Hosted virtualisation suites: a group test
Published: 22 Jun 2009
Manageability & flexibility
VMware Workstation
Upon creating a new virtual machine for our Windows XP test, we were greeted by a unique VMware feature: an unattended install. This is a great time-saver, as XP has a number of prompts that require input throughout the install. Here, you just enter your Windows product key, a username and a password, and VMWare takes care of the rest.
The control panel for virtual machines is well laid-out and easy to use — once again the maturity of this product shines through. It's also the only hypervisor, besides KVM, to explicitly allow editing of the number of cores that a virtual machine can use.
VMware Workstation has a record/playback feature that allows the reproduction of the machine's state, although this did involve dropping the machine back to executing on one core only. It could be useful for debuggers and testers. It also has the ability to run virtual machines' execution in the background and drop the viewing window.
VMware Workstation's management window.
VirtualBox
VirtualBox focuses on one thing — running desktop-focused virtual machines — and does it very well. It's a no-frills approach that keeps VM management dead simple, but removes the flexibility present in other systems.
One problem we encountered was VirtualBox's inability to boot from a NetBSD 5.0 CD. This was the only hypervisor to fail, and was the only outstanding blemish on VirtualBox's record.
All the options for each VM are kept in a separate window, which keeps the VirtualBox interface clean.
Parallels Workstation
While the other hypervisors tend to display a list of virtual machines created within them, Parallels works with its VMs via files. This means that you have to navigate the filesystem and open the file of the VM you wish to use in the same manner as a word processor application, for example. This makes the interface clunky and feel dated in comparison.
Another problem we had with Parallels is that our Windows XP VM required resetting after powering on to boot properly. It's a minor annoyance, but one that can be quite aggravating over time.
The information on each VM is well presented, but it lacks the flexibility of the VMware Workstation or KVM.
Parallels Workstation does a nice job of showing the important configuration settings.
KVM
KVM takes a traditional Unix approach and separates the execution of the virtual machines from the viewer completely. For example, you can have Windows XP running without a window open showing the desktop; it will just run quietly in the background.
Clearly KVM is aimed at a higher level of use than just workstations, and the design reflects this. Although it's recommended you use the available graphical tools, you can revert to XML or a console interface should you wish.
As the KVM viewers are separate from the server, they can connect to KVM hosts that may be running on other machines.
Virtual machines are easy to create and manage easy with the graphical tools, and the ability to drop back into text files gives KVM lots of flexibility and under-the-hood power. With our setup, we could easily create and deploy many Ubuntu virtual machines, an ability which is more at home in the server room.
Along with VMware Workstation, KVM is the only other product that allows you to specify the number of cores available to the virtual machine, showing its 'beyond-workstation' pedigree.
KVM has a tabbed interface, where the VM can be viewed in the 'Console' tab.
Wine
As a program that simply executes Windows programs, the management is left to the user — the applications can live wherever, and Wine will happily execute them.
The flexibility of the system depends on the application, and its status in the Wine Application Database. Unless the program has Platinum status, expect to have problems and minor annoyances as a bare minimum.
There's no question that Wine is meant to imitate Windows.
Previous
Did you find this article useful?
16 out of 16 people found this useful
Full Talkback thread
4 comments
