On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 6:51 AM, Scott Robbins <scottro at 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-migration-virtual-machines [1] http://www.virtualizationpractice.com/virtualbox-adds-live-migration-why-3257/ -- ---~~.~~--- Mike // SilverTip257 //