Hypervisor Help

[dsavitsk]

I am trying to simlify my life, and it is proving to be really complicated. Here's the story -- I would like to run a bunch of different software all on one computer. Most of it is not cross platform, or for one reason or another, I want to use various OSes for various tasks. Also, most of it is not goig to be in use all the time, but it would be nice if it was running when I needed it without a lot of configuration, and it would be nice to run much of it at the same time. Ideally, making this feel like a bunch of computers conected to a KVM would be perfect.

So, for instance, I would like an automated cd ripper, a squeezebox server, and a music player. VortexBox will do all of that reasonably well. I would also like to connect to a TV for Netflix, other videos, and whatnot. VB is not appropriate. I tried installing X to it to make it Fedora, but certain things don't seem to work (Silverlight), so it looks like I'll need Windows. Additionally, I need to run FreeBSD for some software development. I also would like to run SQL Server as well as some custom servers that need Windows.

So, a hypervisor seems like the right solution. First thought was Fedora/VortexBox as a host with everything else as clients. But, VB is built on 32 bit Fedora, so canot address enough memory for the other OSes to also run (computer has 8G). Additionally, I only have XP32, so Windows won't make a good host for the same reason. FreeBSD can't operate as a VMWare host, so that's out, too (VirtualBox has never seemed to work well for me -- but maybe worth another shot?). I have tried Ubuntu (or Fedora) 64 as a host, but this adds the complexity of clients within the host, and not being able to switch easilly between them, as with a KVM. This may end up being the only solution, but I don't really like it -- i was hoping for a keyboard shortcut to switch window views so that each OS could runit its own pane, but that does not seem to work, either.

I also tried VSphere5, but the issue there is that it does not show local desktops -- as far as I can tell, you have to have a client computer to see the guest desktops, which defeats the whole purpose here. So, is there another way to do this -- a hypervisor that runs on the metal that can output the client desktops to the local monitor? Any other solutions?

[tkam]

I was going to suggest vmware esxi but I'm pretty sure it can't accomplish this part of your requirements:

metal that can output the client desktops to the local monitor? Any other solutions?

Otherwise I think it's the perfect solution.

[crappyjones123]

That made my head hurt.

It seems hard to maintain. Something is bound to go bad while configuration or just running the damn thing. I'd just spring for cheap hardware for non critical stuff. Probably cost the same as the license for a software that does what you are trying to do. Install everything and let it be on its own on a switch in the house somewhere and rdp or vnc into it when needed. Just a few strokes more than clicking the desktop button. Keep one Linux box and one pc. I honestly think it would be much easier to maintain and way easier to troubleshoot. I realize not what you asked for but consider it. We had a little box running centos for a game server in our apartment. All admin stuff was done via vnc. FTP was used to update maps. Game files updated automatically. I think in the 3 years we maybe physically accessed the box like 5 times. The box was also running a host of other things that didnt require beefy hardware but needed a whole lot of bandwidth never had any issues.

Edited April 4, 2012 by crappyjones123

[ujamerstand]

indeed. One more vote for multiple machines, one for each job. Setup VNC or ssh depending on your needs. Definitely less headache than managing all these different OSes on the same machine!

OTOH, VirtualBox has been working well for me till I needed access to hardware plugged into the computer, so I'm not sure if that's an all-in-one-solution for you. I'd probably load freebsd on a VM if you're only doing software development on it though.

[dsavitsk]

I was going to suggest vmware esxi

That's the same as vsphere -- they just renamed it in marketing suff, though when you install it still says esxi.

I'd just spring for cheap hardware for non critical stuff.

It isn't a money issue, or a hardware issue, it is a space and noise issue (and in the summer, heat -- if I manageto get this all working, i was going to pick up a 35W i3). Our apartment is tiny, so I am trying to pare down to one quiet computer -- essentially the promise of virtualization. In the end you may be right, but there are a few more things to try (downloading MS Hyper V 8 beta right now ...)

I did just successfully go from 3 laptops down to one using VMWare player for a bunch of stuff

Edited April 4, 2012 by dsavitsk

[dsavitsk]

Well, I think you guys are right. I have been defeated. It does not seem that the MS hypervisor, like vSphere, will output to the local monitor. Seems really bizarre to me, as it makes it so that the MS product does not differentiate itself in any way from VMWare, but is just an inferior product, so what's the point? The one I didn't try is Linux KVM, but I can't quite make heads or tails of the fm, so I am leaving it be. The upside is that once the bulk ripping is done, the needs will change and VMWare Player will be OK. Until then, I guess I am just running a Vortexbox.

[luvdunhill]

What if each guest operating system ran a remote window manager (rdp, vnc, etc) and then the host just displayed each on a different monitor/desktop/ whatever? I use KVM usually, but that is due to the specialized work I do that more or less requires it.

Edited April 4, 2012 by luvdunhill

[Pars]

Seems really bizarre to me, as it makes it so that the MS product does not differentiate itself in any way from VMWare, but is just an inferior product, so what's the point?

Kinda seems to be a common theme with them...