Virtulal box on Freenas ?

[SoftDux-Rudi]

Softdux...Sorry..but you're wrong.
I already had one windows as storage network. FreeNAS it's so much better. The thing is...Why i can't combine those things?
If you don't like it. Don't use it....That's why it has to happend as an add-on.

I never said Windows was better than FreeNAS, by the way. You want to install VirtualBox onto a NAS (What do you think Dell or EMC will tell you if you ask them this?) so that you can run Windows on top of a NAS. What's the point of having a NAS in the first place, if you're going to run Windows on top of it? If it's purely for the ZFS / FreeBSD part, then install FreeBSD and then install FreeNAS.



And, I'm saying this as a current NAS, and SAN user. I don't want a NAS or SAN to be bloated with desktop type applications or OS's.

 

[joeschmuck]

I guess I should chime in here again and add my two cents...

First, I think we have already answered the original question. We need to wait on a plug-in. If someone wants to develop that, have a blast and share it when you're done.

Second, Why anyone would install a full copy of Windows (any version) on a FreeNAS based system is beyond me but just because I wouldn't do it doesn't mean I'm going to try and stop someone from doing it, it's fun trying out new things and maybe it will work great or maybe it will flop. One thing for sure, that person would learn something and it might spark another better idea. If someone gets it working, post it because you know someone else will want to try it.

Third, As we have posted earlier in this thread, many people using FreeNAS are home users and we desire more from a NAS. We desire UPnP for instance which is actually on most NAS products. We desire a Web Server like Apache, or FTP Server, DNS Server, and other little and nice features. They should run via a GUI like a commercial NAS. A CLI is a must for advance operations.

I think we understand that everyone has a point of view.

That's all I got.

Cheers

 

[Terc]

I think you're missing the point here. It's not all about speed.

Your NAS (Network Attached Storage) is now actually redundant.


And I'm not saying FreeNAS (actually, FreeBSD ) isn't built for this, but it sounds to me the only reason you have FreeNAS is to offer network shares.

Windows (7, Home Server, 2008, etc) can do exactly the same - at least for your needs, and more (like torrent downloading, etc) but would be much easier to manage in your case.

I'm not sure you understand me at all. This is a NAS, which also includes the ability to host virtual machines. It's not redundant because Windows, and especially Windows home server SUCK for file hosting (I wouldn't store files on NTFS if you gave me the hardware for free).

The big attraction of hosting virtual machines on a ZFS file system for me is the added reliability/redundancy of ZFS. But I still want a file server, and FreeNAS is very easy to manage. Therefore, the ability to host VMs on FreeNAS while still using it as a NAS is awesome.



TLDR:
I want the ability to host multiple VMs (linux, windows, freebsd, etc) ON TOP OF A RELIABLE, STABLE, REDUNDANT filesystem. Running Windows and a full gui and managing updates and rebooting weekly and antivirus and the 8GB install size and CRAPPY NTFS and terrible fake RAID or expensive hardware RAID is not an acceptable alternative.

I'm quite happy with my FreeNAS .72 with Virtualbox addon. Assuming plugins allow for kernel modules, Virtualbox on FreeNAS 8 will be quite possible.

 

[gcooper]

VirtualBox would be a really a really bad idea on FreeNAS. I have 2 quad core SMT enabled Xeon machines and VirtualBox eats up a core at idle with FreeBSD (granted, virtio drivers don't exist on FreeBSD yet.. but I think it'd be a really bad idea with a lot of OSes). You should use jails instead if you can get what you want on FreeBSD (that's what the plugin structure is going to be built on in part); it's a much more lightweight system than full blown OS virtualization.

That and VirtualBox requires X11.

 

[JavaScriptDude]

I love the idea

Sorry for the purists who believe that this is a bad idea. A NAS used for a home based system would be very under-utilized. It would not be too much to make sure that a home based FreeNAS system has extra RAM and CPU to allow for VirtualBox or Xen based hypervisor.

There are other light weight uses for a home based FreeNAS system:

• Apache Web Server
• SSH Gateway for external access
• SCP Server
• DNS
• Firewall
• ...

For a home system, it would be a dream to have one server with lots of RAM, disk and CPU to host all my home needs. This would enable low power usage as there is only one chassis and with the money saved on buying less chassis, one can spend some extra money on dual NICs and dual mini-redundant power supplies for more robust infrastructure in one box.

Of course, another option is to run FreeNAS as a VM on a box running Xen.... But this is for another thread ;)

 

[b1ghen]

Sorry for the purists who believe that this is a bad idea. A NAS used for a home based system would be very under-utilized. It would not be too much to make sure that a home based FreeNAS system has extra RAM and CPU to allow for VirtualBox or Xen based hypervisor.

There are other light weight uses for a home based FreeNAS system:

• Apache Web Server
• SSH Gateway for external access
• SCP Server
• DNS
• Firewall
• ...

For a home system, it would be a dream to have one server with lots of RAM, disk and CPU to host all my home needs. This would enable low power usage as there is only one chassis and with the money saved on buying less chassis, one can spend some extra money on dual NICs and dual mini-redundant power supplies for more robust infrastructure in one box.

Of course, another option is to run FreeNAS as a VM on a box running Xen.... But this is for another thread ;)

I completely agree, for home use it would make sense. My home Freenas idles 99% of the time anyway and even under use it's not heavily loaded, in my opinion it would be great to place some VM's since the NAS is running 24/7 anyways so you don't need another box running all the time. The potential power savings would be enough to motivate this feature in my book. Think green ;)

 

[seer_tenedos]

I completely agree, for home use it would make sense. My home Freenas idles 99% of the time anyway and even under use it's not heavily loaded, in my opinion it would be great to place some VM's since the NAS is running 24/7 anyways so you don't need another box running all the time. The potential power savings would be enough to motivate this feature in my book. Think green ;)

I agree as well. In my case i can stop hacking freenas trying to get the features i need and instead just use a small lightweight linux VM until the plugin system gets implemented.

Has anyone had any luck getting virtualbox working on freenas with the php management GUI if possible? My freenas box has a heap of cpu power and enough ram so if i could it would be perfect for the few things i need on my network. sick of having 101 steps i need to do each time i upgrade freenas to make all the hacks work again as all the config and files get wiped on upgrade.

 

[wookie]

To Virtualbox or not to Virtualbox, that is the question.

I am not sure if anybody has seen my post in hacking, but I have attempted to install a headless virtualbox into the plugin jail in FreeNAS 8.2.0-BETA2.
I got it to work, but there are some major hurdles, mainly because virtualbox needs it's own kernel modules to be running in the FreeNAS host.
There are also other host requirements that are not being met.

This makes sense because virtualbox *needs* to access the underlying metal to offer an interface to its VM's.

So for this to work using virtualbox as a jailed PBI plugin looks very doubtful IMHO.
Maybe phpvirtualbox could easily be install as a PBI, but not virtualbox itself.

The best way would be if virtualbox is incorporated into the FreeNAS build directly.
I am not sure how much more overhead this would add to FreeNAS but I don't think it would be that much.

I would much rather prefer to have virtualbox as an extension frame to my NAS than to try and configure extra functions in a BSD jail.

The very fact that plugins have been added to FreeNAS is because of the need by some to allow the freedom of extra functionality from the system.
I believe that having virtualbox in the base of FreeNAS will really throw open the doors for us to get more *freedom* out of our hardware, with the added benefit of having a really awesome NAS box.

Of course if you dont want to extend your system and run FreeNAS just for pure fileserving, that is up to you, the addition of virtualbox should not affect you because you just do not have to use it if you do not want to. That is a choice for you and freedom of others. And well... that is what plugins are all about.

But either way it needs to be incorporated into the base of FreeNAS for this to work and that is going to need some serious community commitment to make it happen.

So here is my vote of commitment:
+1 for Virtualbox-OSE in FreeNAS.

 

[wookie]

That and VirtualBox requires X11.

You can build virtualbox without X11 and without QT4 Gui and run it headless.

 

[ProtoSD]

Absolutely HATE HATE HATE the idea... sorry... If you want to have an all inclusive set of features in a cool little package, use a standard installation of PCBSD or FreeBSD and customize that. Plugins are already a generous feature and a NAS is a NAS is a NAS, not a server. If everyone got every little feature they wanted on FreeNAS it would end up bloated and not much different than a regular FreeBSD install with a nice *NAS* GUI....

- - - - 1 ;)

 

[wookie]

a NAS is a NAS is a NAS, not a server.

Really?? Looks like a server to me.
FreeNAS has lots of server like features built into it, alot of them are not manadatory if you want to use them or not, you can turn them off and on.
Freedom of choice? It is up to you how you configure your NAS.

And as I said the overhead to implement this is probably not that big.
I am not really sure what all the emotion is about?

This would make FreeNAS just flippin' cooler..

And you dont have to use it if you have any need for it, nobody is forcing you.
A non running headless virtualbox does not tax the system unless you use it, it is just a few extra files in the embedded system.

The advantage of having Virtualbox is that you can get more from your existing hardware for those who need it.
This is why people are asking for it, in some circumstances it makes massive sense.

Actually it would mean less need for more plugins to be developed.

 

[ProtoSD]

Really?? Looks like a server to me.

Yes, you're right, but a specialized server with a specific task.

Actually it would mean less need for more plugins to be developed.

I understand the coolness of it, it just kind of bastardizes the purpose of a NAS.

The thing about using Virtual box instead of plugins and a jail is there are alot of people that need hand holding to install stuff and don't understand the underlying OS. Plugins manage all the stuff so *some* people dont' have to think too hard ;)

Also, plugins isolate "those people" that don't know better from just installing every app under the sun into the base install and frelling things up and then want to know why.

I'm willing, at some point to create a custom build with virtual box in the base install, but I don't think it's a great idea for the core product.

I would almost be easier to ask for a build that could be installed on a hard drive and let people bloat themselves into a corner. :)

 

[wookie]

Yes, you're right, but a specialized server with many specific tasks.

FTFY.

I dont think it is bastardizing it, it is just extending it, the users want to extend it, they embrace it.
I would love if more people would choose FreeNAS as their home server because it helps them to solve their home needs.

Though I understand your reasonings, however it is much better if the people bloat themselves into a corner in a VM, they can always trash the VM it and start again, without effecting the primary specific tasks of NAS. The underlying system is still a lean, mean and clean embedded system, which is what I love about FreeNAS.

 

[SoftDux-Rudi]

FTFY.

I dont think it is bastardizing it, it is just extending it, the users want to extend it, they embrace it.
I would love if more people would choose FreeNAS as their home server because it helps them to solve their home needs.

Though I understand your reasonings, however it is much better if the people bloat themselves into a corner in a VM, they can always trash the VM it and start again, without effecting the primary specific tasks of NAS. The underlying system is still a lean, mean and clean embedded system, which is what I love about FreeNAS.

Why don't you just use Windows Home Server instead? It already does everything you want, and you can even play solitaire while your installing VirtualBox as well.

 

[b1ghen]

I completely agree that running VirtualBox makes FreeNas not just a NAS any more, if that is a bad thing or not is another question.

I personally would love to be able to run VM's on my FreeNas, saves me having another server for that purpose. A lot of people (me included) have hardware that doesn't break a sweat running just FreeNas and would like to utilize the resources that you already have running 24/7. Would be more power efficient and save you money only needing one server.
Yes you can run FreeNas as a VM under some other hypervisor but that takes away from the beauty of it, I want to boot FreeNas from USB and run my VM's from the pool, that would be the ultimate thing in my book :)

All that said a big thanks to the developers that make and keep improving this excellent product all the time, keep up the good work!

 

[wookie]

Why don't you just use Windows Home Server instead?

Is this a troll in a open-source project forum? I am not quite sure?

Well I can say (to name just a few) :

1. I think running an embedded system is more energy efficient than running Microsoft bloat?
2. I have paid so much for hardware with OEM Microsoft software in the past and I dont see the return benefit unless I get the most out of the hardware that I already own?
3. ZFS on Windoze?
4. An awesome community-centric open source project that can be a benefit to everyone?
5. Security?? I can't see the source of Microsoft OS.
6. I am familiar with *BSD environment.

Sorry... Windows Home Server is a non starter for me.

But that is why you are also here on this forum posting in the developer section? or did I misunderstand you?

 

[wookie]

I completely agree that running VirtualBox makes FreeNas not just a NAS any more

Yes but it is still a NAS with or without a virtualbox option. So I dont see what the big problem is by including it.

A VM will not taint the embedded system, and it is by user choice whether or not someone wants to start a headless virtualbox on FreeNAS, in the same way it would be by choice if I wanted to start using CIF shares or just pure NFS or just run FTP or whatever, it is all switchable. I can turn it off and on. If you dont want a VM you dont have to use it, and you are not losing anything. If you need it, it is there, best of both worlds.

I think the key thing here is choice and by including virtualbox you are opening up a big box of choice. :)

 

[SoftDux-Rudi]

Is this a troll in a open-source project forum? I am not quite sure?

Oh, boohoo.......

1. I think running an embedded system is more energy efficient than running Microsoft bloat?

yet you're running VirtualBox, in order to install another OS, which will use up more resources. Point defeated.

2. I have paid so much for hardware with OEM Microsoft software in the past and I dont see the return benefit unless I get the most out of the hardware that I already own?

This point is moot.....

3. ZFS on Windoze?

VirtualBox with Windows op top of FreeNAS? Same difference....

4. An awesome community-centric open source project that can be a benefit to everyone?

This point is also moot. There are countless "community-centric open source projects that could benefit everyone"

5. Security?? I can't see the source of Microsoft OS.

How does the source make it more secure?
With that analysis, ALL the OSS projects around today which are hacked so often should be more secure, simply cause you have

6. I am familiar with *BSD environment.

So why do you need VirtualBox then?

Sorry... Windows Home Server is a non starter for me.

But that is why you are also here on this forum posting in the developer section? or did I misunderstand you?

I prefer to use the right tool, for the right job. Sure, you can drive a nail into the wall with a screwdriver, or a shoe. But a hammer is best suited for the job.


If you're going virtual, then rather install FreeNAS onto a virtual environment. Windows + VirtualBox, or even Linux + VirtualBox will be much easier to setup & maintain, than FreeNAS + VirtualBox. just my 2c

 

[wookie]

Just because it does not match your reasons does not mean that there isnt any.

You could at least try it out first before flaming, there are many reasons to run a VM with FreeNAS, if you don't have these reasons you have the choice to not use it.
At the moment we dont have it working in a embed, I have pointed out that waiting for it in the form of a jailed PBI plugin is possibly not going to work because of kernel dependencies.

Please bring something constructive to the discussion, instead of wild speculation.
tnx

 

[SoftDux-Rudi]

@wookie, stop taking this so personal.


FreeNAS is a NAS (Network Attached Storage) OS, NOT a "one-size-fits-all" OS. And I, as many others, would prefer to keep it that way. It's primary purpose is to act as a NAS / SAN, and not a general server.

The pure fact that you got this working is, probably, a nice achievement - "cause you can". But it's breaking FreeNAS's primary purpose and there are other projects better suited for this very purpose.