VirtualBox vs VMware: Which Vagrant Provider Minimizes RAM Footprint?

Goal

Run several Vagrant‑managed virtual machines on a host that only has 4 GB of RAM while keeping the host responsive.

Constraints and Uncertainty

Both VirtualBox (the default provider) and VMware’s Vagrant plugin claim to support multi‑VM workloads, but the exact memory overhead each provider introduces is not fully documented for a constrained host. The Vagrantfile can specify provider‑specific memory settings, yet it is unclear how these settings interact with the hypervisor’s default allocation and whether additional background services inflate the footprint.

Unresolved Decision

Which provider offers a lower effective memory consumption per guest when the same Vagrantfile is used, and can the provider be tuned to reduce that overhead without sacrificing stability?

Specific Questions

• What documented memory overhead does VirtualBox add per running Vagrant box on a 4 GB host compared to VMware?
• Can the Vagrantfile’s config.vm.provider block be configured to lower the default RAM allocation for each provider, and what are the limits?
• Is there a documented maximum number of concurrent Vagrant boxes that can be run on a 4 GB host with each provider before performance degrades?