Question

3

Is there a better paravirtualization solution than Xen?

rated 0 times [ 3] [ 0] / answers: 1 / hits: 2416 / 2 Years ago, mon, march 7, 2022, 8:01:36

Question:

I want to run a (para) virtual machine on my Linux console server.

Catch-22 is that the processor does not support VTX/AMDv, so I have to use para virtualization instead of normal/hardware virtualization.

Unfortunately, Xen cannot bridge the WLAN network adapter on my developer machine.

Therefore I can't use Xen, as I can't get it to work properly. If I use NAT on the developer machine, I can't be sure everything/anything works on the server, and I have experienced enough to know that it's only a question of time (most times a very short time) until this will end in disaster, so I do not want that.

The point is I want to be able to transfer the VM image from the developer machine to the server - unchanged.

Is there any other (=better) para virtualization-capable application for Linux other than Xen ?

For example, VirtualBox seemed to never to have problems with bridging network adapters to wlan0, but AFAIK, VirtualBox needs VTX/AMDv, isn't it ?

Answers

Only authorized users can answer the question. Please sign in first, or register a free account.

singerrupt

Add To Favorites

Follow

Total Points: 435

Total Questions: 111

Total Answers: 109

Location: Angola

Member since Tue, May 5, 2020

4 Years ago

answered 2 Years ago sipwing · Accepted Answer

You can always use KVM, it uses QEMU when VT is not enabled.

Also from the Wikipedia Article:

Software-based virtualization

In the absence of hardware-assisted virtualization, VirtualBox adopts a standard >software-based virtualization approach. This mode supports 32-bit guest OSs which run in rings 0 and 3 of the Intel ring architecture.

So Virtualbox should run just fine

EDIT: For 64 bit guests you can use QEMU. VMware Workstation relies on Binary Translation on non VT enabled hosts but it can't run 64 bit guests that way either.