VirtualBox

Ticket #1019 (closed defect: worksforme)

Opened 8 years ago

Last modified 3 months ago

[feature request] virt-manager for VirtualBox -> fixed upstream as far as upstream policy allows

Reported by: markba Owned by:
Priority: minor Component: other
Version: VirtualBox 1.5.4 Keywords: virt-manager gui management console
Cc: Guest type: other
Host type: other

Description (last modified by michael) (diff)

Virt-manager is a graphical console for managing vm's, just like VMware-server has. It's open source and will be included in Ubuntu Hardy ( https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UbuntuVirtualisationHostSpec).

This is currently lacking for the vb-product. If you want to have headless vm's (start them up in vrdp-mode), there should be a way to control them efficiently. Also, not be able to see any output of the vm's (especially during booting) other than adding manually a vnc-server into the session it self is in my opinion a major feature gap. Also in this, virt-manager provides a solution by providing an embedded vnc-server.  http://virt-manager.et.redhat.com/

Currently, several other virtualisation products like vmware, xen are supported, but not vb. Is there any change vb is included in the supported vm-engines?

Note: also supported is qemu and because vb is partially based on qemu, this should not be very difficult?

Change History

comment:1 Changed 8 years ago by markba

Type should be 'enhancement', saw this too late, please change.

comment:2 Changed 8 years ago by sandervl73

  • Summary changed from virt-manager for vb? to [feature request] virt-manager for vb?

comment:3 Changed 8 years ago by sandervl73

We might consider that in the future. However, my experience with virt-manager isn't exactly positive (crashes 50 times per day in OpenSuse 10.3).

comment:4 Changed 7 years ago by sandervl73

  • Priority changed from major to minor

comment:5 Changed 7 years ago by markba

As I see, the priority has been changed to minor, probably meening we will not see this request filled in very soon. Are there any alternatives for virt-manager?

comment:6 Changed 7 years ago by markba

From the request:

Also, not be able to see any output of the vm's (especially during booting) other than adding manually a vnc-server into the session it self is in my opinion a major feature gap. Also in this, virt-manager provides a solution by providing an embedded vnc-server.

This part is obsolete as this can be accomplished with vrdp.

comment:7 Changed 6 years ago by frank

  • Summary changed from [feature request] virt-manager for vb? to [feature request] virt-manager for VirtualBox

Note that VBox has libvirt bindings for a while now.

comment:8 Changed 5 years ago by Technologov

I don't understand one thing: if libvirt supports VBox, why virt-manager doesn't ?

markba: you should open a bug report on "virt-manager", and drop a link here.

vbox team: Please close this wish, as this is beyond the scope of this project.

-Technologov

comment:9 Changed 3 months ago by god

 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1081044 - here is the link to corresponding bug. Seems like a vicious circle - virtualbox is not willing to invest time into support of libvirt and virt-manager is not willing to expose poorly-supported features.

I guess eventually it'll resolve the same way situation around mysql did: everybody simply migrated to other solutions and after that oracle finally allocated some resources into supporting it. Some companies never learn.

comment:10 Changed 3 months ago by god

Btw, if you're adventurous you could test virtualbox-related functionality using:

"virt-manager -c  vbox:///system" or "virt-manager -c  vbox+ssh://username@host/system"

See the bug link for details. However I could not see my VMs using this method. Ah, well, there are plethora of guides about easy migration to kvm :)

Last edited 3 months ago by god (previous) (diff)

comment:11 Changed 3 months ago by michael

  • Status changed from new to closed
  • Resolution set to worksforme
  • Description modified (diff)
  • Summary changed from [feature request] virt-manager for VirtualBox to [feature request] virt-manager for VirtualBox -> fixed upstream as far as upstream policy allows

It seems to me that you are mis-reading the RedHat bug ticket. What they are saying (as I read it) is that VirtualBox should work with virt-manager, and that if it doesn't they are at least theoretically ready to fix the problem, but that for policy reasons they cannot support it officially - namely that they only officially support hypervisors which are a default part of the host operating system, like kvm in the Linux kernel.

That said, I think it very unlikely that we would be willing to make non-trivial changes to our product purely in order to make virt-manager work better, simply because it is not important enough to us, and all our developers are fully occupied with work which is important to us - and I doubt this will change in the foreseeable future. We might well accept user patches if we were convinced that they had been well tested by enough people. As no users seem to be interested in submitting patches I take it as a sign that no changes are needed.

Note: See TracTickets for help on using tickets.

www.oracle.com
ContactPrivacy policyTerms of Use