Why the hell would you use VirtualBox as "production"? Some stupid MSI "OC Certified" motherboard Server 1 (don't laugh, I didn't build it, but it's more a gaming computer than a server): I've got a Samba server going, I've got a windows VM that runs Vipre spiceworks and security camera viewer, then I have one more that hosts our quickbooks files. I'd love to tell you what kind of VMware, but there isn't really any documentation on it.Īs for the server set up, it's not large.
#Vmware vs virtualbox hardware free#
It is good to point out that Hyper-V 2012 is different then previous where it is baremetal (type 1?) and is free to use as such Out of curiosity how big is your VB server? WHat are it's specs? For Vritualising Windows servers, Hyper-V in Server 2012 R2 now gets my vote, especially given the licensing costs. Virtualising Unix/Linux I'd be recommending VMware. If you were starting out from scratch, I'd ask what parts of your infrastructure you are virtualising.
To some degree, if VB works - then it's fixed and not broken.
The same with HyperV where System Center is generally considered a good thing.
#Vmware vs virtualbox hardware full#
When your pal says use VMware, which VMware? You can get a workstation version *(not freeware)* or the richer ESX., The later if free, but if you want to manage it, you'll probably want/need the full vSphere product. VB works well enough, but I never felt it was really the right tool for serious visualization projects - for that I'd be looking at VMware (ESX) and/or Hyper-V. it was not really designed to be used in a big environment where you are virtualising your core infrastructure. Virtual Box is aimed, at least in my view, at the workstation user who needs another VM or two to handle legacy issues.
0 kommentar(er)
