Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!
Not really missing anything Pondy but early days and wondering if it lacked something others didn't.
So far so good, got CentOS working with all the trimmings but all I really need is to connect to it via a terminal. Haven't tried any MS OS's yet which may or may not be a challenge.
I found it faster than VMware Workstation on my kit. I have been using it for a couple of years with both Linux and Windows hosts.
One problem I found with the VMware products was they they tried to be "too helpful" by filling in OS installation questions for you, and if you were installing a Linux flavour it didn't recognise it could supply the wrong answers. That bit is done by Perl scripts, but my Perl is somewhat weak so I didn't fancy doing customised stuff.
I understand that for remote access of the VBox GUI you need the Extensions Pack, and that is the commercial bit. The Personal Use, Education and Evaluation License (PUEL) on their web site is out of date so you need to read the one that's presented during installation. The Extensions Pack also gives direct USB 2.0 access and PXE boot.
But as far as I can tell you can do everything from the command line.
KVM and Xen virtual machine packages are also supported in CentOS, but I haven't tried either of those yet.
Behold the warranty -- the bold print giveth and the fine print taketh away.
I found it faster than VMware Workstation on my kit. I have been using it for a couple of years with both Linux and Windows hosts.
One problem I found with the VMware products was they they tried to be "too helpful" by filling in OS installation questions for you, and if you were installing a Linux flavour it didn't recognise it could supply the wrong answers. That bit is done by Perl scripts, but my Perl is somewhat weak so I didn't fancy doing customised stuff.
I understand that for remote access of the VBox GUI you need the Extensions Pack, and that is the commercial bit. The Personal Use, Education and Evaluation License (PUEL) on their web site is out of date so you need to read the one that's presented during installation. The Extensions Pack also gives direct USB 2.0 access and PXE boot.
But as far as I can tell you can do everything from the command line.
KVM and Xen virtual machine packages are also supported in CentOS, but I haven't tried either of those yet.
It's been a couple of years, but I seem to remember VMWare Workstation had better management of snapshots than VB, and I think I could drag and drop files between Windows host and guest in VMWare, which I can't do in VB. And VB has a GUI but gives additional options and functionality on the command line, which is way too sandle-wearing open-sourcey for me.
I'd say VirtualBox is 99% as good, and 100% cheaper.
Not sure what you mean by remote access but I connect to mine via ssh and port forwarding.
Do you mean ssh into the clients or the host?
The Extension Pack enables RDP to a headless system. The VirtualBox website is either down or very slow at the moment, maybe affected by Sandy, so I'll point to VirtualBox VBoxHeadless, the remote desktop server.
I use samba to connect to windows shares and network storage. All works on the free version.
You don't need the Extension Pack to create VirtualBox shares for a client, so you don't need Samba for shares provided by the host (though it will come in handy if you want shares on other hosts). I haven't looked at the performance of one VBox shares versus Samba ones. On this topic I came across a bit of the VMware documentation which warns against giving Windows clients write access to shares (malware and all that), which is obvious when you think about it.
There are some "Paravirtualized network drivers" available for Windows clients which are apparently more efficient.
Comment