HYPER-V and VMWare / VBOX concurrently

Kari said:

The why explained in this tutorial Run Hyper-V, VirtualBox and VMware on same Computer

Kari

Hi there

It explains why currently -- however that's not the whole story as KVM is a Type 1 Hypervisor -- the reason might be that it operates in a sort of "Hybrid way" in that it's initially part of the Linux kernel at boot but it then loads itself as a genuine Hypervisor which then runs as a proper type 1 Hypervisor and isn't dependent on a GUI at all to manage Virtual Machines.
In the way it's sort of akin to Esxi although you can logon and control VM's on the HOST without needing a separate computer as in the case of Esxi (the free bit).

Quite instructive though running a second level VM (Ist level VM W10 Pro and then a W7 VM on Hyper-V on the W10 pro machine). I haven't got that combo to work with a VMWare W10 VM yet although there's nothing in theory to suggest it's not possible.

On KVM you do need to use the option in the KVM start up kernel module - enable nested VM's though.
Performance isn't that great - even on SSD's but it's an interesting learning experience.

I believe on the HOST BIOS to get this to work properly you do need to set IOMMU enabled if the option exists and also on the VM itself in the virtual BIOS on VMWare you also need to enable IOMMU.

Anyway I'm having a play around with these.

Cheers
jimbo

jimbo45 said:

I'm at a bit of a loss to understand why Windows can't run VMWare and HYPER-V concurrently while VBOX seems to get indeterminate results -- some say it works others say it just hangs.

The reason VBox works with Hyper-V role enabled is because they changed their program to make use of the Windows Hypervisor Platform API released in 1809. When VT-x is unavailable VBox will try to fallback to use the Hyper-V framework (a.k.a. NEM or Native Execution Manager). See VirtualBox 6.0 and Hyper-V

Android Emulator has also been updated to use this but apparently VMWare hasn't yet although according to this blog they are developing it.

Comparing Hyper-V with KVM is difficult as they work differently. Whether it is a type 1 or type 2 (or even if such a distinction makes sense any more) is debatable. See Is KVM a type 1 or type 2 hypervisor?

lx07 said:

The reason VBox works with Hyper-V role enabled is because they changed their program to make use of the Windows Hypervisor Platform API released in 1809. When VT-x is unavailable VBox will try to fallback to use the Hyper-V framework (a.k.a. NEM or Native Execution Manager). See VirtualBox 6.0 and Hyper-V

Android Emulator has also been updated to use this but apparently VMWare hasn't yet although according to this blog they are developing it.

Comparing Hyper-V with KVM is difficult as they work differently. Whether it is a type 1 or type 2 (or even if such a distinction makes sense any more) is debatable. See Is KVM a type 1 or type 2 hypervisor?

Hi there

Thanks - always good to get sensible explanations -- the TYPE1/2 idea now does seem a bit of a pointless discussion these days.

However it does show (and I have to concur) that with the right passthru and some paravirtualisation you can get VM's to run at near Bare Metal speeds these days -- the idea of people avoiding VM's because of poor performance and using dual booting when they don't need specific access to the hardware has long sinced passed . (Another topic I know).

All I can say now though is having messed around with KVM for a while now it's unlikely I'll switch back to either VMWare or Hyper-V especiallyif the next VMWare workstation release upgrade is likely to cost an arm and a leg while KVM is ZERO.

YYMV but I really don't like VBOX -- all to their own though. HYPER-V on Windows I find a bit laggy compared to KVM plus the usb re-direction plus Video performance is definitely inferior on the systems I'm running.

Cheers
jimbo

Hi there
@lx07

I see you use a Mac -- does Parallels work on that system OK or is it rubbish -- don't see too much about that.

BTW KVM can re-start VM's etc from re-boot of HOST





(Thanks for the plus BTW)

Cheers
jimbo

jimbo45 said:

I see you use a Mac -- does Parallels work on that system OK or is it rubbish -- don't see too much about that.

Most of my PCs are Macs, yes. I mostly run Windows on them.

Parallels works fine (if a bit basic and niche) but like VMware Fusion (which is the mac version of Workstation) it is extremely expensive for a home user - there is no free VMware player for macOS. I've used both in the past but unfortunately they both require expensive updates after the annual macOS upgrade or annual licensing and neither are as good as Windows versions or enough better than VirtualBox to be worth the cost to me.

Frankly if you like tinkering with VMs on a Mac it is easier and certainly cheaper to run Windows. Linux is increasingly poorly supported on Macs - on my old 2006 MacBook with no supported macOS available I can either compile my own Linux kernel based on this just to be able to use graphics or run Windows 10 which works straight out of the box. An easy choice.