[PATCH] Add a VirtualBox section to Handbook's 'Virtualization' chapter

[Manolis Kiagias]

Simon L. Nielsen wrote:
> On 2009.07.19 11:34:38 -0400, Tom Rhodes wrote:
>   
>> On Sun, 19 Jul 2009 11:02:59 +0300
>> Manolis Kiagias <sonicy at otenet.gr> wrote:
>>
>>     
>>> Marc G. Fournier wrote:
>>>       
>>>> On Sat, 18 Jul 2009, Manolis Kiagias wrote:
>>>>
>>>>         
>>>>> But isn't qemu distinctly different in the way it works from a
>>>>> virtualization program like VMWare or VirtualBox? I think the first
>>>>> paragraph serves well as a gentle introduction to the topic.
>>>>>           
>>>> How different?  Wine, I could see, but qemu?  Please elaborate ...
>>>>         
>>> AFAIK qemu also provides processor emulation, thus is mostly referred to
>>> as an emulator rather than a virtual machine. I am no expert on this
>>> though - I've used qemu in the past but could never get the level of
>>> performance possible with VirtualBox or VMWare (which beats them both I
>>> believe).
>>>       
>> Interesting - see, I tried doing an install of qemu a long
>> while ago but never went beyond installing it.  Though, from
>> what I have read, I would not consider it a "virtual machine
>> host solution" either.  While I understand it runs image files,
>> I don't think it's geared for several OS images, running
>> concurrently.  Again, note, I only installed - and when the
>> image I had (passed by a friend) failed to run, I just removed
>> it.
>>     
>
> I really don't see the big difference between qemu and VMware /
> Virtual Box.  qemu is more flexible in hardware support - VMware (and
> Virtual Box?) is faster.
>
> Just like VMware server multiple concurrent virtual machines just run
> in different processes.  Yes, qemu is slower than VMware but e.g. for
> testing og kernel hacking it works nicely.  I can't comment on Virtual
> Box's speed as I haven't tried it.
>
> [reordered]
>
>   
>>> The paragraph was loosely based on the original one stating "No
>>> virtualization solution for FreeBSD as a host". Seems the original
>>> author also did not consider qemu as a virtual machine in this sense.
>>>       
>
> Yes, it came from there, it wasn't any more correct IMO there :-).
>
> I guess my basic problem with the paragraph is that it seems to me to
> be praising Sun a tad much for releasing Virtual Box while ignoring
> that qemu has been available freely for years, but perhaps that's just
> me.
>
>   

This is a good point, and one I have not actually considered.
I believe Qemu is not mentioned anywhere in the Handbook and I guess it
deserves a place here.

> Anyway, I think I made my point and I will let it be up to Manolis as
> the author was should be in the section and what should not.
>
>   
I will start writing a section on qemu. Installation is probably easier
than VirtualBox, but since this is actually a command line tool, it will
be interesting to show a few examples on installing a guest system etc. 
Will then rephrase this introduction paragraph accordingly.  Will send
in the patch for review here when it is ready (I need to brush up a bit
on my qemu skills, haven't used it for a while).

I have the patches for the trademark stuff you suggested and will commit
them later on tonight - when my afternoon headache is hopefully over...

Thanks!