Virtualization Goes Mainstream 167
InformationWeek is reporting that, during the same week that Microsoft announced the free price for Virtual PC, VMWare 1.0 was released for free as well. Though there were already many free options for virtualization available, these major products signal a shift in the industry. From the article: "There are many ramifications here. Obviously, the slew of products means network managers can now adopt virtual servers into their overall strategies and don't have acquisition costs providing a justification to avoid it. Other than the very-high-end VMware ESX and the midline Microsoft Virtual Server on mainstream XP platforms, virtualization is essentially free wherever you might want to use it."
VM Fabric (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:VM Fabric (Score:2)
Re:VM Fabric (Score:3, Informative)
Re:VM Fabric (Score:2)
Re:VM Fabric (Score:2)
No, for one thing VMWare ESX doesn't support IDE drives at all, and for another, your licensing costs for VMware per node would run you 20-30 times what your PC hardware cost. VMware ESX is meant to be run on big enterprise grade servers with multiple processors, gigabytes of RAM, and a SAN backend. Think of an ESX server as a
Re:VM Fabric (Score:5, Informative)
When you hit a user-defined treshold for either memory or CPU on a VM, then DRS will trigger a VMotion of that particular VM to another ESX in the cluster without user intervention, effectively running the VM where it can run the best, based on the SLA you defined when you created it.
The cool thing about this is that you can now have a predictable cluster utilization level, regardless of where the VMs are running.
[Disclaimer: I work for VMware]
Re:VM Fabric (Score:2)
Re:VM Fabric (Score:2, Informative)
As it is copying, the virtual
Re:VM Fabric (Score:2)
Across WANs mobile processes and filesystem subtrees could be well supported by caches and pause/copy ops.
It seems like VMWare running the same SW RAID in its OS instances can do at least that basic config. Hotswappable virtual "network computer" seems already here.
Re:VM Fabric (Score:2, Informative)
Re:VM Fabric (Score:2)
Virtualcenter on the other hand requires windows (and doesn't even have a linux version), so you have multiple things to patch (including all the junk like outlook express you can't easily remove).
If they make a version which is a standalone platform, or which runs under linux i'l consider using it, but until then i can't use windows machines for production systems for a myriad of reas
Yes, well ... (Score:5, Funny)
Then again, first hit is always free.
Re:Yes, well ... (Score:2)
So your first hit is likely to be your last.
Re:Yes, well ... (Score:2)
People just realize the potential now... (Score:1, Interesting)
For the uninitiated... (Score:3, Interesting)
Since I don't claim to have any experience dealing with VMWare, and only passing experience with VirtualPC (and, previously, SoftWindows) on Mac, can someone explain to me how this is different from emulation? Is it different from emulation? I've kept one x86 workstation around my home running Win98 (and dual-boot with Slackware) for a small handful of applications and a few games. The notion of making the machine Slack-only and running Windows virtually with no performance hit from emulating is attractive, but I am quite ready for my assumption to turn out flawed. Could someone with a greater clue than I've got educate me?
Re:For the uninitiated... (Score:5, Insightful)
In reality, the terms emulation are somewhat interchangeable - you can say "full virtualization", which means the entire machine hardware is virtualized (what is commonly called emulation), and you could say "partial emulation" when referring to what is commonly referred to as virtualization. Indeed, you might even call the likes of WINE "API emulation", though that might be stretching it somewhat.
Re:For the uninitiated... (Score:2)
Thanks for the response - that helps my understanding quite a bit. So here's a slightly more practical question - does VMWare (with which, again, I am wholly unfamiliar) run on x86 with Linux as the host OS? I'm sure I could find the answer if I went digging, but since this discussion would likely involve people who outright _know_ these answers, I thought I'd ask here. My goal would be to run a Windows environment with minimal performance impact. Would this likely
Re:For the uninitiated... (Score:2)
Re:For the uninitiated... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:For the uninitiated... (Score:2)
"...but code executed in the guest OS is run natively on the host machine's CPU, and thus runs pretty much as fast as on a native machine."
Then it might actually make some kind of sense.
Re:For the uninitiated... (Score:2)
Emulation, I believe, normally refers to one machine pretending to be another. "Machine", in this context, refers to CPU architecture. VMWare does not emulate a new architecture; it passes x86 straight through to the host.
Re:For the uninitiated... (Score:2)
Re:For the uninitiated... (Score:2)
You have a definite performance hit. However, depending on your machine it might not be such a big deal for those uses you have.
On my home machine, I've run linux and oracle application server inside of windows. It slowed down at pieces, but really wasn't that bad.
On my work machine, I run windows and Lotus Notes inside my Linux machine and don't even notice the extra OS. We'll see how that holds up as I put SQL Server on there.
Oh, but turn off the screensaver. The graphical subsystem is hit
Re:For the uninitiated... (Score:2)
I have some practical questions:
- What virtualization software are you using on the machine? (VMWare?)
- Can you copy-n-paste information between the two systems?
(I really need to spend some time getting up to speed on VMWare and virtualization.)
The only discussion missing.. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:The only discussion missing.. (Score:2)
It's a subjective question. Virtualization is especially good for improving utilization on certain types of servers, for example Web servers. You might have some kind of intranet application running on a Web server that only gets used every so often. The rest of the time it's sitting there idle. So if you add another virtual server to the same machine, sure, in a strict technical
Re:The only discussion missing.. (Score:5, Informative)
In the hosted world, the host OS is providing memory management and scheduling, as well as access to its device drivers. In the bare metal architecture, the hypervisor itself provides those functions, making it way more efficient. Recently, a customer was telling me he was running 6 VMs using GSX (now VMware Server) on a 2-way dual-core Opteron box. He installed ESX and he was then running 20 VMs on the same machine. That gives you an idea of the difference on these two approaches from the performance perspective.
The other reason why your performance may vary, is because you have CPU, memory and I/O overhead also. In the CPU realm, the vmkernel is running on ring 0, and the guest OS is relegated to ring 1 in the x86 CPU. The problem is that not all assembly instructions can be executed successfully in ring 1, so VMware's Binary Translator module will actually detect those patterns of "dirty" assembly instructions and will insert traps so every time you hit one of those, it gets executed by the vmkernel on behalf of that VM. So, the more traps you need to do, the more CPU overhead you get.
Additionally to the CPU overhead, you have memory mapping overhead (i.e. no real DMA), I/O subsystem overhead, etc.
Numbers can vary a lot. In general, large companies consider an average of 15% of virtualization tax, which is realistic when you want to run a large number of VMs in multiple systems. In any case, the best approach is to always test your workload before you put it in a sensitive environment.
[Disclaimer: I work for VMware]
It's free... At least now. (Score:5, Interesting)
OK. So Microsoft makes Virtual PC free. Suddenly everyone starts using virtualization software and (besides the licensing fees Microsoft will get for each copy of its OS that is virtualized) it's free and wonderful and everyone is happy that they can run all of their Operating Systems on one PC with much less hassle than before. Virtualization takes off, new uses are discovered for it, and it changes the way networks can be used. Hooray!
But eventually Microsoft stops maintaining Virtual PC (and discontinues support for it on any future operating systems) and decides to release Microsoft's new "Virtual Console" software that costs mucho bucks. Suddenly everyone that relies on Virtualization realizes that they'll either have to switch to some other virtualization software, change their software systems entirely, or simply bite the bullet and spend the money to upgrade to the new program.
This probably isn't news to anyone. In fact, it's the way things have been done since the first closed-source software program was created and sold. But I think that this is a perfect example of where Open Source software could really fit the bill and cause a paradigm shift to a better world where people aren't locked into one provider or another. If the OSS community could pull together and release a killer Virtualization app that's free as in speech perhaps people would start to see *why* software needs to be free, and perhaps they would realize it goes deeper than simply price.
I'm not trying to spread Microsoft FUD or spread the OSS gospel... but I think in scenarios like this an OSS alternative would be a no-brainer. Are there any OSS virtualization software suites in development right now (besides Wine)?
Re:It's free... At least now. (Score:3, Interesting)
WINE is not virtualization software. WINE is more of a hack that maps API calls. If you are looking for OSS virtualization software, check out XEN [cam.ac.uk] aka The XEN Hypervisor. It works great. Xen is the reason that VMWARE and Virtual PC are now free. Xen smokes both VMWARE and Virtual PC in terms of performance.
Re:It's free... At least now. (Score:2)
I dont agree that XEN is the reason for the zero-costing of these products. MS undercut VMWare on the workstation product line. VMWare noticed/realized/always-planned that the money was on the server, an
Re:It's free... At least now. (Score:2)
That is not true. You can buy a Core processor (or any processor with Intel-VT support) and run Windows XP under Xen right now.
There are even HOWTOs [planetjoel.com] doing the usual rounds.
Your information is
Re:It's free... At least now. (Score:2)
Thank you. I was actually with VMware trainers in Palo Alto the day that the VMware Server beta was announced. There was not a SINGLE mention of XeN. A
Re:It's free... At least now. (Score:3, Insightful)
This often is true, but it really depends on what you need to do. Unless you're running Xen on a CPU that has VT support on-chip, you're not running any VMs at all unless the guest OS has a kernel specifically modified to run with it.
I use Xen at home to run five Debian servers on a single box (and had to recompile the kernels for the domU and dom0 VMs). It runs wonderfully, and hasn't given me a moment's trouble. However, I'd never be a
Re:It's free... At least now. (Score:2)
Re:It's free... At least now. (Score:2)
In theory. In practice, I've found that VMware is significantly faster and more responsive than QEMU, even with kqemu installed. Getting kqemu running is particularly tricky; I never got it working with a Win98 VM.
And something else to be said of VMWare (Score:3, Interesting)
Also what makes it all possible is their cool P2V tool. I build a system with the OS and drivers it needs, then I use P2V to take it and reconfigure it for a VM. However, P2V doesn't damage the orignal configuration. So when I take a Ghost image of the vi
Re:It's free... At least now. (Score:2)
VMware Server is a bit pokey (though certainly still usable) for UI work owing to the VNC-like interface, but Workstation is *very* snappy and gives you some other goodies at the expense of built-in remote access. Of course you can still set your VMs up with SSH, RDC, VNC, etc. if you need to get to them remotely, so I didn't find Workstation's lack of integrated remote access to be a problem. Workstation offered me enough
Not a hack (and other BS) (Score:2)
Yes, WINE (Wine Is Not an Emulator) is not virtualization software. But you have to be pretty ignorant to call it a "hack". Making the Windows GUI APIs work under Linux takes some fairly sophisticated programming. You can't just say, "oh, the app wants me to create a Windows frame, I'll create a GTK frame instead." You have to do event handling, implement a lot of screen widgetry, and a lot of other stuff that's non-trivial.
You're also being a little dim if you think Xen is the reason Virtual PC is free.
Re:Not a hack (and other BS) (Score:2)
Is there any reason why someone would fork over close to $200 for VMware Workstation when VMware Player (and, more recently, Server) are free-as-in-beer? I'll allow that setting up VMware Player from scratch requires a bit of dig
Re:It's free... At least now. (Score:2)
Re:It's free... At least now. (Score:3, Informative)
I like to think of virtualization as 3 different sets of solutions: 1) for optimizing server performance vs. cost; 2) a "nice to have" kind of thing for development workstations 3) a tool to ease the transition between MS Windows and Linux
In the server optimization field, Microsoft may follow whatever trend they need to, in
Re:It's free... At least now. (Score:2)
However, my point was that the OSS community should strive to make a cross-platform virtualization solution. I'm guessing MS is banking on the notion that, since virtualization is still a fairly young technology, making it accessible with free software will make it "take off" and that's wh
Microsoft's strategy (Score:2)
2. EU's windows-based PCs are infected with viruses and crash causing loss of all records relating to fines against Microsoft.
3. Profit!!
Re:Microsoft's strategy (Score:2)
Why bother releasing a virus to crash Windows? All Microsoft has to do is drag this out long enough in court and the machines will trash themselves.
I hope ESX is a cash cow (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I hope ESX is a cash cow (Score:2)
That is why the government "punished" them for the IE Netscape thing. I guess it has been a long enough wait for them to use their large bank account to put yet another small company out of business.
Re:I hope ESX is a cash cow (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:I hope ESX is a cash cow (Score:2, Informative)
Looking at Microsoft's features page:
http://technet2.microsoft.com/WindowsServer/ [microsoft.com]
64-bit is insane (Score:2)
For anybody who knows anything about how x86-64 CPUs work, this is obviously an insane hack. They must be switching into long mode to run the 64-bit OS, then switching back to deal with the host.
Going the other way, 32-bit on 64-bit, is also insane. Every IRQ means switching back into long mode, out of what may even be real mode or virtual x86 mode. Woah...
Re:64-bit is insane (Score:2)
no, that's nothing like it (Score:2)
VMWare is doing witchcraft. All sorts of screwy data structures must change. There is the GDT, the IDT, numerous control registers... It's so insane that neither Windows nor Linux is able to support 16-bit apps on a 64-bit kernel. (because 64-bit can not service 16-bit, and thus you'd need to become 32-bit in order to ge
Xen... (Score:2)
I've tried IRC, I've read the docs, I've even rebuilt the FC5 kernel RPMs with some patches, but nothing works.
Wake me when virtualisation on Linux is as simple as it
Re:Xen... (Score:2)
Re:Xen... (Score:3, Informative)
I've been running it on my Linux box for a while now and it works very well--it even supports the Intel VT acceleration built into the new Intel chips (like on my Pentium D) unlike VMware.
Re:Xen... (Score:2)
That's a waste of money that I spent on the Intel CPU and motherboard, and far more aggro than I want.
I'll keep plugging on Xen, but even something as simple as up-to-date or accurate documentation would help... For example, from the Xen manual:
"You can also copy an existing Linux configuration (.config) in
Re:Xen... (Score:2)
Have you checked for a bios update for your system? And have you verified that the system manufacturer actually supports VT, since this is a relatively new technology quite a few hardware vendors don't officially support it (even tho theoretically the processor should) and you
virtual what ??? (Score:2, Funny)
Tested VMWare Server ... (Score:2)
I installed it under Windows XP, on a Pentium 4 HT 3.0 Ghz, 1 GB machine. It did not ask for a reboot (good thing).
Then just for fun, I installed Kubuntu 6.06 in it. It works, but you feel it is slow. So, it would not be something that I would run regularly.
I was hoping to run VMWare on Linux, and having Windows inside a VM for testing stuff. Not sure if Voice applications (e.g. Yahoo Messenger, MSN,
Re:Tested VMWare Server ... (Score:2)
Where this really shines is in the server room where you're less bothered about "does the display update quickly" and more bothered about "can it keep up with demand". When "demand" can't possibly be more than 100Mb/s (unless you're using gigabit throughout, of course), it takes a very processor-intensive app which requires 100% CPU time to keep up with 100Mbps.
A good replacement for laptops (Score:3, Informative)
External HDDs also work well, but they won't fit inside a shirt pocket.
Re:A good replacement for laptops (Score:2)
External HDDs (Score:2)
Sure they will. I have a Transcend StoreJet [pc-memory-upgrade.co.uk] and it's really tiny and light. In fact, it's a bigger hassle to carry the cable than the drive.
"Free" = "Mainstream" ? (Score:2)
Water falls from the sky and we still pay for it. How badly is virtualization tanking that they need to charge less than water?
VMWare Servers vs. Workstation (Score:2)
Can anyone knowledgeable tell me what the difference between the Workstation and Server is? (I'm currently a happy owner of an older version of Workstation and want to know if I should upgrade Workstation or switch
Re:VMWare Servers vs. Workstation (Score:2)
Server has a web based interface where you can have some control over virtual machines
Server lets you run a remote client to connect to the server
Server lets you detach the gui and leave the images running in the background
Workstation has (or will have) support for hardware accelerated 3d, currently very beta.
VMware server (Score:3, Informative)
MS Virtual Server 2005 *is* free (Score:4, Informative)
So the real comparison with the new "free" VMWare should be against VS 2005, and not against Virtual PC which is just a desktop emulation app.
Not saying one is better than the other -- just compare the same type of fruit when making your own decisions. The article is badly written or it's writer didn't understand what he was writing about.
Raw hardware access (Score:2)
Want to have some fun? (Score:2)
Anyone who can remmeber this dark age of computing - and can remember how long that POS OS took to load will get a huge kick out watching it run like this.
You say go and BAM! Instant Windows 3.1 - You won't even see that stupid flash screen it used to load
Re:right... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:right... (Score:4, Informative)
Not necessarily. from the
"Customers who deploy Windows Vista Enterprise have the ability to install up to four (4) copies of the operating system in a virtual machine for a single user on a single device."
Re:right... (Score:3, Insightful)
Not really microsoft offers the same 4 license for Windows Server 2003 R2 which exist NOW. Essentially MS is offering 4 virtual license with all future operating systems in their Enterprise versions.
Re:right... (Score:2)
You're only buying one piece of hardware, and one support contract for that hardware.
Re:right... (Score:2)
Read your agreements closely. Windows 2003 Server Enterprise Edition can run in multiple instances on the same hardware for a single fee. I think we'll increasingly see VM aware licensing as the products evolve.
Re:right... (Score:2)
Re:right... (Score:2)
Re:right... (Score:2, Troll)
Re:right... (Score:2)
What additional cost? Microsoft does not have any additional cost. You could install thousands of instances of vista, and they would still not have any additional costs....
Incorrect (Score:2)
Re:right... (Score:5, Interesting)
In other news, I've thought that VMWare and Apple were really missing a great opportunity with respect to virtualization. Apple wants to limit the hardware that MacOS X will run in to Apple blessed hardware. This is for two reasons: 1. They want to drive sales of Mac hardware. 2. It's a pain to support lots of models of PC.
If Apple and VMWare were to partner to release a free MacOS X virtual machine, it would allow Apple to get OS X into the hands of more prospective customers. (I haven't met a person who has *used* OS X for any length of time and not loved it.) Such an arrangment would also be good publicity for VMWare. VMWare already has a product that allows for some lockdown of virtual machines (VMWare ACE). Such an arrangement wouldn't violate Apple's goals with MacOS X (limited hardware support overhead, and MacOS X would be much more desireable on native hardware for OpenGL and whatnot). Such a move would certainly drive sales. All of a sudden millions of Windows users potentially get sucked up into Apple's product upgrade cycle: VMWare --> Mac hardware.
I wrote about this on my blog (blog.thoughtspot.net) a while back, but Dreamhost appears to be taking a dirt nap at the moment.
-Peter
Re:right... (Score:2)
Since hardware is Apple's money-maker, not OSX, it's a lose-lose situation.
Re:right... (Score:2)
[raises hand]
I'm here.
qemu (Score:3, Informative)
Mac OS as host OS? Oh, please. Why not Amiga OS?
For OSX as a host and guest there is a solution: > http://www.kberg.ch/qemu/ [kberg.ch]
Re:qemu (Score:2)
Re:qemu (Score:2)
Show me an open source, or free as in beer, parallels and I'll change my mind.
Re:qemu (Score:2)
qemu does both. Not OSS (yet) - but free as in beer.
Re:qemu (Score:2)
Re:right... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:right... (Score:1)
Re:right... (Score:1)
My "too proprietary" Macbook Pro boots into Windows XP, but for others virtualization will suffice:
http://www.apple.com/getamac/windows.html [apple.com]
Re:right... (Score:2, Interesting)
In the time it took you to post this absurd message you could've swung over to Google and found...
http://darwinports.org/ [darwinports.org]
http://developer.apple.com/opensource/index.html [apple.com]
http://www.kberg.ch/q/ [kberg.ch]
http://www.parallels.com/en/products/workstation/m ac/ [parallels.com]
My advice is
1. Think first
2. Post to Slashdot
Wishful thinking, I know.
Re:right... (Score:1, Interesting)
I don't know about binaries, but couldn't you just down load the source from and compile it for the Mac? After all, Mac's dev tools are free.
Re:right... (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:right... (Score:2)
Re:Hardware support (Score:2)
I have personally used Linux with Xen to run Windows XP on my Macbook Pro. The Macbook Pro has a Core Duo in it. Windows won't run in Xen without hardware virtualization, or a hacked copy that was never released.
Re:Hardware support (Score:2)
The first hurdle was I was using noapic with the Xen kernel when I didn't need to. The reason I used it was that I have to use it for consistent booting with a normal kernel. The second problem I ran into is that Fedora's copy of the Xen kernel is broken for booting XP. Setup would boot, but would always hang at "Setup is starting Windows". Finally I took the sugg
Re:Xen (Score:2)
I know OpenMOSIX is something to do with clustering - but for it to be any real use you need a suitable application.
Re:Xen (Score:2)