I have a few questions about running a linux distro in a vm on a linux box. I have read up about how to get Ethernet working over a bridge, but have not yet got to installing the system, etc.
(1) When the qemu session is running, is it smart to use the xserver on
I have a few questions about running a linux distro in a vm on a linux box. I have read up about how to get Ethernet working over a bridge, but have not yet got to installing the system, etc.
hey, stop right now and run proxmox
Dumas Walker wrote to All <=-
@VIA: VERT/CAPCITY2
@TZ: c12c
I have a few questions about running a linux distro in a vm on a linux box. I have read up about how to get Ethernet working over a bridge,
but have not yet got to installing the system, etc.
(1) When the qemu session is running, is it smart to use the xserver on the vm instance? If I am not using the xserver and running the vm instance in console mode, will qemu catch certain keystrokes like ctrl-alt-2 so I can switch to tty2 (for example) or will that keystroke combo be interpreted by the host machine?
(2) If I can follow the directions and get the Ethernet bride working correctly, so that the network can see both the host and vm, I assume I can also do things like mount nfs shares in the vm. Is that a correct assumption?
(3) Will I be able to access other hardware while in the vm, like a usb port and whatever might be connected to it?
I have run DOS in a vm on a linux box, but I expect this to be
different. :)
---
þ Synchronet þ CAPCITY2 * CCO BBS * capcity2.synchro.net
It depends on the purpose of the VM. For example: I have a VM that
handles just mail. I have no XServer on it because I only access it
through shell or with the email client.
If you are using QEMU/KVM or LXD you can.
(3) Will I be able to access other hardware while in the vm, like a usb port and whatever might be connected to it?
Yes. It must be in the config file of the guest OS. If you are using QEMU/KVM I suggest virt-manager to help you visualize the management of
the config files. It makes it a lot easier and faster than writing
your own config files.
Happy computing. I have a few servers. Most have both KVM/QEMU and
LXD virtuals/containers on them. I've found that VirtualBox does a
wonderful job. It's just that it is very similar to KVM/QEMU and I
don't see a purpose for it on a Linux Machine. However, I do have
VirtualBox running on my Microsoft Hosts.
It sounds like he's trying to run a Linux VM on top of an already working linux system. why would you suggest he wipe his system and install a specialized hypervisor like Promoxox?
I don't have experience with qemu, but I've used VMWare and VirtualBox and I think both work well.
hey, stop right now and run proxmox
I was really into Proxmox until I realized their pricing model and what proxmox actually is in comparison to running the bare services on your server. They have a wonderful web UI but if you're looking to scale, look to give them money for each CPU you license AFAIR.
Proxmox is free to use. Without the community license (about $93 per
year, per physical cpu socket), you simply don't get access to actual support or their update repository, so all updates have to be done
manually.
Exactly. Trying to emulate a 32-bit install on a working 64-bit machine. Proxmox looks pretty neat but I like the linux distro I currently have. :)
once you virtualize you can mix and match your vms, my bbs is a 32bit ubuntu vm, and i have a lamp server (ubuntu 64bit) concurently and a windows box a lubuntu and another vm debian 64.
You could even virtualize a win95 if you felt like it.
This is pretty much what I do with my other BBS. I am running MajorBBS on Windows XP in a Virtual Machine on MacOS. I have an old 2006 Black Macbook that was collecting dust. I was going to sell it when I decided to turn it into a MajorBBS server and it actually runs surprisingly well.
If you would have told me in the early 1990's that I'd be running MajorBBS on a Apple computer in 2018, I wouldn't have believed you, lol.
Yeah, things can change a lot. I'm not sure there was much virtualization software for the Mac before they started using Intel processors. I've heard rumors that Apple is planning to switch to ARM processors for their Mac starting in 2020 though.
Yeah, things can change a lot. I'm not sure there was much
virtualization software for the Mac before they started using Intel
processors. I've heard rumors that Apple is planning to switch to ARM
processors for their Mac starting in 2020 though.
I've heard that Apple was making their own processors, not ARM.
Yeah, things can change a lot. I'm not sure there was much
virtualization software for the Mac before they started using Intel
processors. I've heard rumors that Apple is planning to switch to ARM
processors for their Mac starting in 2020 though.
I've heard that Apple was making their own processors, not ARM.
Well ARM actually doesn't make processors, ARM makes processor designs and licenses the designs to other companies to make their own processors with AR designs. So Apple would be making their own ARM-based processor.
Well ARM actually doesn't make processors, ARM makes processor designs
and licenses the designs to other companies to make their own
processors with AR designs. So Apple would be making their own
ARM-based processor.
Kind of like RISC? Although, I have heard that RISC is more open than ARM.
With ARM licensing their designs, that would make sense for Apple ro make their own ARM chips. I would beinterested how that will work out for them both sales wise and software wise.
On 10-17-18 14:31, Jagossel wrote to Nightfox <=-
With ARM licensing their designs, that would make sense for Apple ro
make their own ARM chips. I would beinterested how that will work out
for them both sales wise and software wise.
Apple has switched CPUs in their Macs a couple times before (once from Motorola 68k to PowerPC, and then from PowerPC to Intel). I'm sure they will probably be okay. I think it's a little disappointing though, because Macs with Intel means they can run both OS X and Windows easily. Compatibility will suffer a bit, but that will be temporary. But there will probably be a point where Intel-based Mac apps won't be updated to run on ARM-based Macs, so Mac users won't be able to use them anymore.
only difference between a 68k and PowerPC was 16-bti vs. 32-bit, the changet o Intel was significated because the Intel CPU wasn't compabible with 68k/PPC code which is why for a while OSx could run on both CPUs until they had enough of an Intel base that they phased out support for Motorola CPUs in 10.5.x (Leopard I think).
Apple has never been one for Windows, and at this point I don't think it
matters what CPU the platform runs on. Also, doesn't Win10 run on ARM CPUs? I used to love Apple systems, now they are just sealed bloatware.
only difference between a 68k and PowerPC was 16-bti vs. 32-bit, the changet o Intel was significated because the Intel CPU wasn't compabible with 68k/PPC code which is why for a while OSx could run on
hmm, I always thought the transition from 68k to PowerPC was also significant because the PowerPC used a different instruction set. I've always heard Apple had to use emulation to be backwards-compatible with 68k. "Perhaps the most important feature of the new Power Macs was Apple's inclusion of a 680x0 emulator as part of Mac OS, which allowed PowerPC Macs to run most existing software efficiently on the new processors, much as Rosetta would later allow Intel Macs ro run PowerPC software."
It's actually more significant than that, even. The PowerPC's emulation of the 68k is actually at the hardware level, rather than in software. Since the PowerPC was developed by Apple, IBM, and Motorola, one of it's main functions was specifically to replace the 68k, and software-level emulation at that point wasn't anywhere near efficient enough to do so effectively. So the emulation is built into the chips themselves.
It's actually more significant than that, even. The PowerPC's emulation of the 68k is actually at the hardware level, rather than in software.
Interesting.. I do remember hearing somewhere that Mac software for 68k sometimes ran better on the PowerPC - Probably due to the hardware backwards compatibility.
| Sysop: | fluid |
|---|---|
| Location: | wickliffe, ohio |
| Users: | 5 |
| Nodes: | 10 (0 / 10) |
| Uptime: | 201:04:06 |
| Calls: | 50 |
| Files: | 15,838 |
| Messages: | 50,734 |