• 0

Lightest virtual machine software?


Go to solution Solved by Haggis,

Question

duoi

Hi all,

 

I'm interested in running Lubuntu on VM. For this specific device I'm limited in processing power (1.3ghz i3), RAM (4gb), and harddrive space (64gb), so I'm looking for the lightest possible VM in my situation.

 

I don't intend for the VM to be special, and I won't be playing videos on it or anything: I'd just be using it for various command line stuff.

 

Regards,

Steven

Link to post
Share on other sites

7 answers to this question

Recommended Posts

  • 0
Haggis

I use virtualbox

 

I used it on a Core 2 Duo with 4gb ram and it ran just fine 

 

In mine i played about with coding and different applications that i wanted to try out without messing up my own system

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
snaphat (Myles Landwehr)

Lightest in terms of what? Resource and performance wise there isn't going to be much of a difference between any of the regular contenders. I'd say the largest performance difference (and bottleneck) tends to be container access times (last I heard, vhdx containers were the best in that regard). Personally, I've noticed that I get the best performance if I drop the VM on a raw drive and skip the container altogether. I don't know of anyone who really does this though.

 

Here's some simple results showing performance between vmware and vbox: http://xmodulo.com/2013/07/vmware-player-vs-virtualbox-performance-comparison.html ; you'll note that there isn't much of a different on anything but I/O.

 

In general, the only way you'll be able to lower performance overheads for virtualization is to use a Type-1 hypervisor (like Hyper-V for example) (Wikipedia discusses the types), but in practice these are going to be less convenient to use because they lack some of integration you see in Type-2 hypervisors (ex. 3D acceleration, seamless modes).

 

I use Hyper-V myself but I'd recommend Virtualbox for ease of use and features. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
duoi

Virtualbox it is. Seems to clash with Spotify for some reason, but that's okay.

 

Cheers!

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
Gotenks98

I would say hyper-v, but the issue isn't the hyper-visor so to speak but the base stats of the machine your hosting it from. That makes more of a difference than the hyper-visor it self. Personally I would never attempt virtualization unless its on a beefier machine than what you have now. It would just run too slow for me.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
+BudMan

So your installing the minimal core then..  Without the desktop? or X, etc.  since you state command line..  Your box is plenty powerful to handle something like that running 24/7/365 even without even noticing it on the host OS.. Give it say 256MB of ram and you should be good to go for command line functions.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
ditoax

My current computer is a 2.53Ghz Core 2 Duo with 4GB RAM (Dell Studio 17 laptop for those interested) from 2008 and I use VMs on it all the time with VMware Workstation. 

 

My host OS is 8.1 x64 and I have VMs for XP, Windows Server (many versions), 7 and 8.1 as well as several Linux distros from Arch to Ubuntu. You will be fine with any i series processor if I am fine with a Core 2 Duo :yes:

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
PGHammer

My current computer is a 2.53Ghz Core 2 Duo with 4GB RAM (Dell Studio 17 laptop for those interested) from 2008 and I use VMs on it all the time with VMware Workstation. 

 

My host OS is 8.1 x64 and I have VMs for XP, Windows Server (many versions), 7 and 8.1 as well as several Linux distros from Arch to Ubuntu. You will be fine with any i series processor if I am fine with a Core 2 Duo :yes:

Oracle VirtualBox will also work with a Celeron DC E3xxx (which also has VT-x) - this particular Celeron is a cut-down Wolfdale Core 2 Duo.  Unlike the Conroe-based Celeron DC E1xxx, these Celerons *kept* VT-x hardware-virtualization support.  (In LGA775, I went E1200->E3400->Q6600, which I have today - in the same P5G41-M LX2/GB.  The Q6600 upgrade was planned to go to Mom - not me; however, that was right around the beginning of the Great Recession - which has kept my upgrade plans stalled ever since.  To give you an idea how long ago THAT was, LGA1155 - Sandy Bridge - was not even three months old.)

 

If you want more modern virtualization, which, with the right CPU or OS, is skinnier than either VMware or VirtualBox, then you want Hyper-V.  Hyper-V, however, has a bit of a "gotcha" - it's unique to Windows (Windows Server 2008 or newer OR Windows 8 or newer).  The bigger "gotcha" is actually on the Windows 8 side - on Windows 8 or newer, Hyper-V's client requires support for Extended Processor Tables in the CPU.  Windows Server does NOT have that requirement - not in any version of Windows Server, including 2012R2; in Windows Server, the requirements are identical to those of VMware or Oracle VirtualBox.  It is the lack of EPT which has me with Windows 8.1 update 1 and Server 2012R2 (with the second as a virtualization station) - the only quibble is the lack of audio in the virtual machines.  If audio is important, stick with VMware or Oracle VirtualBox - if it isn't, do considewr Hyper-V.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.