Virtualization software for slow computers

[Daniel Beaver]

Hey there fellow keyboard wonks, I would like to pick your brains in regards to virtualization software.

I just started in the masters program at the University of Puerto Rico, Mayagüez, and am beginning work on a project involving numerical weather prediction. I spend the bulk of my time tinkering around with Matlab, but there are some other Unix cli tools that I need to use (WRF being the main one).

Right now, I am running them in VirtualBox on a stripped-down Debian instal (basically just xterm and gedit, using Xmonad as a WM), which works okay. My main workstation is an old Dell with a Xeon processor and 1GB of ram, and so it gets slow when it is cranking away at whatever model I am running. So, my main question is which virtualization solution do you think is best for older computers?

I am aware of VMWare, VirtualBox, and Parallels Desktop as being the major virtualization solutions for Windows (Virtual PC seems to have issues with Linux). For a slower machine such as mine, what would be the best option? I can get basically anything I want through the university, except for a faster machine

I am also looking into whether I can get these programs running under cygwin, but my kung-fu may not be strong enough for that.

(I should make this a poll, just to troll everyone)

[iMav]

Personally, I prefer VirtualBox.  It is lightweight and performs noticeably better for me compared to VMWare and Parallels on the same hardware.

[ch_123]

You might want to try Linux's KVM (Kernel Virtual Machine).

Personally, I prefer VirtualBox. It is lightweight and performs noticeably better for me compared to VMWare and Parallels on the same hardware.

I find VMware is a lot more reliable than Virtualbox. If you're dealing with mainstream stuff like Linux and Windows, Virtualbox is probably the better choice. For more obscure stuff, I'd go for VMware. That said, OS/2 runs under Vbox, but not all that well under VMware.

[Daniel Beaver]

Really, VirtualBox is faster? I seem to remember the opposite... but it was a year and a half ago that I used VMware last, so maybe it's true now.

[kidchunks]

Running a virtual machine on top of your main workstation with those kind of hardware specs may just piss you off (personal experience).

Best bet would be to grab another machine or try and get cygwin to run your required tools. Would be far less mem and cpu hungry than running a virtual machine then running your unix tools.

[hate]

even as a long time vmware user i must admit vbox has come a long way and is about on par with performance right now for small projects.

[instantkamera]

You are a windows host running Linux virtually, correct? If so, scratch KVM.

- I would generally have to agree on VBox, when compared to the similar VMWare product (workstation), Vbox IS faster, and also free. VMware DOES give away "server" and "player", the latter being somewhat useless and the former probably not REALLY what you are after, but maybe give it a try anyway? Cant hurt.

- get yoself some more ramz. That's going to be a particularly problematic area, since 1G is low by ANY standard. Dont tell me the uni wont splurge, you are on a forum where people buy $200+ keyboards. Ram should be cheap, so buy it yourself if'n you have to.

- Ditch X in that nix install. learn to use vi/vim (or emacs or nano/pico or...), there is no reason to use a gui just for a basic text editor.

- use cygwin (which you already mentioned). What is it you are doing in *nix anyway?

[Daniel Beaver]

- Ditch X in that nix install. learn to use vi/vim (or emacs or nano/pico or...), there is no reason to use a gui just for a basic text editor.

- use cygwin (which you already mentioned). What is it you are doing in *nix anyway?

I'm moving towards one of these two routes. I only need to run CLI applications, so I'll do without X. What sort of limitations does cygwin have?

[woody]

What sort of limitations does cygwin have?

Kinda slow, but it might not be your bottleneck.

[Daniel Beaver]

Kinda slow, but it might not be your bottleneck.

Yeah, I just noticed how damn slow it is - I thought it would be faster.

[digitalleftovers]

I also vote for VirtualBox.  The issue of whether or not you will need more than a gig of ram just depends on how resource intensive your guest and host OSs are.  I have run linux and xp on the same machine with virtual box before with only 512MB of RAM and found both to be usable (I wasn't running and big apps like office, though).  I also recommend lighter versions of linux; Either gentoo based or the stripped down debian variants like lubuntu or crunchbang.

[D-EJ915]

You might want to try Linux's KVM (Kernel Virtual Machine).



I find VMware is a lot more reliable than Virtualbox. If you're dealing with mainstream stuff like Linux and Windows, Virtualbox is probably the better choice. For more obscure stuff, I'd go for VMware. That said, OS/2 runs under Vbox, but not all that well under VMware.

KVM requires virtualization extensions anyway and old dell+xeon = P4 = no 64 bit

I like Virtualbox, even though vmware can be free I prefer virtualbox, it seems more responsive.

[Tantalus]

I'm running Virtualbox on Ubuntu 10.10. with nothing but an Intel Atom 1.6ghz and 1gb ram and it emulates windows xp without a hitch. Well I lie I cannot play videos within xp kills every bit of performance lol.

VMware is more stable then virtual box in my opinion but VB is lighter as said before.

[ch_123]

KVM requires virtualization extensions anyway and old dell+xeon = P4 = no 64 bit

I like Virtualbox, even though vmware can be free I prefer virtualbox, it seems more responsive.

Correct. Forgot about that.

Would Xen be an option here?

[theferenc]

Xen only runs on Unix-like OSes, according to its docs.

[ashort]

ESXi from VMware - you can download and use it for free.  You get a fairly rich toolset (for it being FREE) to manage it.  You have to dedicate a box to it, but it doesn't come with the overhead of another operating system, the hypervisor IS the OS.  Installs in about 3 minutes as an appliance.  Love it.

The only thing I don't love is that you can't map a physical volume to a drive in a virtual machine.  That's what keeps me from running FreeNAS in ESXi.

If you can burn the machine for it, ignore VMware's compatibility list and give it a shot on an old box, stuffed with as much memory as you can put in it.

[ashort]

BTW, I run it off a thumb drive so I don't burn any hard drive space for the hypervisor/OS.

[D-EJ915]

ESXi from VMware - you can download and use it for free.  You get a fairly rich toolset (for it being FREE) to manage it.  You have to dedicate a box to it, but it doesn't come with the overhead of another operating system, the hypervisor IS the OS.  Installs in about 3 minutes as an appliance.  Love it.

The only thing I don't love is that you can't map a physical volume to a drive in a virtual machine.  That's what keeps me from running FreeNAS in ESXi.

If you can burn the machine for it, ignore VMware's compatibility list and give it a shot on an old box, stuffed with as much memory as you can put in it.

You would have to run the older version of ESXi (I think it is 3.5) for 32-bit CPUs that doesn't require a 64-bit CPU or virtualization extensions.

[cbf123]

Have you considered trying to get some time on a computer owned by a colleague in another location?  Maybe someone would be willing to give you a shell account on a more powerful machine?

If that's not an option, maybe you can get your hands on a second machine?

[mail2345]

coLinux/CooperativeLinux
I remember it being fairly fast. Main issue is a lack of 64 bit support(as well as the fact that it's black magic).

[ashort]

Another thought:  Amazon web services will give you free use of a Linux vm for a year.  You build it with their image.