# For some new users to FreeBSD



## sossego (Dec 2, 2013)

On VMWare based FreeBSD installs: I'm sorry to burst your bubble, Windows users, but you will never get the full use or feel of FreeBSD or any BSD system unless you run it on bare metal.

I'm not being rude, I am being honest and to the point.


----------



## Deleted member 9563 (Dec 2, 2013)

Since a failed attempt to like Windows 3.1, I've not tried that stuff again. I've also not tried VMWare, but am interested in what you say. What's so different about bare metal in that case?


----------



## kpa (Dec 2, 2013)

I haven't used VMWare but at least on VirtualBox you get pretty decent performance for any non-GUI applications, DNS servers etc. YMMV.


----------



## sossego (Dec 2, 2013)

With virtualization, the system needs to have a dedicated amount of memory, CPU availability, networking availability, disk space, and access to other hardware for the host. Xen on NetBSD has the smallest footprint for a host. Windows will require 2 GB of RAM for the host along with another 256 MB for the windowing system. You're looking at a system that will need at least 4 GB RAM and - let's be realistic here - 1 GB on a graphics card along with at least a two-socket quad core to run the systems they are describing. Mr. @kpa is right about running VirtualBox for non-GUI systems.


----------



## wblock@ (Dec 2, 2013)

Please explain.  I just tried one of my FreeBSD VM images on VirtualBox.  It has X and Xfce,  That works okay in 1 GB.  What sort of application needs the heavyweight stuff you describe?


----------



## kpedersen (Dec 2, 2013)

OJ said:
			
		

> Since a failed attempt to like Windows 3.1, I've not tried that stuff again.



I was really disappointed that VirtualBox (and VMware) tell me that things like Windows 95 are too old to bother supporting. For me that is the whole point of VirtualBox. If I wanted to run a modern OS, I would run it directly on a modern machine.

Sooner or later Windows XP will be "too old to bother supporting", effectively rendering VirtualBox completely useless for ensuring older software can always be run. Nowadays, I only ever use it to get around broken DRM.


----------



## Beastie (Dec 2, 2013)

kpedersen said:
			
		

> I was really disappointed that VirtualBox (and VMware) tell me that things like Windows 95 are too old to bother supporting. For me that is the whole point of VirtualBox. If I wanted to run a modern OS, I would run it directly on a modern machine.


Then run it on the much-lighter emulators/qemu. It can be done on ten-year-old hardware, so I guess it'll be as good as VirtualBox or VMware on a modern machine.


----------



## xibo (Dec 2, 2013)

I've ran Windows 7 with 512 MB system memory in the past, and right now VirtualBox can run Windows 8.1 and Visual Studio 2013 with 1 GB system and 32 GB video memory for the guest.

FreeBSD-9.2 can run unmodified (no loader.conf or kernel configuration tuning) with 128 MB RAM and in most cases CPU speed/overhead doesn't matter anyway.


----------



## sossego (Dec 2, 2013)

But most people aren't aware of how to run a minimalist system with Windows as the host. No loader.conf or tuning, you say? I would understand if this was OpenBSD but it is not. CPU speed and overhead matter as much as CPU architecture and available instructions on the core. There is no way I  can emphasize this enough. The average user runs their machines wide open with every application possible. It is a common belief that memory should constantly be exhausted to have a good system.


----------



## ORTO-DOX (Dec 3, 2013)

Maybe, I think that the author of a subject meant that to feel all FreeBSD systems were rotted it won't turn out in VMWare as in this case it will be the only system to be played on, and interest by itself quickly will pass after the first appeared difficulties, to solve which it won't want as right now it is possible to poke a mouse and to sit on the Internet.

And having put systems on the real equipment, you in much bigger degree plunge into studying, probably somewhat forcibly, but in it and there is all charm of training when in the course of receiving desirable results you both study the system and get acquainted with all its subtleties and an architectural delicacy.


----------



## sossego (Dec 3, 2013)

You know it.


----------



## zspider (Dec 5, 2013)

ORTO-DOX said:
			
		

> Maybe, I think that the author of a subject meant that to feel all FreeBSD systems were rotted it won't turn out in VMWare as in this case it will be the only system to be played on, and interest by itself quickly will pass after the first appeared difficulties, to solve which it won't want as right now it is possible to poke a mouse and to sit on the Internet.
> 
> And having put systems on the real equipment, you in much bigger degree plunge into studying, probably somewhat forcibly, but in it and there is all charm of training when in the course of receiving desirable results you both study the system and get acquainted with all its subtleties and an architectural delicacy.



I found I had better results when I put FreeBSD on the bare metal. Things worked better and I gained valuable experience.


----------



## marcus (Dec 7, 2013)

zspider said:
			
		

> ...I found I had better results when I put FreeBSD on the bare metal. ...



Isn't that common knowledge that one is fined when using any kind of hardware virtualization?  Ok, the amount depends on which kind of hypervisor (Type 1 or Type 2) is in use, but in the end - it is completely logical when one has a little knowledge about how virtualization works.


----------



## zspider (Dec 7, 2013)

marcus said:
			
		

> zspider said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Oh ok... Captain EO. :OOO


----------



## sossego (Dec 7, 2013)

marcus said:
			
		

> zspider said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Any type of hypervisor requires a host to run the modified kernel for such hypervisor. A virtualized system - even type 1 - still depends on the base _which runs directly on bare metal without modifications_. The only known exception to this are the POWER series of CPUs which IBM has yet to allow other systems - outside of their own - to run directly on the CPU architecture. Reference can be found at viewtopic.php?f=37&t=43556#p242378 .

To use another analogy: driverless cars could not be developed prior to the invention of the automobile or at the same time. The automobile - bare metal installation - had first to be invented before the driverless car could become a concept - the invention of hypervisors in the OS and the CPUs. 

Every developer and designer of every virtualized system needed to and needs to understand the internals of the hardware, drivers, CPUs, and the OS to make such work. Without experience of the OS on bare metal, you - the general term since there is no informal form of you in English - are taking pot shots in the dark - making random guesses based on faulty logic and rationalizations.


----------



## wblock@ (Dec 7, 2013)

Sure, creating virtualization software is complicated.  But it's easy to use.

FreeBSD works pretty well as a VirtualBox host and guest.  There can be performance compromises, more in disk and network I/O than for the CPU.  Despite that, my fastest Windows machines are VMs that run on a FreeBSD host.  I also have FreeBSD installed as a guest on Windows notebooks.  The virtualized hardware is easily supported by FreeBSD, even if the underlying hardware is not.

In both cases, virtualization makes one machine into multiple machines with no added cost, and host and guests can be used at the same time.  Like anything else, there are advantages and disadvantages, but it works, and it's a practical alternative to bare-metal installs.


----------



## hitest (Dec 8, 2013)

wblock@ said:
			
		

> FreeBSD works pretty well as a VirtualBox host and guest.



Agreed.  FreeBSD runs well in a VM.


----------



## marcus (Dec 8, 2013)

wblock@ said:
			
		

> ...Like anything else, there are advantages and disadvantages, but it works, and it's a practical alternative to bare-metal installs.


ACK


----------



## pacija (Dec 8, 2013)

I have been running more than 20 FreeBSD virtual machines (since 8.0-RELEASE up to 10.0-BETA4) on VMWare (since ESXi 4.0 up to 5.5). I run my curent employer's critical infrastructure, including DNS/MX/WEB/XMPP etc. servers on virtual FreeBSD 9.2's on ESXi 5.1. I never had major problems.

I remember there was a problem installing VMWare tools in 9.0, but there was an easy solution as well:
https://www.dan.me.uk/blog/2012/01/31/how-to-install-vmware-tools-in-freebsd-9/

As for the latest WMWare version, which s 5.5, I tested it on one of our hypervisors. I would not upgrade production hypervisors from 5.1 to 5.5, and VMs from 8 to 10, because in order to have full functionality of ESXi 5.5, one needs to install VCenter server, while 5.1 could be administered directly with (free) VSphere client. Also, VMs version 8 can be administered directly from VSphere client, and VMs version 10 only through VCenter. After upgrade of FreeBSD VM from version 8 to 10 (VMWare VM version, not FreeBSD OS version), VMWare web client shows VM tools are not installed even when they are, but it is possible to gracefully shutdown or restart VM.

Bottom line: For more than 3 years I am using virtual FreeBSDs on VMWare. Thanks to them, ~1000 users can send and receive e-mails, browse the web, communicate via XMPP etc. I would recommend this setup.


----------

