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

[Juergen Lock]

On Sun, Jul 19, 2009 at 08:11:42PM +0300, Manolis Kiagias wrote:
> 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).

Actually I started a handbook section on qemu a while ago already, see
this thread:
	http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-doc/2008-December/015248.html

 So it was worked on, but apparently never got committed...

 Just thought I'd mention... :)
	Juergen