Are more cores always vastly superior to more ghz regarding virtualization? Each machine consumes extremely few resources, there is just a huge amount of them running at the same time. My current machine I use for virtualbox has dual xeon e5-2650v3 CPUs, so 20 cores in total - for this next machine I plan on buying dual E5-2683 v3 with 14 cores and 2.0 ghz or a dual E5-2670 v3 with 12 cores and 2.3 ghz.
#Hyper v vs virtualbox install#
The main guest OS I will install on the VMs will be windows, is KVM or Xen better in that case? The host OS will be some linux distro, probably ubuntu. I need to check on the running server VMs themselves via a desktop interface, so I am basically needing a desktop virtualization with server virtualization performance.ĭo I understand correctly that for both KVM and Xen I can use virt-manager to get a nice desktop manager with which I can manage my VMs similarly to vmware workstation or virtualbox? Or do you recommend another desktop manager for either xen or KVM? Thank you all very much for your replies! Very fast, just a pain to implement if you are building your own system. KVM is especially good, probably the best, at virtualizing Windows. We don't want to be in the business of reinvesting the wheel. We use KVM a lot, but we don't use it "raw", we get it on appliances from Scale Computer (the HC3 cluster, we have an HC2100 and an HC2150) who adds all of the stuff on top of KVM that make it useful. KVM is great but doesn't have the great tooling ecosystem of XenServer making it a lot more difficult to use on its own. XenServer with Xen Orchestra (fully free) gives you a massive feature set and central management. I know companies getting a 20% performance gain over ESXi! Amazon, IBM and Rackspace use it for a reason. We've used it for over a decade and it is awesome.
If I was implementing my own system, Xen every time. You did not mention your workload so it is very hard to say. XenServer, KVM and Hyper-V are all great considerations.
0 kommentar(er)
