On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 9:23 PM, zxq9 <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> On Monday 07 April 2014 10:41:26 Yasha Karant wrote:
>
>> However, I have not used VirtualBox in a mission-critical server
>> environment.  If anyone else has experience with the Oracle pre-packaged
>> VMs under VirtualBox in a distributed server environment, I would
>> appreciate additional observations.  On a reasonably well provisioned
>> workstation, VirtualBox running MS Win 7 (and previous MS Wins) displays
>> no real end user experience degradation (long load or execute times,
>> crashes, etc.).  However, a mission critical server can experience a
>> very different workload than a workstation, and it is important to be
>> able to predict significant end user service degradation due to the
>> virtualization overhead -- particularly in real-world use (not
>> simulations or highly controlled environments).
>
> I doubt you would have serious problems, but it may be important to consider
> what the future of a VirtualBox setup might look like compared to, say, a KVM
> one. KVM is the most commonly applied solution in Linux clouds and server
> spaces, regardless the details of the guests. I've never seen a serious server

Name 2. Seriously. The KVM management tools are *not* good., at least
in Scientific Linux 6 or the upstream vendor's toolkits, because the
underlying libvirt toolkit is trying to do too many things at once and
therefore getting each different virtualization technology wrong in
different ways.

If you think I'm kidding, go ahead and configure pair-bonding in the
virtual appliances.