Bare-metal hypervisor for non-server use?

SteveFT

I've tried to research this, but quite a bit of the information that I have come across seems dated. Let me outline what my goals are:

- Have a low overhead OS/hypervisor as a host
- Be able to run Windows 7, Server 2008, and Linux guests
- Something that can go full screen mode so that you feel like you're running it native
- Spend more time in Linux environment. I really want to increase my comfort with this type of machine. I do have to split my time so I don't get rusty in a Windows environment.

I think the idea of having a baremetal hypervisor would be great. My thoughts are that I could quite my Windows or Linux guests when they are not in use. I would not have a bloated OS on top of whatever I want to run. These are my ideas, bare-metal and not:

1. KVM - concerns about how well this might work with Windows operating systems. Any experience here?

2. Xen - honestly need to research this more, but again not sure how well it will work with Windows 7.

3. Virtualbox with low overhead Linux host. Could you run no or lightweight GUI to reduce resources?

4. Suck it up and deal with the Windows 7/Virtualbox. Probably better drive support and maybe hardware utilization? Would this be worth the overhead of running Windows 7? Or is this CPU/ram usage likely to kill my battery more (won't run battery always, but I do ~30% of the time).

Hardware Specs on my Lenovo W530 laptop:

- i7 3720qm
- 8gb ram (16gb soon)
- K1000M 2gb graphics
- 500gb 7200rpm drive

EV42TMAN

the only hyper visor that will allow you install the hyper visor and use the same system as a desktop is Hyper-V when its installed as a server role. Honestly if you're using your laptop i'd recommend buying VMware Workstation. Its not worth the hassle of trying to install server on a laptop or I'd recommend buying/building a home server if you do it right you can get something good for around $400 to $500

paul78

I would have to agree as well. You are probably better off using something like VMWare Player if you are doing this for non-commercial use. And it's free to use. If your goal is to get more comfortable with Linux, it's going to be a bit more of a time-saver.

The VMWare Player and Workstation hypervisor is actually quite efficient. And if you don't need all the features of Workstation but you are using it for commercial purposes - VMWare has a for-commercial use version of Player called Player Plus for only $99.

I had thought about using a type 1 hypervisor for my desktop last year when I got a new desktop but I ended simply putting my own light-weight Linux as the host OS on my desktop and running VMWare Player to run my guests. I also have a new tablet/ultraconvertible that I run Windows 8.1 as the host OS which I run the Windows version of VMWare Player which runs guests very well.

ajs1976

Go to Citrix.com and look into XenClient.

lsud00d

HyperV is built into Windows 8 FWIW. It won't be a BM hypervisor but it's great as an included feature in the OS.

wes allen

Or, you can go with a linux distro for your main OS, and run virtualbox for windows/linux server VM's.

About7Narwhal

Having run a server OS for a month or two as my main OS I can tell you that it is more trouble than it is worth. Unless you are planning on deploying your own AD, DNS, etc for the experience, I would stay away from a server host. I have a paid version of VMWare on my desktop (Workstation 9) and VMWare player on my laptop. The player is free and very lightweight and uses Intel-VT, just be sure to enable it in your BIOS.

netsysllc

Windows 8 has hyper-v built in. I would suggest replacing the hard drive with an SSD drive if you want speed from a single drive though.

SteveFT

Thanks for the feedback. I'm debating Windows/Hyper-V versus Lubuntu/VirtualBox or VMware Player. The latter would likely be more lightweight because I will probably spend more time in a Linux environment. I'll likely try them both out for the hell of it.

Thank you all and hope all of you in the States enjoyed Thanksgiving.