OmniOS r151014 LTS installed under ESXi. Ubuntu guest given VMware para-virtual driversĢ – VM under ESXi 6 using NFS storage from OmniOS VM via VT-d. Storage shared with VMware via NFSv3, virtual storage network on VMXNET3. The environments were setup as follows: 1 – VM under ESXi 6 using NFS storage from FreeNAS 9.3 VM via VT-d I only tested an Ubuntu guest because it’s the only distribution I run in (in quantity anyway) addition to FreeBSD, I suppose a more thorough test should include other operating systems. The results are the average of the next 5 test runs. I ran each test 5 times on each platform to warm up the ARC. OS defaults are left as is, I didn’t try to tweak the number of NFS servers, sd.conf, etc. Guest (where tests are run): Ubuntu 14.04 LTS, 16GB, 4 cores, 1GB memory. One DC S3700 100GB over-provisioned to 8GB used as the log device. 4 x HGST Ultrastar 7K300 HGST 2TB enterprise drives in RAID-Z. IBM ServerRaid M1015 flashed to IT mode. In all environments the following parameters were used: This is running on my X10SDV-F Datacenter in a Box Build. 
You really only need to run bhyve when virtualizing a different OS.īhyve is still pretty young, but I thought I’d run some tests to see where it’s at… Environments In fact, FreeBSD may end up becoming the best all-in-one virtualization/storage platform. A type-2 hypervisor that supports ZFS appears to have a clear advantage (at least theoretically) over a type-1 for this type of setup. Which is all fine but it could actually be a disadvantage if you wanted some of those features (like ZFS). It seems you could take a Linux distribution running KVM and take away features until at some point it becomes a Type-1 hypervisor. Type-1 proponents say the hypervisor runs on bare metal instead of an OS… I’m not sure how VMware isn’t considered an OS except that it is a purpose-built OS and probably smaller.
I’ve never understood the advantage of type-1 hypervisors (such as VMware and Xen) over Type-2 hypervisors (like KVM and bhyve).
0 kommentar(er)
