VirtualBox versus bhyve/iohyve

[melloa]

Posting this on a FreeBSD forum is suicide, so I'm bracing for impact.

• My understanding is that bhyve was implemented with FreeBSD 10, seems to have been first presented at BSDCan 2011.
• VirtualBox debuted January/2007

Let's put to the side that we all want to support FreeBSD, therefore the importance of bhyve implementation, and think FreeNAS (iX).

My question is if the removal of VirtualBox from FreeNAS 10, as the number of users running it on FreeNAS 9.x, is a good "business" decision, as not all - and probably most - of the FreeNAS home users that uses virtualization will be using and familiar with VirtualBox.

Commercial users might also be impacted, but those probably will be running FreeNAS as a NAS and running their VMs on other servers, even under other hyper visors such as VMWare, Zen, etc. (As I do at home, so this change doesn't impact me in any shape or form, just thinking on the other users).

 

[m0nkey_]

Where's the question?

In FreeNAS 9.x, virtualization is considered experimental. The VirtualBox jail was/is a hack and just so happens to be rolled into a jail any Tom, George or Harry can download and run VMs. Bhyve came with FreeBSD 10.3 baked into FreeNAS 9.10, so as a side effect, iohyve was introduced to help leverage Bhyve.

Now, virtualization becomes a real and supported thing under FreeNAS 10. If you look at the latest beta, there is a very nice GUI for it, along with VGA consoles for the likes of Windows. This is going to be great for a home user.

I wouldn't recommend any serious virtualization on FreeNAS until 10 is released. However, if like me, you want to run an Insurgency server, spinning up a Debian VM takes less than 10 minutes.

Now, on to the commercial users. I'd hope that any real business would never run their virtual machines on a hack, and that they would be using a fully supported hypervisor such as ESXI or XenServer with some kind of backend storage. I believe (but don't quote me on this) jails and iohyve are not even available in TrueNAS.

 

[melloa]

Where's the question?

There wasn't a question.

In FreeNAS 9.x, virtualization is considered experimental.

That's the point I was trying to make. If VirtualBox is widely used, why not make it stable? You can say the same about other Hyper Visors out there, but at least that is already a jail for it.... but wait ... no more jails on FN 10.

Now, virtualization becomes a real and supported thing under FreeNAS 10.

I will wait and test when FN 10 is on the official release and hope users' will be able to import VM appliances created in VMWare and VirtualBox.

I wouldn't recommend any serious virtualization on FreeNAS until 10 is released.

I'd add any serious application, i.e., store any data. It is Beta and everybody should understand that ;)

However, if like me, you want to run an Insurgency server, spinning up a Debian VM takes less than 10 minutes.

Don't doubt. I'm hopeful that the support for the virtualization will be there, but most important, the users'support (not saying from iX or FreeNAS). I started questioning when visiting the official site's wiki https://wiki.freebsd.org/bhyve and only saw activities back in July/2016.

Now, on to the commercial users. I'd hope that any real business would never run their virtual machines on a hack, and that they would be using a fully supported hypervisor such as ESXI or XenServer with some kind of backend storage. I believe (but don't quote me on this) jails and iohyve are not even available in TrueNAS.

As commercial users I meant TrueNAS users and there are home users out there. On the real business users, I agree 100% with you.

 

[danb35]

If VirtualBox is widely used, why not make it stable?

Not sure that's possible. As far as I know, VirtualBox on FreeBSD has always been an ugly hack.

hope users' will be able to import VM appliances created in VMWare and VirtualBox.

That would be nice, but as far as I've seen, there isn't a direct way to import VMs from other hypervisors into bhyve. Love to be wrong on that though.

 

[melloa]

Not sure that's possible. As far as I know, VirtualBox on FreeBSD has always been an ugly hack.

Too bad. Now I understand the move to bhyve. Just hope we will have a great support from that project to it.

I see this community as a very active one and I know people here will try to help, but at the end of the day it is up to bhyve to support all implementations, even on a pure FreeBSD server.

That would be nice, but as far as I've seen, there isn't a direct way to import VMs from other hypervisors into bhyve. Love to be wrong on that though.

I'd love to be wrong on my assumptions as well, just because this project is excellent and going strong. It is true that other projects have a better GUI, support for Dockers, etc, already implemented, but I do like the way the team is developing to ensure a strong stable release and, at the end, will be light years ahead.

 

[jkh]

My question is if the removal of VirtualBox from FreeNAS 10, as the number of users running it on FreeNAS 9.x, is a good "business" decision

It was the only decision available. Virtualbox runs very very poorly on FreeBSD (high overhead, doesn't support nested virtualization, has a questionable future in the hands of Oracle (which has never shown any real interest in FreeBSD and has its own strongly Linux-centric strategy). The bhyve hypervisor, on the other hand, was designed expressly for FreeBSD, has much lower overhead, and at least a reasonable future since it's FreeBSD's only real virtualization solution option and we have to put our weight behind it.

 

[melloa]

It was the only decision available. Virtualbox runs very very poorly on FreeBSD (high overhead, doesn't support nested virtualization, has a questionable future in the hands of Oracle (which has never shown any real interest in FreeBSD and has its own strongly Linux-centric strategy). The bhyve hypervisor, on the other hand, was designed expressly for FreeBSD, has much lower overhead, and at least a reasonable future since it's FreeBSD's only real virtualization solution option and we have to put our weight behind it.

If you are saying you are behind it, than I see it getting to be an excellent solution.