On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 2:16 PM, Les Mikesell <lesmikesell at gmail.com> wrote: > > On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 10:56 AM, Dave Johansen <davejohansen at gmail.com> wrote: > >>> > >> I suggest you use VirtualBox, or some other distro. > > > > I'll really like CentOS/RHEL and will definitely stick with it. > > Virtualbox isn't 'instead of' CentOS' it is 'instead of KVM' as a > virtualization layer. Not sure how much difference there is in > capability, other than being available for many more platforms, > including 32-bit linux. There should be some overlap in supported > image formats. I've moved vmdk's created on vmware to both, but I'm > not sure what others they each handle. > > > The > > point of my questions wasn't to complain or any like that, but just > > surprise because it seemed that the no 32 bit support didn't line up > > with my experience and just trying to make sure I understood > > everything. > > If you have hardware support for virtualization, you should probably > be running 64-bit Centos with KVM and not much else at the host OS > level. If you have applications that need 32-bit, they could run in a > guest. The issue is that I have two machines and one has hardware support for virtualization but doesn't support x64, and the other is flipped. So I was hoping to be able to it on the 32-bit machine to get the speed up from hardware support, but I guess I'll just do it on the 64-bit machine and pay the price of emulation. The reason I want to use virtualization is not on a big server, but just as a way to test builds/software on different OS versions for submission to the EPEL and Fedora. So not everyone in the world is using virtualization for server type stuff, but I realize that is the large majority of the use cases.