[lug] Disregard: Re: Virtualization w/Windows host, was something else

[Chip Atkinson]

Sorry, hit send rather than cancel.
Chip

On Mon, 21 Dec 2009, Chip Atkinson wrote:

> 
> 
> On Sun, 29 Nov 2009, karl horlen wrote:
> 
> > > I lost the thread and the subject
> > > wasn't related hence my subject.  
> > 
> > that's ok, glad to pick it up here since it's sort of a separate topic
> > 
> > > In reply to the question about virtualization, I've had
> > > good luck with
> > > virtual box on a windows XP host and ubuntu guest.  I
> > 
> > good to know
> > 
> > > I haven't used vmware in recent months but the advantage of
> > > virtualbox is
> > > that you can take multiple snapshots.
> > 
> > in terms of virtualization, what do you mean by snapshots?  i understand the concept in terms of a backup but not sure how it relates to vms.
> > 
> > SOME OTHER GENERAL VIRT QUESTIONS
> > 
> > also, after looking at some online virtualization documentation, this
> stuff appears easier than i thought.  i originally thought you had to work
> a lot of magic to make an non virtual os host a virtual host os but it
> appears you simply
> > 
> > a) download a pkg or executable (for windows) and install the sucker
> > and fire it up
> > 
> > b) you create your vdisk for your guest
> > 
> > c) start up the guest and install to it
> > 
> > Q1]
> > 
> > simple. are these pretty universal install and config procedures for
> > the plethora of virtualization options that exist out there today?
> > 
> > Q2]
> > 
> > i get the impression most of these options are pretty robust these
> > days.  after all some have been out for quite a long time.  last thing
> > i'd want to do is setup virtualization and muck up my system.  can
> > someone confirm the *general* robustness of these suckers today and
> > when and if something goes wrong, what percentage usually gets borked
> > : the host, the guest, both, etc?  is it something you can usually
> > recover from.  i guess i'd be ok if my guest got borked but i
> > definitely wouldn't want my host OS to get hosed.
> > 
> > Q3]
> > 
> > when you install virtualization sw on a host, if you don't start up a
> > guest vm are you still incurring a performance penalty hit?  i'm
> > assuming this stuff is running at the kernel level, even in scnearios
> > where from what i can tell the guest is HW virtualization.  if there
> > is a performance or resource hit from a vm host not running any
> > guests, how minimal is it?  does it eat up a lot of ram and cpu cycles
> > or is some percentage say 90% only when the guest vm starts up?  
> > looking for generalizations / rough estimates here.
> > 
> > Q4]
> > 
> > finally, as i reacquaint myself with virtualization, can someone
> > clarify the virtualization networking term which is used to describe
> > the scenario where you want a guest's network interface to look like
> > it's on the same external lan it's host is connected to?  sort of like
> > they're peers to the corp internal lan.  is that what's known as
> > 'bridging'?  this will help me google come network configuration time.
> > 
> > i think the virtualization networking scenarios and terms are what
> > confused me with virtualization a couple of years ago.  if anybody has
> > a link to good explanations of virtual networking terms and scenarios
> > that'd be greatly appreciated.
> > 
> > thanks
> > 
> > 
> >       _______________________________________________ Web Page:  
> > http://lug.boulder.co.us Mailing List:
> > http://lists.lug.boulder.co.us/mailman/listinfo/lug Join us on IRC:
> > lug.boulder.co.us port=6667 channel=#hackingsociety
> > 
> 
> 
>