Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
Search

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Virtualization Goes Mainstream

Posted by Zonk on Sun Jul 16, 2006 12:49 PM
from the legits dept.
Software Operating Systems IT
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."
+ -
story

Related Stories

[+] Technology: An Overview of Virtualization Technologies 204 comments
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?"
[+] Ask Slashdot: Using VMWare and Citrix in Tandem? 76 comments
Dysfnctnl85 asks: "As a follow up to the previous discussion 'Alternatives to Citrix Remote Computing?', I've hit another brick wall in my quest to enhance the way my company does remote computing. Right now I've setup Windows Server 2003 Enterprise x64 R2 on two 64-bit machines with 16gb of RAM each. Before I can setup Presentation Server 4, I need to install the Novell client to allow access to our NetWare servers. After doing some research on Google, and hopping forums on the Novell Support boards, I've determined that Novell has no plans to release a 64-bit client for any Microsoft OS until Vista launches." Has anyone managed to get VMWare, Citrix and 64-bit Windows working together?
[+] Technology: The Next Round in the Virtualization Wars 355 comments
GvG writes "After making Virtual Server available for free some time ago, Microsoft announced today it is offering Virtual PC as a free (as in beer) download. They also announced a change to the Vista license related to virtualization: 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. Even better, nothing in the license requires that Microsoft Virtualization technologies be used - if you want to use a competing product as your Virtualization solution, you still get the four extra licenses for use with VMs."
[+] Linux: Microsoft to Work with Xen on Virtualization 151 comments
suso writes "Microsoft has released a statement to the press, saying that they are to work with Xensource on making Windows Server work with Xen through Microsoft's own hypervisor technology." Coverage available from Reuters as well. From that article: " As a result of the collaboration, the next version of Windows Server, code-named 'Longhorn,' will provide customers with a virtualisation system that promises to help run both Windows and Linux on the same machine more cost-effectively. Microsoft said it expects to conduct a public trial of Windows Server virtualisation by the end of this year and to release a commercial version of the software within 180 days of the date when Windows Server 'Longhorn' is released. Microsoft aims to release 'Longhorn' by the end of 2007, it said."
[+] Linux: Oracle 'Losing Patience' with XenSource, VMware 165 comments
HiTech writes "eWeek has an article looking at Oracle's frustration with both XenSource and VMware over their reluctance to work together. The goal is to develop a single interface for virtualization solutions in the Linux kernel. Oracle's comments follow those by Linux kernel maintainer Greg Kroah-Hartman at Oscon last week that XenSource and VMware were butting heads instead of working together to come up with a joint solution. Brian Byun, VMware's vice president of products and alliances, admits the company had been approached by a neutral third party for offline mediation to establish how best to make this happen. But Simon Crosby, the CTO for XenSource, rules out any mediation, saying he believes the two companies are committed to solving the real technical issues."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

Virtualization Goes Mainstream 50 Comments More /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.

  • VM Fabric (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Doc Ruby (173196) on Sunday July 16 2006, @12:53PM (#15728581) Homepage Journal
    Is there a VMWare that distributes tasks across a network of VMWare hosts automatically? So I can just add new hosts to a network to make all the apps run faster? And install apps on a single machine, from where VMWare redistributes the load without my direct intervention?
    • Yes, it's called "Google".

    • Re:VM Fabric (Score:3, Informative)

      by fief (12961) *
      VMWare ESX combined with VMWare Virtual Center can provide for the ability to do automatic load balancing across VMWare ESX hosts.
      • Would that support a software RAID fabric that lets me distribute both processes and storage across a single virtual host, backed by lots of $150 PCs stuffed with cheap IDE drives? How big can such a beast get?

    • Re:VM Fabric (Score:5, Informative)

      by Natales (182136) on Sunday July 16 2006, @01:25PM (#15728709)
      The recently released VMware Virtual Infrastructure 3 (which is basically ESX 3.0 + VirtualCenter 2.0 + some add-ons) can do this using a technique called Distributed Resource Scheduling (DRS). This is basically a global scheduler running on your VirtualCenter server that works in coordination with the local schedulers in each ESX server part of the same ESX cluster.

      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]
      • Can it do all that across the Internet, or even just a WAN with guaranteed bandwidth and latency, even if low bandwidth and high latency?

  • Yes, well ... (Score:5, Funny)

    by ScrewMaster (602015) on Sunday July 16 2006, @12:54PM (#15728582)
    ... virtualization is essentially free wherever you might want to use it.

    Then again, first hit is always free.

  • For the uninitiated... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by hiryuu (125210) on Sunday July 16 2006, @01:05PM (#15728627)

    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)

      by Tx (96709) on Sunday July 16 2006, @01:17PM (#15728677) Journal
      The difference is somewhat semantic. Many people take emulation to mean "machine emulation" like Bochs for example, where you are emulating the entire hardware of the machine, and performance therefore sucks. What's commonly termed as virtualization emulates some items of hardware, but code is running natively on the CPU.

      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.
      • The difference is somewhat semantic...

        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

        • VMWare does run on Linux, however the performance hit would be noticeable (though not Linux-specific), eg the Windows GUI would be somewhat slow, and wrt gaming, that's simply out of the question. As long as you wish to run apps you'll be fine, unless you want a micro-second reaction time when you pull down a menu, but gaming-wise, no way. You'd be better off running Windows natively and Linux virtualized - then your gaming experience wouldn't be affected negatively.
        • Vmware runs fine on linux, and overhead isn't too bad (but keep in mind that if you want really good performance you'll need enough RAM to run the combined total of both OS's). However, not really ideal for gaming, as vmware does not support Direct3D/OpenGL well (I think there is some experimental support for it, but I can't vouch for how stable it is). Note that I've gotten my share of blue-screens using vmware (granted, this is on amd64 which is less than rock-solid for most software), and even the odd
        • The low-end versions of Vmware do run on top of linux or Windows, but VMWare ESX runs on it's own proprietary micro-kernel with linux running right on top of it as the management interface. As a result, ESX has much lower overhead than the other versions which run on top of other OS's. With ESX 2.5, the linux part is bolted on pretty tightly and can't be assigned resources like virtual machines, whereas, the new version (3.0) of VMware is more independent of the linux management interface. 3.0 runs the linu
      • Jeez, not had enough caffeine, that should read something more like:

        "...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.

    • 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.

    • I can't speak for slackware, but I have one of the new white macbooks from Apple, and I run windows XP under parallels. I'm VERY impressed with the speed. However - I recommend oodles of RAM if you're gonna virtualize. Also realize that the macbook is dual core so there's essentially a processor available for each OS. I have no idea how well it would work on a single core or older machine.
    • It is emulation.

      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

  • The only discussion missing.. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by HotNeedleOfInquiry (598897) on Sunday July 16 2006, @01:24PM (#15728703)
    Is how much overhead does virtualization take up? At what point do you actually need another box because of the performance hit?

    • how much overhead does virtualization take up? At what point do you actually need another box because of the performance hit?

      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)

      by Natales (182136) on Sunday July 16 2006, @04:37PM (#15729388)
      Virtualization overhead is not deterministic due to the nature of the code execution algorithm on the x86 CPUs. From the VMware perspective (which is what I know), you have two kinds of virtualization mechanisms: 1) Hosted on top of Linux or Windows, and 2) Bare metal, on top of a thin hypervisor like ESX.

      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)

    by vmfedor (586158) on Sunday July 16 2006, @01:30PM (#15728730)
    I'm certainly not an expert but it doesn't take a genius to see what *might* (and possibly will) happen.


    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)?

    • Are there any OSS virtualization software suites in development right now (besides Wine)?

      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.
      • Except that with currently available hardware, XEN isn't a VM layer, its a hypervisor. Technology asside, that means that only OS's that have been specificly altered to run on it work, and so far that includes only (some) OSS OSs, unless you have an accademic/research license with Microsoft or work in Provo.

        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
      • Xen smokes both VMWARE and Virtual PC in terms of performance.

        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
        • Is that snapshot system is just awesome. I manage lab images using it, makes PITA software installs safe. Snapshot, try it, roll back if it doesn't work. You can shanphot at every step of the way to roll back to different locations and try different things.

          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
    • 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)

      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

  • 1. Wait...

    2. EU's windows-based PCs are infected with viruses and crash causing loss of all records relating to fines against Microsoft.

    3. Profit!!
    • 2. EU's windows-based PCs are infected with viruses and crash causing loss of all records relating to fines against Microsoft.

      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)

    by 93 Escort Wagon (326346) on Sunday July 16 2006, @01:40PM (#15728780)
    Microsoft can, of course, afford to play this "free" game until the cows come home. I hope VMware can survive this. While sysadmins (okay, maybe not MSCE "sysadmins") will likely continue to choose the VMware solution, in the end we all know deployment is often affected by drive-by management decisions.
    • Microsoft can, of course, afford to play this "free" game until the cows come home.

      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.
  • I've spent 10 hours over the last two days trying to get Windows XP working on Xen. I bought all the right hardware, followed all the right instructions, and hit a wall. I've found other people with the same problem (e.g. http://lists.xensource.com/archives/html/xen-user s /2006-06/msg00452.html [xensource.com]) and some of them got around it... others didn't.

    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:3, Informative)

      by nacs (658138)
      Wake me when virtualisation on Linux is as simple as it is on OS X with Parallels.
      You do realize that Parallels is available for Linux [parallels.com] too right?

      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.
  • There are virtually many virtual ramifications here. Obviously, the virtual slew of virtual products means virtual network managers can now virtually adopt virtual servers into their overall virtual strategies and don't have virtually any virtual acquisition costs providing a virtual justification to virtually avoid it. Other than the virtually very-high-end virtual VMware ESX and the virtual midline Microsoft Virtual Server on virtual mainstream XP virtual platforms, virtualization is essentially virtually
  • I tested VMWare Server a few days ago.

    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, ...etc.) would work on a virtualized Windows machine inside Linux or

  • A good replacement for laptops (Score:3, Informative)

    by zlogic (892404) on Sunday July 16 2006, @02:37PM (#15729007) Homepage
    For those that don't want to carry their laptop from home to work and back again (not using on on the road), virtualization is a great option. I created a win'98 image with all kind of useful stuff and carried it to university and back home on a USB flash drive. When I get to a PC with VMWare installed, I load my environment and have everything configured, along with the latest copy of my files. Also great for demonstrating how your software works on a PC you don't own. You'll get your complete and familiar environment.
    External HDDs also work well, but they won't fit inside a shirt pocket.
  • Funny, I always thought that when things used to cost money and now they're giving them away, that's called market failure.

    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 server (Score:3, Informative)

    by LIGC (974596) on Sunday July 16 2006, @03:53PM (#15729252)
    I've been using VMware server for Ubuntu 6.06 and Windows Vista beta 2. It has a certain cool factor to it, and Ubuntu runs fast enough that you could run at least 2 applications, such as Firefox and GAIM, but for actual work on a CPU without VT support, it's extremely painful. And without graphics hardware virtualization (which ATI and Nvidia better integrate soon in their GPUs), running even a GUI like Vista Standard is slow and cumbersome.

  • MS Virtual Server 2005 *is* free (Score:4, Informative)

    by gothicpoet (694573) on Sunday July 16 2006, @04:16PM (#15729326) Homepage Journal
    Contrary to the quote from the article, MS Virtual Server 2005 *is* free. You have to have a license for each concurrently running instance of a Microsoft operating system but you do not have to purchase a license for Virtual Server itself. It's a free download. If you run a non-MS operating system on it, it's completely free. It's been that way since April.

    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.

    • Re:right... (Score:4, Interesting)

      by CastrTroy (595695) on Sunday July 16 2006, @12:56PM (#15728597) Homepage
      The virtualization software is free, but when you're virtuallizing MS Windows, it's anything but free. You now have to pay for a license of each virtual machine. This can make the cost go up a lot. You'd probably be better off not virtualizing, and just hosting everything off of a single non virtualized server.

      • Re:right... (Score:4, Informative)

        by YrWrstNtmr (564987) on Sunday July 16 2006, @01:15PM (#15728667)
        when you're virtuallizing MS Windows, it's anything but free. You now have to pay for a license of each virtual machine.

        Not necessarily. from the /. article the other day [slashdot.org]:
        "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."
          • The speculation on what may be the licensing terms of one edition of the future software is nice and fine, but it is just speculation.
            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.
      • If you want to separate services on separately patchable/administrable systems, this is still a win.

        You're only buying one piece of hardware, and one support contract for that hardware.
      • The virtualization software is free, but when you're virtuallizing MS Windows, it's anything but free. You now have to pay for a license of each virtual machine.

        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.

        • What if you're just running small business server edition? They have needs (probably moreso) for virtualization also. What about home users. Is it permitted for them. Am I allowed to install windows XP home on a seperate partition (for dual-booting) and install it in a virtual machine for quick access to windows when I need it?

    • Re:right... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by pschmied (5648) on Sunday July 16 2006, @01:25PM (#15728707) Homepage
      Agreed, MacOS is severely lacking in the virtualization department. As a long time user of VMWare, I can say that Parallels doesn't stack up in comparison. Lack of multiple snapshots and, well, a general lack of the snappiness I've come to expect from VMWare on Linux or Windows is missing. VMWare's lack of product for MacOS X is especially disappointing to me as a new Intel iMac owner.

      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

    • qemu (Score:3, Informative)

      by Sweetshark (696449)
      Unless your host OS happens to be Mac OS.
      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]
      • OS X has a lot of free software activity. Certainly most of the well know OSS has a Mac version. You are probably thinking of the old Mac OS, which did not.
    • The Core Duos have hardware virtualization, as do AMD's AM2 based Athlon 64s. So the Core 2 Duos aren't the first.

      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.

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2009 Geeknet, Inc.