VirtualBox on 9.10_U3?

[Visseroth]

so I'm wondering if anyone knows if 9.10_U3 and 4 works with VirtualBox.
I know it's no longer supported but until Bhyve has console support so I can run Windows virtual boxes and not have to hack and slash the OS to get it to work, I am not willing to update.
Seems support for virtualbox support was prematurely dropped before bhyve was ready.

I'm not sure about other users, but I've refused to update as I have virtual machines that I use all the time that I need console access to, like Windows.

 

[Allan Wilmath]

Have you checked in to using ESXi and virtualizing FreeNAS? If you are serious about virtualization that is a better alternative. It requires an LSI SAS controller, but many people us that controller anyway. As I look at your signature, it seems you already have everything you need.

You can copy your SATA DOM in to a virtual machine hard drive file and migrate you existing FreeNAS over. You set FreeNAS to boot first, then start any VMs in ESXi that run from iSCSI or NFS targets on FreeNAS. Of course if you are simply running VMs from files in the hypervisor, that is even easier. You can export your existing VMs so you don't have to rebuild them.

With ESXi you gain PCI-E passthrough. You could attach a graphics card directly to the VM as if it were a real machine.

FreeNAS is gong through some serious issues, if it currently works, I would suggest you leave it alone until the dust settles.

 

[Zofoor]

Also it seems that a dedicated controller is not really required for ESXi:

https://forums.freenas.org/index.php?threads/51843/

 

[Visseroth]

I've never understood why people run FreeNAS on top of a ESXi system. I figured it defeated the purpose of having a NAS with ZFS.
or are you talking about running ESXi on top of FreeNAS? which would make sense as you get all the benefits of both.
But I hear what you're saying about letting the dust settle

 

[Allan Wilmath]

That is very interesting, I didn't know you could do that. I don't know what you are going to boot from, or store your FreeNAS virtual machine file on though. ESXi doesn't by default allow USB as a datastore. Though there is a hack to do that somewhere on the internet.

I have tried other hypervisors, but have come back to ESXi, the management tools are superior to anything else. I have Fusion on my Mac, and so it can build and then upload to ESXi. The only negative has been addressed with the host based management tool. The host web client 'fling'.

Here are the best instruction for installing. https://calvin.me/web-interface-for-esxi-without-vcenter/

Just be sure to download the latest version of the fling from vmware.com, you also need to use the Chrome web browser. The GUI is very beta, but if you've grown used to FreeNAS interface, you'll be at home. Just relog again, it'll get better. I suppose ti sounds weird that I rave about VMware, then comment that they have issues. That's kind of the problem with Open Source, the bar is very low when it comes to GUIs. ESXi on it's own is very reliable, once you get it setup.

 

[Allan Wilmath]

To answer you question as to why I would run FreeNAS virtualized, the answer is simple. I wanted one box for a home server, not 3 or 4. By virtualizing everything I can use the best available options for each task. Ubuntu as a print server for my Apple devices, iPads and iPhones. FreeNAS as a file server and problematic Plex server, and pfSense for a home router. I can then experiment with additional VMs. pfSense is much more solid than FreeNAS, and so I still have internet while I am fixing the Plex server and rebooting. ZFS has been rock solid, can't say the same for the plug in system FreeNAS uses. The underlying Unix is fine, but the 'middleware' is amateur. There is no way I would trust a plug in for anything critical. I don't even trust the plug for something noncritical like Plex. The Docker thing is already working better in Corral.

 

[adrianwi]

Removing VirtualBox from 9.10 seems like the same premature and bad decision as not including jails in 10 or Corral. I get that it hasn't been updated or supported for some time, but it worked and worked well. Removing it before there is a viable solution just seems silly.

I'm still on 9.3.1 and would have considered updating to 9.10 as a route to 10 (or 11 as it will now be) knowing I would have to rebuild my jails, but I don't see the point now that my VMs won't work. Everything works just fine in 9.3.1 so I'll be stuck there for the foreseeable future...

 

[Zofoor]

On Freenas 11 existing jails will work.
About VirtualBox, there isn't good reason to have both VirtualBox and bhyve (also they don't work together).

Bhyve is much faster, and performance is the main reason I didn't ever used VirtualBox (also worse performance means more energy power too).

Sometimes breaking with past is better, and I think that this is the case.

Anyways yes if you don't have any troubles you can avoid upgrades.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

 

[Ericloewe]

Removing VirtualBox from 9.10 seems like the same premature and bad decision as not including jails in 10 or Corral. I get that it hasn't been updated or supported for some time, but it worked and worked well. Removing it before there is a viable solution just seems silly.

It was causing a major security flaw. It was even kept for one more release after that was known but it had to go, in the end.
It was also always an experimental feature.

 

[Visseroth]

It was causing a major security flaw. It was even kept for one more release after that was known but it had to go, in the end.
It was also always an experimental feature.

Ahh. Didn't know that. Good to know.
My thought was why not keep it until bhyve was ready. You know, swap one for the other and in that release let people know that VirtualBox was pulled, BHyve is working.

I'm still on 9.10.1-U4 as to my knowledge that's the last version that VirtualBox works on and I'm not real keen on hacking a system together, running ESXi as the core then running FreeNAS on top of that and virtual machines next to FreeNAS with pass through to each drive for FreeNAS. I actually had to read some other forums to figure out that's what people were doing because it just didn't make sense to me to put a pool inside of VMWare.
It sounds great in theory and I'm still wrapping my head around it a bit.
Then again I guess it isn't much worse than running virtualbox on top of FreeNAS and virtual machines inside of the VirtualBox. seemingly 2 lays instead of 3 and I don't disagree that BHyve is the way to go, but it just wasn't ready yet.

 

[Visseroth]

On Freenas 11 existing jails will work.
About VirtualBox, there isn't good reason to have both VirtualBox and bhyve (also they don't work together).

Bhyve is much faster, and performance is the main reason I didn't ever used VirtualBox (also worse performance means more energy power too).

Sometimes breaking with past is better, and I think that this is the case.

Anyways yes if you don't have any troubles you can avoid upgrades.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

BHyve chances are is going to be much better for sure but performance apparently isn't a problem for me as I'm running 2 virtual machines in virtualbox on 2 RaidZ2 VDevs and it works and doesn't bother me a bit. I don't like lag or applications taking their time and it doesn't bother me. It's more snappy than most machines I work with.