Virtualization

[Anteaus]

I'm throwing around the idea of doing some virtualization on my home server and would like some knowledge if someone will oblige. I'm not going to claim what I am thinking of doing is useful in my situation, but I'm definitely interested in the theory. I'd like to commit some of my home resources to virtualizing an OS that I will use for general purpose, non-gaming usage.

For the purpose of this post, assume I am talking about consumer grade hardware that has full support for virtualization, I will be the only user, and plan to virtualize one machine using KVM on top of a Debian Server install that will be used primarily to serve files to myself. The virtual machine I plan to host is going to be a desktop OS, either Windows 8.1 or Linux Mint.

1. Is KVM the only software I need on the server to create the virtual machine? Other than KVM, are there any other options I should be considering?

2. How much ram do I need as a minimum? Currently I have 8GB. There is no RAID array and the files are being served from standard mounted EXT4 formatted drives. The server stands idle the vast majority of the time when it's powered on.

3. What software do I use to actually use the virtual machine from another client? Does a KVM solution require a Linux client counterpart or are there Windows solutions?

4. Is there any advice that I might need before considering moving forward? i.e. is it a crackpot idea or a great one? Is it more trouble than its worth, etc?

Thanks in advance.

 

[dave_the_nerd]

1. KVM will have some prerequisites and dependencies, but that's the only software you need on the host to create the VM. (The guest will need to have drivers installed for the virtual hardware as well.)

2. 8GB will let you partition of 2-4 GBs for a guest OS, but whether that's enough depends on what you're doing with it.

3. Once KVM is running, you can use a VNC client to get console access to the VM.

4. More RAM is better. I don't think it's a crackpot idea at all. But I'm biased - the server in my sig is running 5 VMs, for local DNS, MineCraft, PLEX, Crashplan, and automated Twitter postings. (I'm using VirtualBox, though.)

 

[Elixer]

You should also note that if you have a AMD CPU, then you have full virtualization support on virtually their entire line, except the very low end. If you have intel, then, you might not have VT-d which is really helpful running VMs.

Some info on VT-d:
https://software.intel.com/en-us/bl...tel-virtualization-technology-for-directed-io

 

[ArisVer]

2. Windows 8 vs Mint. Does Windows see EXT4 partitions?

 

[Red Squirrel]

Windows will not see EXT partitions but Linux will see FAT/NTFS.

For virtualization I've never had good luck with KVM/Qemu, it's painfully slow for me but I heard others have good luck with it...

Another option is VirtualBox, but that is more for desktop usage as it does not run in the background. Ex: closing the VM window closes the actual VM. There's ways to make it run headless though but kinda a pain to manage.

Out of all the VM solutions I've tried I always end up going back to ESXi for real production stuff. I hate using proprietary software and hate the fact that there's no Linux client though.... but it just works better for a hypervisor than anything else I've tried.

 

[Anteaus]

You should also note that if you have a AMD CPU, then you have full virtualization support on virtually their entire line, except the very low end. If you have intel, then, you might not have VT-d which is really helpful running VMs.

Some info on VT-d:
https://software.intel.com/en-us/bl...tel-virtualization-technology-for-directed-io

My server has an i5-4570S which supports VT-d so I think I'm good there.

ArisVer:

Windows doesn't need to see the partitions because it will access the files via SMB.

dave_the_nerd:

I currently use TeamViewer to admin my server. How is VNC compared to that? Is VNC more capable or better suited for accessing a virtual machine server?

 

[Anteaus]

Out of all the VM solutions I've tried I always end up going back to ESXi for real production stuff. I hate using proprietary software and hate the fact that there's no Linux client though.... but it just works better for a hypervisor than anything else I've tried.

If I read between the lines, are using saying that I'd be better off using ESXi and virtualize both my Debian Server and my workstation instead of install the Debian Server bare metal and virtualizing on top of that with KVM? Maybe that's not what you meant but it seems more elegant.

I'm going to be accessing the VM via a Windows machine so whatever solution I choose will need a Windows client of some sort.

 

[Red Squirrel]

If I read between the lines, are using saying that I'd be better off using ESXi and virtualize both my Debian Server and my workstation instead of install the Debian Server bare metal and virtualizing on top of that with KVM? Maybe that's not what you meant but it seems more elegant.

I'm going to be accessing the VM via a Windows machine so whatever solution I choose will need a Windows client of some sort.

I would try the KVM route first, you might have better luck than me and it wont cost anything to try... I want to revisit it some time myself actually but at the time I just wanted to get my VM server up and running without messing around. It also depends on your goal, are you setting up a VM server so you can have a bunch of background servers running or are you wanting to use one as workstation and then use the VM for other stuff that requires windows? In that case KVM or Virtualbox is a better fit than ESXi. Use your main workstation OS on baremetal then virtualize what you need on it. I'd recommend VirtualBox for desktop virtualization but KVM will work too.

 

[Anteaus]

I would try the KVM route first, you might have better luck than me and it wont cost anything to try... I want to revisit it some time myself actually but at the time I just wanted to get my VM server up and running without messing around. It also depends on your goal, are you setting up a VM server so you can have a bunch of background servers running or are you wanting to use one as workstation and then use the VM for other stuff that requires windows? In that case KVM or Virtualbox is a better fit than ESXi. Use your main workstation OS on baremetal then virtualize what you need on it. I'd recommend VirtualBox for desktop virtualization but KVM will work too.

All I really want to virtualize is one machine which is why I thought the KVM route is better.

My primary setup will be two computers.

Computer 1: Debian Server/Samba - bare metal install - Headless
KVM virtualized workstation on top Debian to be used by computer 2.

Computer 2: Windows 7 Pro used for gaming/photo editing/etc

 

[replica9000]

Windows will not see EXT partitions but Linux will see FAT/NTFS.

For virtualization I've never had good luck with KVM/Qemu, it's painfully slow for me but I heard others have good luck with it...

Another option is VirtualBox, but that is more for desktop usage as it does not run in the background. Ex: closing the VM window closes the actual VM. There's ways to make it run headless though but kinda a pain to manage.

Out of all the VM solutions I've tried I always end up going back to ESXi for real production stuff. I hate using proprietary software and hate the fact that there's no Linux client though.... but it just works better for a hypervisor than anything else I've tried.

I used to run a headless VBox. You simply start it with:
VBoxManage startvm "VM name" --type headles

I know at one time there was a read-only driver for ext2/3 for Windows. Not sure if it's stil around though.

 

[Red Squirrel]

I used to run a headless VBox. You simply start it with:
VBoxManage startvm "VM name" --type headles

I know at one time there was a read-only driver for ext2/3 for Windows. Not sure if it's stil around though.

Yeah but then you can't easily get to the console without having to setup VNC console ahead of time (high security risk). Though I recently read that there is a web interface you can get for vbox now, basically gives you a web front end to headless sessions, so that could work.

For OP's case think just running straight Vbox or KVM will be fine though.

 

[replica9000]

Yeah but then you can't easily get to the console without having to setup VNC console ahead of time (high security risk). Though I recently read that there is a web interface you can get for vbox now, basically gives you a web front end to headless sessions, so that could work.

For OP's case think just running straight Vbox or KVM will be fine though.

I was using SSH to connect to mine. I could also use X over SSH. thought it's kind of slow. VBox allows you to use RDP, which is supposed to be better than VNC, but that's a pain to setup.

 

[dave_the_nerd]

Yeah but then you can't easily get to the console without having to setup VNC console ahead of time (high security risk). Though I recently read that there is a web interface you can get for vbox now, basically gives you a web front end to headless sessions, so that could work.

For OP's case think just running straight Vbox or KVM will be fine though.

PHPvirtualbox. Requires a web server though. It's pretty slick, supports multiple hypervisors, etc.

It's not really a security problem as long as you have your router set correctly - nobody from outside your LAN is going to be hitting local ports on your server. And they're password protected. (Unless you're referring to internal threats. I guess that could be a problem.)

Depending on which version of VirtualBox you're using, some of them also support MS-RDP instead of VNC. Personally, I think RDP performs better (less laggy feeling), but the VirtualBox OSE version that's available for FreeBSD is VNC-only.

 

[dave_the_nerd]

dave_the_nerd:

I currently use TeamViewer to admin my server. How is VNC compared to that? Is VNC more capable or better suited for accessing a virtual machine server?

It's different. TeamViewer, last I checked was for remote use - using TeamViewer's servers as a handoff/intermediary over the public internet. VNC is direct peer-to-peer only, and is a little heavier on the network usage (I really would only want to use it over a LAN.)

VNC isn't necessarily better or worse for this use case - I'm assuming you're going to be in the same building most of the time - but certain hypervisors will only give console access via certain RDP protocols (VNC or MS-RDP for VirtualBox, for instance.) So at least when you're doing the initial configuration of a VM (installing an OS) you HAVE to use the supported remote desktop client.

Using VNC, you could certainly install/configure TeamViewer on the Windows VM and continue using that. Or LogMeIn, or whatever. I typically access my VMs using SSH, not VNC Console. But if that broke or they crashed, I'd be back to using VNC until I fixed the problem. *crosses fingers*

 

[Anteaus]

It's different. TeamViewer, last I checked was for remote use - using TeamViewer's servers as a handoff/intermediary over the public internet. VNC is direct peer-to-peer only, and is a little heavier on the network usage (I really would only want to use it over a LAN.)

VNC isn't necessarily better or worse for this use case - I'm assuming you're going to be in the same building most of the time - but certain hypervisors will only give console access via certain RDP protocols (VNC or MS-RDP for VirtualBox, for instance.) So at least when you're doing the initial configuration of a VM (installing an OS) you HAVE to use the supported remote desktop client.

Using VNC, you could certainly install/configure TeamViewer on the Windows VM and continue using that. Or LogMeIn, or whatever. I typically access my VMs using SSH, not VNC Console. But if that broke or they crashed, I'd be back to using VNC until I fixed the problem. *crosses fingers*

I use TeamViewer in peer-to-peer mode using local ip addresses. I only started using it 4-6 months ago so I didn't know it was new functionality. My only real problem with Teamviewer is general performance even it is the only thing running on a gigabit network. The computers are only a foot apart and operate of the same switch. It is also finicky in certain scenarios such as logging out on the remote machine where you'll get what I call the "black screen of death" and I'm forced to reboot the machine. It does serve it's purpose and I can't complain about the price.

At work we use Bomgar for everything and I quite like it. Our IT department uses it for admin and we also use it for remote connect to computers in other countries. Unfortunately it's too expensive to consider for home use.