VirtualBox 2.1 Supports 64-Bit VM In 32-Bit Host 374
Stephen Birch writes "Following closely behind the mid-November 2.06 release of VirtualBox, Sun Microsystems has released version 2.1. This has a number of new features, but one of the most interesting is the ability to run a 64-bit VM inside a 32-bit host. Another useful feature is integrated host-based networking; no more fiddling around with network bridges. Sun is really giving VMWare a run for their money."
Good Alternative (Score:4, Insightful)
I have found that VirtualBox is a perfect alternative to VMware's expensive Workstation product. Before a friend told me about VirtualBox I was using VMware's Server free product as to how Workstation was meant to be used and not as a server side virtualization solution as VMware expected. So as soon as I checked out VirtualBox I dumped the ever-so-getting bloated Server program suite. I did previously pirate Workstation a couple of years ago before the free Server got released and decided I would try to go legit at that time which made it easy since Server and Workstation were compatible with each other on virtual machine files. As for Workstation product its ~$200 price tag is just way too expensive for my taste.
Now I'm using VirtualBox and I really do like it a lot. It seems to even be less resource intensive than VMware's offerings. Now the question is has anybody tried, or even if possible, to convert a VMware virtual machine to a VirtualBox machine?
Re:.. and .. (Score:4, Insightful)
The part of this I am looking forward too is the future plan to allow DX using the host hardware iwthin the guest. So I can finally drop a native windows install for gaming.
Re:Good products (Score:5, Insightful)
I have to disagree. VirtualBox has the makings of a good product, but right now is too buggy and unreliable to be used in a production environment.
Most of the unreliability that I've encountered stems from virtual disk management. For example, if you have a virtual machine with a CD ISO mounted, what happens if you stop that machine and delete the ISO? This:
VM cannot start because the hard disk '/home/seizurebattlerobot/.VirtualBox/VDI/Windows Vista.vdi' is not accessible (Could not access hard disk image '/home/seizurebattlerobot/.VirtualBox/VDI/Windows Vista.vdi' (VERR_FILE_NOT_FOUND)).
Result Code:
NS_ERROR_FAILURE (0x80004005)
Component:
Console
Interface:
IConsole {ddc6fda1-a435-45ca-b43d-f9e88746e53e}
The only way to get the machine into a usable state again is to manually edit the virtual machine definition, which is a lot more complex than one would immediately think. Just look at the VirtualBox bug tracker for some horror stories.
The disk snapshot feature is also a mess and can result in data loss if you are not extremely familiar with how the underlying implementation works. The GUI dialogs that control snapshots are poorly documented and are definitely not production quality.
It is also not possible to shrink a virtual disk that uses snapshots. Normal GUI based activity has resulted in an inconsistent snapshot tree state that has caused data loss for me numerous times.
In short, I would recommend VirtualBox for anyone that wants a virtualization sandbox to play around in. To anyone concerned about data integrity, hates troubleshooting obscure and difficult to track down error messages, or wants to use disk snapshots at all, I would recommend waiting a few years before considering VirtualBox.
Re:Virtualbox is superior to VMware (Score:5, Insightful)
My anecdotal evidence disagrees with all of your anecdotal evidence. I have never had a problem with VMWare stability, RAM usage, CPU utilization or interface.
But really, your entire argument is crap the second you use the term "snapily" or "snappy." If you're angry at VMWare, and you install VirtualBox, your first impression will be that it's so much "snappier" even if the two are neck and neck. This is a stupid term, stop using it.
Sorry, but your points are pretty worthless because you don't back any of it up, you just cry "unstable" and we're all supposed to agree with your blind rage.
Re:Improved snapshots? (Score:4, Insightful)
This feature is allegedly in progress.
I completely agree - I have a pair of mutually-incompatible versions of the same application that won't co-exist on the same Windows machine, so I set up a VBox machine to put them on. I had to clone the base install, about 2GB, rather than just making a snapshot and installing either version on top of that snapshot and snapshotting them. If you want both versions, you have to sacrifice another 2GB of disk space or install one version natively (which isn't exactly convenient - one of the major reasons for having the VMs is that it's a complete pig to install correctly).
It's not like the virtual disk model is unprepared for it - it does support immutable and delta disks, and uses them when taking snapshots. You are allowed multiple nested snapshot levels. For reasons I don't grok this has not been translated into branching snapshot support.
Speak for yourself (Score:4, Insightful)
But the ability to take multiple, branching snapshots is worth the price of admission alone. Version 6.5, which they pushed out a short while ago, has a new featured called "Unity mode", which basically takes programs running in the Guest and draws them on the Host so they act like any other program running on your host.
If you are a developer who uses virtual machines every day, $200 is a bargain for a tool like Workstation.
Re:Virtualbox is superior to VMware (Score:1, Insightful)
Meh. My experience is the exact opposite. I have been running VMware since the beginning (I mean the beginning, I using the pre-1.0 VMware beta like 9 or 10 years ago) and I have never had any crashing issues or stability problems with VMware. It has to be one of the most if not the most stable software product I have ever used. I have only run it on Linux hosts though.
VirtualBox's snapshot support sucks ass compared to VMware Workstation.
On my machine (Quad-core Q9550, 8 GB RAM) no matter what the guest is doing (like sitting idle) VirtualBox consumes considerable CPU. Linux guests are especially bad. I know there are a crapload of tweaks, fixes, and shit that help (but don't completely fix) the issue but why should I waste time dicking around with that when VMware is perfect?
Performance-wise VMware blows VirtualBox out of the water. Just installing XP on a VirtualBox VM takes orders of magnitude more time than VMware.
USB support is incredibly important, while VMware is not perfect its USB support is way more comprehensive than even the commercial VirtualBox.
I regularly use VMware on machines with as little as 256 MB of RAM and it works fine. VirtualBox basically completely hangs in those conditions because it's so slow and memory intensive.
Re:Good products (Score:2, Insightful)
The only way to get the machine into a usable state again is to manually edit the virtual machine definition, which is a lot more complex than one would immediately think.
Bullshit. If you couldn't figure this out (reconfigure or disable the CD-ROM) you shouldn't be allowed near a VM, particularly not one doing anything important. I was surprised myself that it would refuse to boot but it took me less than a minute to figure out and you start hacking the VM definition? You belong on TheDailyWTF.
Re:Hardware 3D acceleration (OpenGL) (Score:4, Insightful)
Title misleading (Score:4, Insightful)
The title of this post is rather misleading. It implies VirtualBox can run a virtualized 64 bit machine on a 32 bit processor and VMWare cannot. Neither of these are true. It can now host a 64 bit guest VM when the host OS is 32 bits.
Support for 64 bit VM's under 32 bit host OS's has been standard in VMWare's entire line ever since they included 64 bit guest support. Even the service console through ESX 3.5 is a 32 bit VM (Though it's not really fair to call it the "Host" OS)
AFAIK, virtualizing 64 bit guests does still require Intel VT or AMD Pacifica support on the CPU regardless on all products that support 64 bit guests.
Re:Virtualbox is superior to VMware (Score:3, Insightful)
It's true that responsiveness is difficult to evaluate objectively without actually measuring it, but it's still a significant element of a good user experience.
Re:.. and .. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Good products (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Great, needed this as of last week.. (Score:4, Insightful)