction is max 8 CPU cores per VM.
On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 4:31 PM, John R Pierce pierce@hogranch.com wrote:
On 2/19/2014 2:25 PM, Les Mikesell wrote:
When I got a server with too much RAM for the free version of ESXi
that limit was rescinded in August. ESXI 5.5 is now free for unlimited memory. about the only restriction is max 8 CPU cores per VM.
Figures... I think I built those in June or so. Anyway, while the VMware console client is somewhat slicker I don't see any functional reason to change back - KVM runs them just the same.
On 02/19/2014 05:05 PM, Les Mikesell wrote:
On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 4:31 PM, John R Pierce pierce@hogranch.com wrote:
On 2/19/2014 2:25 PM, Les Mikesell wrote:
When I got a server with too much RAM for the free version of ESXi
that limit was rescinded in August. ESXI 5.5 is now free for unlimited memory. about the only restriction is max 8 CPU cores per VM.
Figures... I think I built those in June or so. Anyway, while the VMware console client is somewhat slicker I don't see any functional reason to change back - KVM runs them just the same.
I ran (in my previous job) four Windows 2008 server VMs, two Windows XP VMs, and one Windows 7 VM on KVM with CentOS-5.x as the base OS. I did not have any major issues .. but I did not try to do things like USB connections, etc.
On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 5:09 PM, Johnny Hughes johnny@centos.org wrote:
When I got a server with too much RAM for the free version of ESXi
that limit was rescinded in August. ESXI 5.5 is now free for unlimited memory. about the only restriction is max 8 CPU cores per VM.
Figures... I think I built those in June or so. Anyway, while the VMware console client is somewhat slicker I don't see any functional reason to change back - KVM runs them just the same.
I ran (in my previous job) four Windows 2008 server VMs, two Windows XP VMs, and one Windows 7 VM on KVM with CentOS-5.x as the base OS. I did not have any major issues .. but I did not try to do things like USB connections, etc.
I think the disk image formats are even fairly portable now. I've also run vmdk images under Virtualbox on a Mac host and VMware Player (no surprise there) on a Windows host and even an old parallels hdd image on Virtualbox.
On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 6:09 PM, Johnny Hughes johnny@centos.org wrote:
On 02/19/2014 05:05 PM, Les Mikesell wrote:
On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 4:31 PM, John R Pierce pierce@hogranch.com
wrote:
On 2/19/2014 2:25 PM, Les Mikesell wrote:
When I got a server with too much RAM for the free version of ESXi
that limit was rescinded in August. ESXI 5.5 is now free for unlimited memory. about the only restriction is max 8 CPU cores per VM.
Figures... I think I built those in June or so. Anyway, while the VMware console client is somewhat slicker I don't see any functional reason to change back - KVM runs them just the same.
I have KVM on CentOS 6.5 with three Windows development/testing VMs (WinXP, 7, 8) and a Win2k8 VM used by our tech support staff. Each of them have 2 vCPUs. I believe the XP VM is 32-bit and the rest 7, 8, and 2k8 are 64-bit. Those Windows VMs are largely outnumbered by their Linux brethren on that same KVM node, but they all run well!
Virtualizing a copy of XP, 7, and 8 was one of the best moves I made ... enable RDP on Windows and I can jump into them with a VNC client from my Linux desktop. :)
I installed the virtio drivers from the ISO Fedora provides ... most of those VMs were set up many versions ago (comared to the current virtio ISO). They're running without problems and have been for quite some time.
I ran (in my previous job) four Windows 2008 server VMs, two Windows XP VMs, and one Windows 7 VM on KVM with CentOS-5.x as the base OS. I did not have any major issues .. but I did not try to do things like USB connections, etc.
Same here -- I haven't had a reason to tinker with USB pass through and what not.
CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
On 19/02/2014 23:09, Johnny Hughes wrote:
On 02/19/2014 05:05 PM, Les Mikesell wrote:
On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 4:31 PM, John R Pierce pierce@hogranch.com wrote:
On 2/19/2014 2:25 PM, Les Mikesell wrote:
When I got a server with too much RAM for the free version of ESXi
that limit was rescinded in August. ESXI 5.5 is now free for unlimited memory. about the only restriction is max 8 CPU cores per VM.
Figures... I think I built those in June or so. Anyway, while the VMware console client is somewhat slicker I don't see any functional reason to change back - KVM runs them just the same.
I ran (in my previous job) four Windows 2008 server VMs, two Windows XP VMs, and one Windows 7 VM on KVM with CentOS-5.x as the base OS. I did not have any major issues .. but I did not try to do things like USB connections, etc.
I run, on Centos 6.5, a headless Virtualbox system with phpVirtualbox which runs:
17 Centos 6.5 Systems 1 Windows 7 System 1 FreeBSD System
Works a treat, the hardware is a dual Quad core Xeon system with 96GB of RAM. Not had any problems with CPU over-subscription.
Greetings,
On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 4:39 AM, Johnny Hughes johnny@centos.org wrote:
I ran (in my previous job) four Windows 2008 server VMs, two Windows XP VMs, and one Windows 7 VM on KVM with CentOS-5.x as the base OS. I did not have any major issues .. but I did not try to do things like USB connections, etc.
I had issues with live and external snapshots (Which I cant recall exactly) with Centos 6.4.
Something to do with qemu version.
I must confess I followed a fedora blog on live and external snapshots.
of course, This was about 4 months (light years) ago.
With a <hinding> apologies,
On 2/19/2014 3:05 PM, Les Mikesell wrote:
Figures... I think I built those in June or so. Anyway, while the VMware console client is somewhat slicker I don't see any functional reason to change back - KVM runs them just the same.
I wasted 2 weeks trying to get Solaris 10 u11 running stably on KVM with CentOS 6.5. installed and ran perfectly on my first try with esxi 5.5.
On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 5:11 PM, John R Pierce pierce@hogranch.com wrote:
On 2/19/2014 3:05 PM, Les Mikesell wrote:
Figures... I think I built those in June or so. Anyway, while the VMware console client is somewhat slicker I don't see any functional reason to change back - KVM runs them just the same.
I wasted 2 weeks trying to get Solaris 10 u11 running stably on KVM with CentOS 6.5. installed and ran perfectly on my first try with esxi 5.5.
Mismatch in the guest disk drivers and virtualized hardware??
On 2/19/2014 3:22 PM, Les Mikesell wrote:
Mismatch in the guest disk drivers and virtualized hardware??
probably something like that. but, KVM wouldn't even boot the ISO in text mode if I enabled more than 1 vCPU.
I wasted 2 weeks trying to get Solaris 10 u11 running stably on KVM with CentOS 6.5. installed and ran perfectly on my first try with esxi 5.5.
Same story with FreeBSD 9.1 but I found upgrading the kernel to something slightly less dinosauristic as the EL kernel alleviated the problem.
On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 01:11:04AM +0000, Andrew Holway wrote:
I wasted 2 weeks trying to get Solaris 10 u11 running stably on KVM with CentOS 6.5. installed and ran perfectly on my first try with esxi 5.5.
Same story with FreeBSD 9.1 but I found upgrading the kernel to something slightly less dinosauristic as the EL kernel alleviated the problem.
For what it's worth, on a CentOS KVM, installing and getting FreeBSD-9.2 to work was trivial. Running without X, but I just did a more or less default install and we now have two FreeBSD-9.2 machines running on it. The host is running 6.4 or 6.5.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On 02/19/2014 03:39 PM, Les Mikesell wrote:
On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 2:20 PM, Frank Cox theatre@melvilletheatre.com wrote:
I may have a need to run some version of Windows (XP?) on my desktop.
As this will likely be a short-term thing, and since I have never used Windows, I would like to do this in the most painless way possible. A method that requires me to make the least changes to my Centos computer would be nice, since I'll probably want to back it out again later.
I have never used any of the current virtualization technologies, so it's all new to me.
My objective is to have Window run in a window on my desktop. I don't want to dual-boot my computer.
I was looking at virtualbox. Is this the best approach? I get the impression that there are special kernel modules that are required for virtualbox, but if I install dkms then that will be automatically handled for me whenever there is a kernel upgrade. Install dkms, install the virtualbox repo, install virtualbox rpms, set up image, done. Is that all there is to it? Would something other than virtualbox be better?
Any recommendations or suggestions will be appreciated.
Virtualbox will work, but if you want to stick to stock packages and aren't concerned about running your images on other types of hosts, try KVM first.
Yum groupinstall Virtualization "Virtualization Client" "Virtualization Platform" "Virtualization Tools" might be overkill but should have everything you need. And then you'll find the GUI under Applications ->System Tools -> Virtual Machine Manager.
If you want to give the guest VM bridged access to your NIC, you also need the bridge-utils package and have to move your host network setup to the bridge device.
Just one small point to make here. KVM will not work on a 32 bit installation. That's not all that important these days as most all installations are 64 bit.
- -- _ °v° /(_)\ ^ ^ Mark LaPierre Registered Linux user No #267004 https://linuxcounter.net/ ****
On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 10:13:29PM -0500, Mark LaPierre wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On 02/19/2014 03:39 PM, Les Mikesell wrote:
On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 2:20 PM, Frank Cox theatre@melvilletheatre.com wrote:
I may have a need to run some version of Windows (XP?) on my desktop.
I was looking at virtualbox. Is this the best approach? I get the impression that there are special kernel modules that are required for virtualbox, but if I install dkms then that will be automatically handled for me whenever there is a kernel upgrade. Install dkms, install the virtualbox repo, install virtualbox rpms, set up image, done. Is that all there is to it? Would something other than virtualbox be better?
Any recommendations or suggestions will be appreciated.
Virtualbox will work, but if you want to stick to stock packages and aren't concerned about running your images on other types of hosts, try KVM first.
KVM, in my experience, gives a poorer graphic performance, sound and/or USB may not work, and bridged networking is a little less intuitive. None of this may matter to you though. For a single desktop, I think VirtualBox takes the least effort to set up. KVM is pretty painless, but the interface is less intuitive. On the other hand, if you later want to run several instances of CentOS on a machine, especially without a GUI, then KVM is far superior in my experience, as far as resource management, so is definitely worth getting used to.
On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 6:51 AM, Scott Robbins scottro@nyc.rr.com wrote:
Virtualbox will work, but if you want to stick to stock packages and aren't concerned about running your images on other types of hosts, try KVM first.
KVM, in my experience, gives a poorer graphic performance, sound and/or USB may not work, and bridged networking is a little less intuitive. None of
I'll second the poorer or wonky graphics performance. On one host, if I switched the video adapter type it totally killed the resolution on the vnc console. And performance was rather sluggish at times (screen refreshes). I had to suffer through the performance only until I got RDP enabled and then slow screen refreshes didn't affect me anymore. [ At which point it became a situation of "I need to get other work done!". ]
this may matter to you though. For a single desktop, I think VirtualBox takes the least effort to set up. KVM is pretty painless, but the interface is less intuitive. On the other hand, if you later want to run several instances of CentOS on a machine, especially without a GUI, then KVM is far superior in my experience, as far as resource management, so is definitely worth getting used to.
If you have the hardware (64-bit with virtualization extensions), go for KVM.
Like Scott said, it also depends on how much effort you want to invest.
In the long run you're using something you're likely to find in production at another company (Virtualbox although venerable, isn't IMO meant for more than the desktop). Look at the live migration and other support in KVM that VirtualBox may not have (foot in mouth ... they call it teleportation ... [0] [1]).
[0] http://www.sysprobs.com/setup-test-virtualbox-teleportation-normal-pc-live-m... [1] http://www.virtualizationpractice.com/virtualbox-adds-live-migration-why-325...
On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 10:13 PM, Mark LaPierre marklapier@aol.com wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On 02/19/2014 03:39 PM, Les Mikesell wrote:
On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 2:20 PM, Frank Cox theatre@melvilletheatre.com wrote:
My objective is to have Window run in a window on my desktop. I don't want to dual-boot my computer.
I was looking at virtualbox. Is this the best approach? I get the impression that there are special kernel modules that are required for virtualbox, but if I install dkms then that will be automatically handled for me whenever there is a kernel upgrade. Install dkms, install the virtualbox repo, install virtualbox rpms, set up image, done. Is that all there is to it? Would something other than virtualbox be better?
If you're only going to run your Windows VM as you need it, I'd suggest just going with VirtualBox. VirtualBox can be ran headless, but if you'll have Xorg on your desktop why not use the GUI.
Any recommendations or suggestions will be appreciated.
Virtualbox will work, but if you want to stick to stock packages and aren't concerned about running your images on other types of hosts, try KVM first.
It's trivial to rsync a Linux host from P-to-P, P-to-V, V-to-P, or V-to-V. [ That's P=physical hw and V=virtual hw ]
Other options other than rsync would be dd block copy (not as nice) and any other number of backup tools.
Yum groupinstall Virtualization "Virtualization Client" "Virtualization Platform" "Virtualization Tools" might be overkill but should have everything you need. And then you'll find the GUI under Applications ->System Tools -> Virtual Machine Manager.
If you want to give the guest VM bridged access to your NIC, you also need the bridge-utils package and have to move your host network setup to the bridge device.
Just one small point to make here. KVM will not work on a 32 bit installation. That's not all that important these days as most all installations are 64 bit.
KVM is not packaged for x86, only for the x86_64 architecture.
If you're working on hardware that is not 64-bit capable, you have fewer options. - Virtualbox, OpenVZ, Xen
And if your hardware doesn't have virtualization extensions ... well you've got even fewer options. - Hardware virt support _may be_ mandatory for Xen4CentOS (you'll find para-virt mentioned on the CentOS wiki [1]) -- with Xen you could use paravirutalization (PV) or full virtualization (HVM) [0] -- I haven't ran any of the Xen4CentOS builds (since we've standardized on KVM at work) [ but I really should! ^_^ ]
[0] http://wiki.xen.org/wiki/Xen_Overview [1] http://wiki.centos.org/HowTos/Xen/Xen4QuickStart
-
Akemi Yagi -
Andrew Holway -
Charles Whitby -
Frank Cox -
Giles Coochey -
John R Pierce -
Johnny Hughes -
Joseph Spenner -
Les Mikesell -
Mark LaPierre -
Rajagopal Swaminathan -
Scott Robbins -
SilverTip257