Hosted virtualisation suites: a group test
Published: 22 Jun 2009
Verdict
Based on our tests and interaction with the product, the only option we would rule out is Parallels Workstation. Even though it's the cheapest of the non-free options, the trouble that it gave and the continual need to reset the VM immediately after powering it up struck it off the list. Some of these issues would immediately be ruled out if you're using Parallels on the Mac OS X platform, where it's much more mature.
If you user a Linux workstation and need to run one or two Windows applications, and you don't need a full-blown virtualisation solution, then Wine is the best way to go. The applications are much quicker than they would be in a hypervisor, but do have the caveat that they may not work exactly as you expect in Windows.
KVM is here as a hosted virtualisation suite, but is generally up against workstation-focused software rather than server software, which is its natural terrain. Due to its lack of performance and problems with graphics rendering, KVM is not recommended for pure workstation purposes. However, if you don't mind tinkering with Linux and need to deploy multiple copies of the host operating system — for example in multiple Ubuntu instances — then KVM could work for you.
In the server room, KVM does find itself up against products more in line with what we covered previously. Even so, considering that it's free, easily available on Linux and can replicate its host OS easily, it definitely has a place at the workstation table. However, it's not the winner.
That leaves two products in line for the title: VMware Workstation and VirtualBox.
The clear tear-away from the pack in terms of performance was VirtualBox. When VirtualBox works it's very good and only has issues on the rarest of occasions. The new 3D acceleration built into the product gives it a leg-up on the competition and the fact that it's free only sweetens the deal. A minor grey cloud on VirtualBox's horizon is the recent purchase of Sun Microsystems, the current developer of VirtualBox, by Oracle. It's unlikely that Oracle will kill the product, but it could be tempted to merge it with its own virtualisation solutions or make it more enterprise-focused.
VMware Workstation is highly configurable and built by a company that knows virtualisation. During testing, it was faultless and the management systems were top notch. Although its performance stats were not the best, the feel of the system is not slow. The ability to record a VM session will definitely find a niche.
What is our final recommendation?
If you must have 100 per cent compatibility, certainty and would like support, then VMware should be your choice.
But provided you're not trying to boot NetBSD 5.0, we would recommend VirtualBox. It's fast, easy to use and has that sweet price point — free.
Previous
Did you find this article useful?
16 out of 16 people found this useful
Full Talkback thread
4 comments
