An Overview of Virtualization Technologies 204
PCM2 writes "Virtualization is all the rage these days. All the major Linux players are getting into the game with support for Xen, while Sun has Solaris Containers, Microsoft has Virtual PC, and VMware arguably leads the whole market with its high end tools. Even AMD and Intel are jumping onto the bandwagon. InfoWorld is running a special report on virtualization that gives an overview of all these options and more. Is it just a trend, or will server virtualization be the way to go in the near future?"
No Mention of UML (Score:5, Informative)
It seems that as Xen makes progress, UML is getting ignored.
Re:Mainly a cure for bad software (Score:3, Informative)
Re:And IBM? Where are they? (Score:4, Informative)
Since IBM practically invented virtualisation in the '60's for their mainframes (or possibly earlier (I'm not quite that old), I was quite surprised to see it missing from the Infoworld articles too.
IIRC, VMWare modelled their solution on IBM's implementation. They may have also licensed some of the technology to do it.
Don't forget Linux Vserver (Score:5, Informative)
Re:No Mention of UML (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Just a trend? NO WAY (Score:3, Informative)
Consolidate Costs . (Score:5, Informative)
I did this for a company with over 2000 unix servers and averages were : only 20% of the hosts would use more than 30% of the CPU
It's a known fact that for most of the projects the hardware is super sized over what's really needed, and this is one of the main advantage of virtualization : it is seen as a cost reduction process.
Re:Way too long of a FA, and not exactly accurate. (Score:4, Informative)
An interesting way to accomplish file-based fast migration is to nfs mount an area on the target server, then use md (in the virtual machine) to place a mirror there. Then you have no need for the lengthy copy, you already have a synced up online copy there.
Not saying it's good, just saying it works (and a useful alternative if you dont have a better shared storage)
Re:Way too long of a FA, and not exactly accurate. (Score:3, Informative)
You can't mount bsd slices as a loop device. You need a utility like lomount. Here's a copy [netkinetics.net] if you read the article and want to play with Xen/NetBSD. Compiles easily with gcc.
Just another example of how you can frustrate people with mis-information, and give the topic of your article the bad rep.. when it was really a lack of research on your part.
Cheers
Re:Mainly a cure for bad software (Score:1, Informative)
IBM == GODS OF VIRTUALIZATION (Score:5, Informative)
Intel and Xen even based their virtualization stuff on old papers from IBM documentation and whitepapers.
You want to know how hardcore IBM is?
THEY INVENTED VIRTUAL MEMORY. And no I am not talking about a swap file on your harddrive, you windows wennie. I am talking about the ability every PC has to abstract memory.. It's IBM's gift to the PC that made modern computing possible.
You aren't convinced of IBM's monsterious power?
They have it setup so that when you buy a OpenPOWER machine for running Linux you can get a optional firmware hypervisor to manage multiple operating systems. And it's pretty cheap also.. For the same price as a low end Sun Opteron box you can get a low end IBM POWER5 box.
But it's not just that... Get this:
IF you buy a Xeon cpu on a add-on card you can set up the machine to RUN WINDOWS.
That's right. Run windows with a fucking x86 cpu on a PCI CARD.. Sharing the same memory and harddrives as Linux running on POWER5. On the same machine. At the same time. With NO slowdown.
Still not convinced?
How about this, for a show of IBM's utter superiority in this feild:
We are running a 2000 era IBM Mainframe with a late 1970's operating system on a 1990's operating system with 1980's era tape drives for legacy reasons.
IT'S A THIRTY-ONE BIT (no NOT 32 bits. 31bits.) OPERATING SYSTEM ON A #$%#$% 64 BIT MACHINE. It's not even like going from x86 to x86-64. They are entirely different computer archatectures. AND it runs at near bare hardware speeds. It's incredable. AND we can run Linux next to it. At the same time. And not just one Linux install, but very literally hundreds of them if we felt like it.
It's completely nuts. They got shit that makes Vmware look like Dosbox. Microsoft's 'Virtual Server' isn't even on the radar; it's completely laughable in comparision.
That and it has the worst possible user interface imaginable. Think about the worst thing you've ever seen. Some DOS 2.x nightmare. Now add a OS/2 GUI and make it WORSE. Now imagine it worse then that. Now your getting close. That and we pay out the ass for the pleasure of using it. Ok, now make it slightly worse. That's about right.
The other end of virtualisation (Score:3, Informative)
Re:IBM == GODS OF VIRTUALIZATION (Score:3, Informative)
Re:IBM == GODS OF VIRTUALIZATION (Score:3, Informative)
Re:IBM == GODS OF VIRTUALIZATION (Score:3, Informative)
For example, IBM cannot currently migrate a running LPAR. In the next iteration of their technology they say they will be able to do that, but not now.
The lowest priced POWER5 is the p505, which lists for $3,399. The lowest end Sun Opteron is priced at $745. At that baseline price of $3,399 you get the basic hardware. What you don't get is an AIX license. You don't get APV. You don't get an HMC. You don't really get much in the way of virtualization capabilities at all. You'd use a system like that for your developers to use as a test platform. Maybe a webserver or a light weight application server. And for those tasks you'd be better off buying x86 based kit and running Linux, Solaris, or one of the BSDs.
Don't ever start arguing IBM v. anybody on the price battlefield, IBM loses everytime. Our shop is migrating onto IBM for one of our applications. We worked with the local IBM reps to get a system to have so we could all come up to speed. This beginner system (p550) with low-end options, that the sales guy claimed to be giving to us, cost over six figures.
Re:Just a trend? NO WAY (Score:5, Informative)
If you are using VMWare Server, please keep in mind that best practices say that you should generally NOT RUN SERVICES ON THE HOST ! It is far better to minimize the footprint of the host and create another VM to handle the services instead. There are of course exceptions to this such as when an application needs physical access to hardware that VMware can not supply or emulate, but they are not common.
If this doesn't help you, please check the VMTN forums for help; they have a points system for questions/answers and are generally one of the better free support forums for any commercial product I have ever seen.
No notice of IBM Virtualization on pSeries? (Score:2, Informative)
cheaper, too (Score:3, Informative)
The only downside is that my basement server runs Debian and OpenHosting runs Fedora. But nobody's perfect.
Works well for license servers (Score:3, Informative)