It might be that VirtualBox is being used by less than 1% of the 38% of users using a vm as the top hypervisors amount to 99.1%, so others accounts for 0.9%
It may be a capable and reliable virtualisation software but I would never run my production Firewall on a vm.
I also use VirtualBox for IPFire but it is used only for development and testing purposes and those vm systems are safely behind a physical hardware IPFire that is connected to the Internet.
Yes I’m also running IPFire on VirtualBox only for testing purposes, my real IPFire system is going to run on a Raspberry Pi 4 Model B, to protect my home network. However also my testing system is sending its Fireinfo profile, and I guess also others do, so I would have expected to see more VirtualBox hypervisors in the stats…
If you are able to edit that page you might want to correct the architectures that are supported as i686 & i586, the 32 bit versions, have not been supported since the start of 2022 with Core Update 163.
I find hard to believe that VirtualBox is used less than Xen though, my doubt is that Fireinfo is not distinguishing VirtualBox from KVM, can someone verify this?
Yes, but my doubt is that Fireinfo could be failing to recognize Virtualbox among the different hypervisors, it is a very common SW so it is difficult to believe that it’s being used in less than 5% of all the virtualization systems… Maybe someone who has full visibility of the statistical data could verify if Virtualbox is detected at smaller percent values or not at all?
Type2 hypervisors are not that great at this because this is an OS that is designed for bare metal. So if you want to use a hypervisor, get a server board that has a type 1 built in.
So now everything is clear, and confirms what I thought: VirtualBox is actually detected as KVM hypervisor, and very likely it makes up for the majority of the KVM hypervisor percentage, just below VMWare.
IMHO systems with “model = VirtualBox” should be labeled as “VirtualBox” instead of “KVM” in the Firinfo webpage.