I jumped onto the FreeBSD train a year ago and needed some virtualization tool for my job. A started using bhyve and must say that I am quite happy with it and don’t plan to move to any other tool soon. Not sure how it compares to other tools performance wise but it does the job for me.
I’ve really wanted to try bhyve but the lack of hardware passthrough support (PCIe GPU passthrough in my case) compared to KVM keeps me from it as of right now. Looks really good though.
It doesn’t really matter that much imo. Virtualization is done by kvm or xen, both distro independent. Qemu, libvirt and anything else you might need will only differ version, which may or may not matter to you (probably not). Maybe you can gain some performance by building from source, whereas something like Gentoo might come out ahead… Then again, you can build from source on any distro so…
Honestly, I don’t know. Though, I’d reckon there would be any significant difference between distros.
stability
Depends on what you mean with stability. If you meant it like how “stable” is used in “Debian stable”, then it would be any distro with a release cycle that chooses to not continuously deliver packages; but instead chooses to freeze packages and hold off updates (besides those related to security) for the sake of offering a relatively polished experience in which the behavior of the distro is relatively predictable. Some distros that score good on this would be Debian stable and openSUSE Leap. It’s worth noting that Distrobox, Flatpak and Nix allow one to have newer packages on these systems if desired.
If, instead, you meant that the distro is less likely to break upon an update, then it’s important to note the following:
While you shouldn’t expect breakage to happen in the first place, unfortunately it’s realistic to expect it every so often (read: 0-2 times a year on non-stable distros).
If you have a lot of packages, then it’s more likely that at least one of them causes some breakage.
Technically, every update is a potential ‘breakage-moment’.
Packages that haven’t been installed through the official/native repos are more likely to cause breakage.
Relying on Distrobox, Flatpak and Nix for (at least some of) your packages should benefit the stability of your base system.
(GRUB-)Btrfs+Timeshift/Snapper allows one to create snapshots one can easily rollback to in case of breakage. Therefore it’s worth seeking out a distro that configures this by default or set it up yourself on whichever distro you end up using (if it isn’t included by default).
So-called ‘atomic’^[1]^ distros are (generally speaking) more resistant to breakage, but (arguably) they’re less straightforward compared to traditional distros. It’s still worth considering if you’re adventurous or if your setup is relatively simple and you don’t really feel the need to tinker a lot. Don’t get me wrong; these atomic distros should be able to satiate ones customization needs, it’s just that it might not be as straightforward to accomplish this. Which, at times, might merely be blamed on lackluster documentation more than anything else.^[2]^
As for recommendations you shouldn’t look beyond unadulterated distros like (Arch^[3]^), Debian, Fedora, openSUSE (and Ubuntu^[4]^). These are (in almost all cases^[5]^) more polished than their respective derivatives.
speed
Most of the distros mentioned in this comment should perform close enough to one another that it shouldn’t matter in most cases.
If you’re still lost, then just pick Linux Mint and call it a day.
More commonly referred to as ‘immutable’. Atomic, however, is in most cases a better name.
If you’re still interested, I’d recommend Fedora Silverblue for newcomers and NixOS for those that actually know what they’re getting into.
I believe that one should be able to engage with Arch as long as they educate themselves on the excellent ArchWiki. It might not be for everyone, though. Furthermore, its installation (even with archinstall) might be too much for a complete newbie if they haven’t seen a video guide on it.
Ubuntu is interesting. It has some strange quirks due to its over-reliance on Snap. But it’s worth mentioning, if you don’t feel like tinkering.
With Linux Mint (and Pop!_OS) being the clear exception(s).
For just two VM, any Linux distro is enough, virt-manager to easily run those VMs up and done. The default network will allow them to communicate between their NAT. Proxmox sounds too many complications for just some testing or development stuff.
Other posters are right in that KVM is the same on just about every distro. Proxmox comes with extra tools for management and I think that makes it especially well suited.
I know this isn’t the answer you were looking for, but they’re all the same. Arch, Debian, Ubuntu, Fedora, I’ve tried them all, and there isn’t a discernable difference.
Well, I’m currently using VMware on Ubuntu to run Win 10 and Kali Linux. I don’t know what exactly caused the problem, it was either Ubuntu’s updates or VMware’s updates, but now Win 10 is unusable because it crashes (same with Kali Linux)
Ubuntu imho is unstable in and of itself because of the frequent updates so I’m looking for another distro that prioritizes stability.
I would second Debian for stability, it’s what I use for all my VM servers. I have always preferred KVM however, as I had a lot of trouble with VMware hogging my cpu years ago. KVM has the virtual machine manager available for GUI monitoring but I’m not sure how far it goes for creating new VMs as I’ve always handled the setup directly from command line.
Since you’ve been on Ubuntu, I would suggest Debian. The commands are pretty much the same across the board, and it’s one of the most stable distros in the wild.
Well there’s your mistake: using VMware on a Linux host.
QEMU/KVM is where it’s at on Linux, mostly because it’s built into the kernel a bit like Hyper-V is built into Windows. So it integrates much better with the Linux host which leads to fewer problems.
Ubuntu imho is unstable in and of itself because of the frequent updates so I’m looking for another distro that prioritizes stability.
Maybe, but it’s still Linux. There’s always an escape hatch if the Ubuntu packages don’t cut it. But I manage thousands of Ubuntu servers, some of which are very large hypervisors running hundreds of VMs each, and they also run Ubuntu and work just fine.
My only issue with qemu is that folder sharing is not a great experience with windows guests. Other than that Ive had a great experience, especially using it with aqemu
Remember that Desktop and Server editions are very different in terms of stability. Ubuntu has got to be one of the, if not the, most widely used linux distros for servers, that’s where the money is really in for them, so it’s more deeply tested before release to the public at large, but in my experience, in the last decade or so, Ubuntu is painfully lacking on too many fronts in it’s desktop versions.
Add comment