Is "full virtualization solution" better than everyday application solution

[RikTelner]

I've made some research here and there about virtualization of Linux. I will put quite large chunk text beneath, please correct me when wrong:

Using Linux Full Virtualization distribution like this one, I can use .iso images of both Linux and Windows to start running both machines at exactly same time independantly from one another and without having Linux to be able to see Windows and Windows being able to see Linux. As if they were physical computers. This solution is much more efficient qua CPU, RAM, storage and GPU when compared to Windows and Linux virtualized in let's say VirtualBox or VMware Player/Workstation within working Linux OS, let's say Ubuntu.

This is how I understood it, please correct me when wrong.

Not sure... It may boast of better efficiency etc, but vmware and virtualbox are mature technologies, vmware being enterprise so you can expect a high success and low bug rate.

These are some of the things I would consider. That page looks relative new compared to the others.

[RikTelner]

So, just VMware Workstation in place of KVM.

[CimmerianX]

IN linux, KVM, XEN, and ProxMox are good solutions. We've used Proxmox for years here and it has really matured. There are still issues, especially if the host or shared storage crash... it can lead to corrupt drives. However, a daily snapshot helps alleviate any failures.

The real issue with VMWare is the price. IMHO if you want high uptime with a tech support team to back you up for mission critical VMs, then look at vmware. If you need test labs, local hosts, or other hosts that you can live without for an hour or 2 during 'issues', then PRoxmox may help you.

[rubberman]

KVM sits right on top of the hardware, so it is much more efficient than VirtualBox or VMware, et al. However, it is not really intended for personal type of use and is not simple to configure properly or for ease of use. I have successfully used VirtualBox on all of my systems for about 7 or 8 years, and use that as well as VMware at work. They are much simpler to configure and use. In truth, KVM is more intended I think for server use.

[RikTelner]

In truth, KVM is more intended I think for server use.

I'm also intending to use KVM as server-host for hosting, for 2 Linux's and 2 Windows's and couple other for testing. It's not like I'm gonna run 2 virtual machines. I'm planning to actually start the server for my group of four people. Hence this topic too: https://www.daniweb.com/hardware-and-software/threads/486999/progressively-building-gamevideo-rendering-stationwebsite-hosting

[DimaYasny]

KVM is a mature technology, having been accepted into the Linux kernel back in 2006. It's also the most efficient of available hypervisors, using the Linux kernel directly to interact with hardware instead of piling multiple kernels on top of one another (like Xen/hyper-v) or running through an extra translation layer like vbox or vmware workstation. KVM is pretty easy to use on the desktop with virt-manager, and it has a datacenter and cloud solution available - oVirt (and commercially RHEV) easily compete with vsphere and openstack is the cloud solution everybody uses (over 80% of openstack deployments are with KVM).
So if all you want to do is play with some OS's locally, it doesn't matter what you use, but once you start to scale, both in terms of deployment size and in terms of performance, KVM is definitely the way to go.

[AMJAlienServers]

We are using proxmox and we have no issues with it.

[ShouldAt3]

You can run Linux in VMware Player without any problem. Many distributions are officially supported, e.g. Ubuntu, Debian, etc. The Linux distribution installed in a virtual machine doesn't know that it is running inside a virtual machine.

Learn more about VMware Player here. You have instructions on how to install Linux in a virtual machine.