Greg Woods wrote: >On Thu, 2010-04-08 at 15:34 -0500, Dennis Gilmore wrote: >> Im curious why you use virtualbox and not kvm/libvirt/virt-manager that are >> included by default in fedora? Im just trying to work out what is lacking in >> the default offerings that you go to a third party. > >I can't speak for the original poster, but for me, KVM is buggy, and >doesn't work at all without hardware virtualization. On my Pentium 4 >dual core desktop, KVM is so slow that it's useless. VirtualBox performs >quite well. Likewise not presuming to speak for the OP. I don't use KVM because none of the machines I own supports hardware virtualisation. Excluding the stuff in the attic that would be two desktops, a laptop and three netbooks. On one of the desktops I use VMware Server and on one of the netbooks I use QEMU. I note that the OP is running an x86_64 kernel, but even that doesn't guarantee that they can use KVM. One of the machines I use here at work is an early Opteron. We have VMware Server on that. What's lacking from the default offerings is support for processors without hardware virtualisation. Ron -- users mailing list users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
