LXD vs VirtualBox

Overview

VirtualBox

Stacks31.1K

Followers25.6K

Votes1.1K

LXD

Stacks104

Followers194

Votes68

LXD vs VirtualBox: What are the differences?

Introduction

LXD and VirtualBox are both virtualization technologies that allow users to create and manage virtual machines. However, there are key differences between the two that set them apart.

Containerization vs. Hypervisor: LXD is a containerization technology that uses Linux Containers (LXC) to create lightweight and isolated environments. On the other hand, VirtualBox is a hypervisor-based virtualization solution that emulates complete hardware to run virtual machines.
Operating System Compatibility: LXD requires the host system to be running a Linux kernel, as it relies on Linux Containers. It can run different distributions of Linux, but it may not support other operating systems such as Windows. VirtualBox, on the other hand, is compatible with a wide range of operating systems, including various versions of Linux, Windows, macOS, and Solaris.
Resource Utilization: LXD offers better resource utilization compared to VirtualBox. As LXD uses containerization, it shares the host system's kernel and resources with the containers, resulting in lower overhead. VirtualBox, being a hypervisor, requires separate virtual machine instances with their own operating systems, taking up more resources.
Networking: LXD provides a more advanced networking setup compared to VirtualBox. It supports advanced networking features, such as bridging, VLANs, and network namespaces. VirtualBox, while offering basic networking configurations, may not have the same level of flexibility and control as LXD.
Performance: LXD generally offers better performance than VirtualBox, especially when it comes to I/O-intensive workloads. LXD containers can achieve near-native performance as they share the host system's kernel. VirtualBox, on the other hand, has a layer of virtualization between the guest and host operating systems, which may introduce some performance overhead.
Use Case: LXD is primarily designed for running Linux-based applications and services in production environments. It provides a lightweight and scalable solution for deploying and managing containers. VirtualBox, on the other hand, is more suited for desktop and development use cases, allowing users to run various operating systems and applications for testing and development purposes.

In summary, LXD and VirtualBox differ in their underlying technologies, operating system compatibility, resource utilization, networking capabilities, performance, and use cases.

Share your Stack

Help developers discover the tools you use. Get visibility for your team's tech choices and contribute to the community's knowledge.

View Docs

CLI (Node.js)

Manual

Advice on VirtualBox, LXD

Florian

IT DevOp at Agitos GmbH

Oct 22, 2019

Decided

lxd/lxc and Docker aren't congruent so this comparison needs a more detailed look; but in short I can say: the lxd-integrated administration of storage including zfs with its snapshot capabilities as well as the system container (multi-process) approach of lxc vs. the limited single-process container approach of Docker is the main reason I chose lxd over Docker.

483k views483k

Comments

Detailed Comparison

VirtualBox	LXD
VirtualBox is a powerful x86 and AMD64/Intel64 virtualization product for enterprise as well as home use. Not only is VirtualBox an extremely feature rich, high performance product for enterprise customers, it is also the only professional solution that is freely available as Open Source Software under the terms of the GNU General Public License (GPL) version 2.	LXD isn't a rewrite of LXC, in fact it's building on top of LXC to provide a new, better user experience. Under the hood, LXD uses LXC through liblxc and its Go binding to create and manage the containers. It's basically an alternative to LXC's tools and distribution template system with the added features that come from being controllable over the network.
Portability;No hardware virtualization required;Guest Additions: shared folders, seamless windows, 3D virtualization;Great hardware support;Multigeneration branched snapshots;VM groups;Clean architecture; unprecedented modularity;Remote machine display	-
Statistics
Stacks 31.1K	Stacks 104
Followers 25.6K	Followers 194
Votes 1.1K	Votes 68
Pros & Cons
Pros 358 Free 231 Easy 169 Default for vagrant 110 Fast 73 Starts quickly	Pros 10 More simple 8 Best 8 API 8 Open Source 7 Cluster
Integrations
No integrations available	LXC

What are some alternatives to VirtualBox, LXD?

Docker

The Docker Platform is the industry-leading container platform for continuous, high-velocity innovation, enabling organizations to seamlessly build and share any application — from legacy to what comes next — and securely run them anywhere

Proxmox VE

It is a complete open-source platform for all-inclusive enterprise virtualization that tightly integrates KVM hypervisor and LXC containers, software-defined storage and networking functionality on a single platform, and easily manages high availability clusters and disaster recovery tools with the built-in web management interface.

VMware vSphere

vSphere is the world’s leading server virtualization platform. Run fewer servers and reduce capital and operating costs using VMware vSphere to build a cloud computing infrastructure.

LXC

LXC is a userspace interface for the Linux kernel containment features. Through a powerful API and simple tools, it lets Linux users easily create and manage system or application containers.

rkt

Rocket is a cli for running App Containers. The goal of rocket is to be composable, secure, and fast.

KVM

KVM (for Kernel-based Virtual Machine) is a full virtualization solution for Linux on x86 hardware containing virtualization extensions (Intel VT or AMD-V).

Qemu

When used as a machine emulator, it can run OSes and programs made for one machine (e.g. an ARM board) on a different machine (e.g. your own PC). By using dynamic translation, it achieves very good performance. When used as a virtualizer, it achieves near native performance by executing the guest code directly on the host CPU. it supports virtualization when executing under the Xen hypervisor or using the KVM kernel module in Linux. When using KVM, it can virtualize x86, server and embedded PowerPC, 64-bit POWER, S390, 32-bit and 64-bit ARM, and MIPS guests.

Parallels Desktop

Parallels Desktop for Mac allows you to seamlessly run both Windows and MacOS applications side-by-side with speed, control and confidence.

Vagrant Cloud

Vagrant Cloud pairs with Vagrant to enable access, insight and collaboration across teams, as well as to bring exposure to community contributions and development environments.

Parallels

It is an application and desktop virtualization software vendor that offers management and delivery platforms for Apple macOS and Microsoft Windows desktop deployments.

Related Comparisons

Bitbucket vs GitHub vs GitLab

AWS CodeCommit vs Bitbucket vs GitHub

Docker Swarm vs Kubernetes vs Rancher

Grunt vs Webpack vs gulp

Grafana vs Graphite vs Kibana

LXD vs VirtualBox: What are the differences?

Introduction

LXD and VirtualBox are both virtualization technologies that allow users to create and manage virtual machines. However, there are key differences between the two that set them apart.

Containerization vs. Hypervisor: LXD is a containerization technology that uses Linux Containers (LXC) to create lightweight and isolated environments. On the other hand, VirtualBox is a hypervisor-based virtualization solution that emulates complete hardware to run virtual machines.
Operating System Compatibility: LXD requires the host system to be running a Linux kernel, as it relies on Linux Containers. It can run different distributions of Linux, but it may not support other operating systems such as Windows. VirtualBox, on the other hand, is compatible with a wide range of operating systems, including various versions of Linux, Windows, macOS, and Solaris.
Resource Utilization: LXD offers better resource utilization compared to VirtualBox. As LXD uses containerization, it shares the host system's kernel and resources with the containers, resulting in lower overhead. VirtualBox, being a hypervisor, requires separate virtual machine instances with their own operating systems, taking up more resources.
Networking: LXD provides a more advanced networking setup compared to VirtualBox. It supports advanced networking features, such as bridging, VLANs, and network namespaces. VirtualBox, while offering basic networking configurations, may not have the same level of flexibility and control as LXD.
Performance: LXD generally offers better performance than VirtualBox, especially when it comes to I/O-intensive workloads. LXD containers can achieve near-native performance as they share the host system's kernel. VirtualBox, on the other hand, has a layer of virtualization between the guest and host operating systems, which may introduce some performance overhead.
Use Case: LXD is primarily designed for running Linux-based applications and services in production environments. It provides a lightweight and scalable solution for deploying and managing containers. VirtualBox, on the other hand, is more suited for desktop and development use cases, allowing users to run various operating systems and applications for testing and development purposes.

In summary, LXD and VirtualBox differ in their underlying technologies, operating system compatibility, resource utilization, networking capabilities, performance, and use cases.