On 08/13/2013 11:16 PM, Les Mikesell wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 10:56 AM, Dave Johansen <davejohansen@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>
>>> I suggest you use VirtualBox, or some other distro.
>>
>> I'll really like CentOS/RHEL and will definitely stick with it.
>
> Virtualbox isn't 'instead of' CentOS' it is 'instead of KVM' as a
> virtualization layer. Not sure how much difference there is in
> capability, other than being available for many more platforms,
> including 32-bit linux. There should be some overlap in supported
> image formats. I've moved vmdk's created on vmware to both, but I'm
> not sure what others they each handle.
>
Yes, that is exactly what I meant. If you want ot keep running 32-bit
CentOS and have Virtualized guest, VirtualBox is excellent choice. Same
image can be run on both Linux and Windows host systems,
>> The
>> point of my questions wasn't to complain or any like that, but just
>> surprise because it seemed that the no 32 bit support didn't line up
>> with my experience and just trying to make sure I understood
>> everything.
>
> If you have hardware support for virtualization, you should probably
> be running 64-bit Centos with KVM and not much else at the host OS
> level. If you have applications that need 32-bit, they could run in a
> guest.
>
CentOS is multiarch, all libraries/packages necessary to run any 32-bit
app exist on 64-bit system, so it can be run on 64-host, no need to have
guest for that.
--
Ljubomir Ljubojevic
(Love is in the Air)
PL Computers
Serbia, Europe
StarOS, Mikrotik and CentOS/RHEL/Linux consultant
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
