Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Microsoft Upgrades

Longhorn Server Will Stress Virtualization 101

Posted by kdawson from the bet-it-won't-run-virtual-MacOS dept.
Rob writes in with an article from CBROnline based on an interview with Microsoft's UK server director. He says the timing of the release of the next version of Microsoft's server OS, dubbed Longhorn, depends on the company getting virtualization ready to go. Microsoft has apparently decided to embed its hypervisor technology into Windows, an OS-centric approach to virtualization shared by XenSource Inc., its open-source rival and partner. This contrasts with the model of virtualizing the hardware layer being pursued by VMWare. The Microsoft spokesman is coy about a release date for Longhorn, saying it could be earlier or it could be later (but it should be in 2007).
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Longhorn Server Will Stress Virtualization More

Longhorn Server Will Stress Virtualization

Comments Filter:

  • Can't they make up their mind? (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 20, 2007 @02:21PM (#18085732)
    Is it Long and Horny, or is it Micro and Soft?

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by fyoder ( 857358 )

      Is it Long and Horny, or is it Micro and Soft?
      The latter [binary-environments.com].
    • I think it could be both Micro and Horny or Long and Soft....

      nothing about these are exclusive, except you can't be SoftHorn, or rather Soft and Horny.

  • Right Tool For Right Job (Score:5, Informative)

    by WED Fan ( 911325 ) <akahige@trashmaCOUGARil.net minus cat> on Tuesday February 20, 2007 @02:29PM (#18085852) Homepage Journal

    This will work fine if all the servers you want to run on a given machine are MS. I like VMWare for the fact that you can load Windows on one VM, Linux on another, and Solaris on yet another. The folks at PACCAR are running massive numbers of systems on a single Blade.

    What I would like MS to give us is a Virtual Platform OS, much like VMWare's ESX server. Give me an extremely lightweight OS geard towards Virtualizing the HW layer, then let me load anything into each VM.

    As far as I know, VMWare is the only one doing that.

    • Re:Right Tool For Right Job (Score:4, Informative)

      by rfinnvik ( 16122 ) on Tuesday February 20, 2007 @02:44PM (#18086112)
      MS supports running Linux on Virtual Server 2005 R2...

      http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserversystem/virtu alserver/evaluation/linuxguestsupport/default.mspx [microsoft.com] ...though I have no idea how well it works.

      The guest OS' supported are pretty much the same ones as under VMware VI3.

      • Re: (Score:1, Insightful)

        by WED Fan ( 911325 )

        MS supports running Linux on Virtual Server 2005 R2...

        Right, but you have to have a full Windows Server 2003 loaded with IIS (if I'm not mistaken) to run VS 2005.

        VMWare runs a very light weight linux OS, with a few specialized tools, freeing up as much CPU, RAM, and storage as possible to the VM's.

        Now, if I was at Microsoft, designing their new virtualization app, I'd build the next Virtual Server AS the OS. And follow through with letting it run any OS in the virtualized environment. Hell, given the r

        • Sounds like what you want is Xen. The Hypervisor is incredibly small and is generally controlled by a TINY (or large if you really want, but all it really needs is a few low level tools) domain 0 linux installation, and then inside the DomU's you can have any OS you want (Windows would require VT/SVM support in the processors though). Also you could use KVM which is now included with the mainline linux kernel since 2.6.20 which is similar to Xen but much lighter, and requires VT/SVM (no paravirtualization

          • Re:Right Tool For Right Job (Score:4, Interesting)

            by Courageous ( 228506 ) on Tuesday February 20, 2007 @03:17PM (#18086652)
            ...and then inside the DomU's you can have any OS you want...

            Theoretically. As a matter of reduction to practice, if you don't make all those DomU's with EXACTLY the matching level of Xen kernel as the dom0, everything will fall through your fingers. Xen is really over hyped right now. The 64 bit stuff is flakely, live migration is flakey, hardware support is weak, the whole thing is still quite clearly in a beta state. Just peruse the list archives at http://lists.xensource.com/ [xensource.com] to get an idea of what ordinary deployers of xen are routinely facing. Kernel panics are hardly unusual. In off the shelf SLES10, I can routinely crash dom0 (and by implication ALL guests) by simply issuing a migrate at the wrong time. Xen is still very young.

            You will be right a year from now. The trend is clear. Not today, though.

            C//
        • I was told by a MS Rep that the LongHorn Server will have a "headless" SKU.. IE, no gui. Made for being a virtual server, or even just a remotely managed web server. No GUI overhead.. Not sure how reliable that is, but a very interesting idea.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Psiren ( 6145 )

        MS supports running Linux on Virtual Server 2005 R2... ...though I have no idea how well it works.

        It seems to work just as well as VMWare Server, although admittedly I didn't do much with it as I was just seeing if Ubuntu would install and run. I can't compare it with ESX as we won't be getting that until the summer, but I'm not sure that would be a fair comparison anyway. Comparing ESX and the virtualisation in Longhorn would be fairer. I wouldn't be surprised if the first version works reasonably well, bu

    • ESX3 blew the managing part (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Werrismys ( 764601 ) on Tuesday February 20, 2007 @02:51PM (#18086246)
      ESX 2.5x was fully tunable via a web interface.

      ESX 3.x management client requires a .NET platform running on windows. No mono, no wine. Yes, it's snappier than the web interface, but jesus - they should bundle as many free windows licenses as the client requires with every ESX3 sold. It's BS I have to run VMware 3 Infrastructure Console in XP in VMware Workstation on Linux. That's one winblows license for no extra functionality and tons of RAM and resources wasted for this ludicrous tie-in.

      To rephrase: they sell a lean and mean proprietary VM hypervisor kernel that uses linux for management and stuff. It can run on any OS. And you're required to run a closed proprietary OS to manage it.

      This is not only insane it's DANGEROUS. What if M$ broke .NET in the next hotfix so that VMware ESX 3 management software broke?

      There have been demands for a mono or unix or linux native client to manage ESX3 for at least 18 months and STILL no official word from VMware. I wonder how much money M$ paid VMware to get one of their worst competitors to bend over.

      • Aaargh! With "It can run on any OS."

        I meant that ESX can run almost any x86 OS relying on standardish PC hardware.

        Sorry, getting drunk.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by qnetter ( 312322 )
      Longhorn's virtualization will support other guests than Windows -- in fact, XenSource is working with MS to make Linux run full-power on it.

  • Recursion & the licensing model? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by mosel-saar-ruwer ( 732341 ) on Tuesday February 20, 2007 @02:31PM (#18085892)

    Is the virtualization gonna be recursive?

    If so, how will they handle licenses of licenses of licenses of...?

    And will Active Directory be able to handle trees of trees of trees of... license keys?

    • What are you talking about? A VM is viewed as any other machine. If you install Windows to a VM, then that VM needs a license. There's no special voodoo involved.

      * There are some exceptions to this currently; namely... if you have a host OS that is the 'Enterprise' version of Windows; then you can run 4 standard VM's for free. This help makes the cost of Enterprise a little more bearable, and there are many examples where this option is more favorable to a company than droppinng $1000 for the starter v

      • What are you talking about?

        Well, say you have a server with a 5 user license.

        And on that server you want to install five virtual servers, each with a five user license.

        And on each of those five virtual servers, you want to install five virtual servers, each with a five user license [and so on, and so on...].

        Will the thing run [without complaining] if you do all of this with the same [identical] copy of the same [identical] 5 user license?

        Or will it balk, and require you to purchase [e.g.]

        5 X 5

  • I don't get this... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by ratboy666 ( 104074 ) <fred_weigel@[ ]mail.com ['hot' in gap]> on Tuesday February 20, 2007 @02:33PM (#18085920) Journal
    Microsoft seems to be TERRIFIED of VMware (EMC). Why? Is is because VMware allows the use of Windows UNDER Linux? (Whereas, it seems, Microsofts preferred approach will be Linux under Windows?).

    Of course, having Linux as the HOST OS means that driver vendors will have to support Linux more in the enterprise. And, I believe that Linux is the "better" OS in that the kernel has gone through a more stringent review process.

    But all of these statements -- that the Windows Virtualization Technology will be stunning, that Virtualization belongs in the OS, etc. seems to be thowing FUD directly at VMware (and, I assure you, the VMware product is "stunning" -- I particularly like the Server product running on Linux).

    To my knowledge (or my opinion, if you prefer), Microsoft ONLY reacts this strongly if their platform is being threatened. And I don't see what the introduction of a bit more enterprise driver support does to threaten Windows.

    Ok, I have a guess: It could be that Linux is so good that it makes for a more solid OS base. This then provides a compelling platform to begin virtualizing Windows Servers on. But, if the enterprise is ALREADY basing on Linux, why not start transitioning to native Linux? After all, its stable enough to host Windows, right? A chink in the platform.

    But that implies that Microsoft believes that Linux is that good...

    • Re:I don't get this... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by RAMMS+EIN ( 578166 ) on Tuesday February 20, 2007 @03:07PM (#18086506) Homepage Journal
      ``And, I believe that Linux is the "better" OS in that the kernel has gone through a more stringent review process.''

      Moreover, you can easily strip Linux down to just the bare minimum needed to run the hypervisor. No need to waste several hundred megabytes of RAM on features you won't be using.

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by thona ( 556334 )
        YOu get the facts wrong. Hypervisor will run UNDER the Windows OS. Which means really low bare minimum. I look forward to this.

        • YOu get the facts wrong. Hypervisor will run UNDER the Windows OS.

          Doesn't that mean you still need a full Windows OS? Doesn't that mean you still need stupid things like a fully functioning GUI on a server?

      • You do realize that with Longhorn Server you can do the same thing right?

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by sharkey ( 16670 )
        But without Minesweeper, how do you kept busy while visiting Linux Update?

    • Just wait until the VMware guys get DirectX 9 working at speed. [vmware.com] Then move that to other operating systems. [engadget.com]

      Imagine being able to play your Windows games, but on an OSX box. Or Linux someday. It would be fantastic. Just make a VM, install your XP on that...then the game. And disconnect the virtual network card so your VM doesn't get pwned.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by drsmithy ( 35869 )

        Imagine being able to play your Windows games, but on an OSX box. Or Linux someday. It would be fantastic. Just make a VM, install your XP on that...then the game. And disconnect the virtual network card so your VM doesn't get pwned.

        In all cases you've bought a copy of Windows off Microsoft. Why should they be bothered if you're running it on real hardware or virtualised hardware ?

        • Market share (Score:4, Insightful)

          by Weaselmancer ( 533834 ) on Tuesday February 20, 2007 @04:06PM (#18087428)

          If you're running your Win32/DX games on OSX, then it's an OSX machine that happens to be running Windows as a task or translation layer. The computer is not a Windows box.

          MS is all about market share. Without that, they're nothing. That's why they perform stranglehold tactics on PC manufacturers, like this. [businessweek.com] If people can run to the store and buy a piece of software and run it anywhere, then what's the point of Windows?

          Most of us already own an XP disc. With no reason to buy another one, the whole Windows revenue stream dries up.

          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by drsmithy ( 35869 )

            If you're running your Win32/DX games on OSX, then it's an OSX machine that happens to be running Windows as a task or translation layer. The computer is not a Windows box.

            That's completely irrelevant. What's important to Microsoft is that you bought a copy of Windows. Ie: that they've made their money.

            MS is all about market share. Without that, they're nothing. That's why they perform stranglehold tactics on PC manufacturers, like this. If people can run to the store and buy a piece of software and r

            • Respectfully, I must disagree.

              What's important to Microsoft is that you bought a copy of Windows. Ie: that they've made their money.

              What MS actually cares about is their revenue stream. You bought Windows, and they want that. But they also want you to buy the next Windows too. Their business model is all about repeat business. That's why they keep giving the users reasons to buy the next Windows. Like...not making DX10 available for XP, but only for Vista.

              Running a piece of software on a VM run

              • Re: (Score:2)

                by drsmithy ( 35869 )

                What MS actually cares about is their revenue stream. You bought Windows, and they want that. But they also want you to buy the next Windows too. Their business model is all about repeat business. That's why they keep giving the users reasons to buy the next Windows. Like...not making DX10 available for XP, but only for Vista.

                An example that doesn't have a reasonable technical basis would carry a bit more weight with the old "'forced' upgrade" argument.

                Incidentally, pretty much _everyone's_ business mode

    • "Microsoft seems to be TERRIFIED of VMware (EMC). Why? Is is because VMware allows the use of Windows UNDER Linux?"

      "To my knowledge (or my opinion, if you prefer), Microsoft ONLY reacts this strongly if their platform is being threatened."

      Microsoft are always terrified nowadays, and their platform is always threatened.

      Wake me up when they finaly lose something.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by drsmithy ( 35869 )

      Microsoft seems to be TERRIFIED of VMware (EMC). Why? Is is because VMware allows the use of Windows UNDER Linux?

      No. Microsoft don't really care how you're running Windows, as long as you're running Windows.

      Virtualisation is on the road to becoming a popular way to more efficiently utilise hardware resources. Whoever has the "best" virtualisation product is going to make a lot of money out of it. Microsoft want to make a lot of money.

    • The real meat n' potatoes of VMWare is it's ESX class (IMHO). It doesn't run on linux, rather a specifically built core w/ lots of little applets and such (which are based om linux).

      The problem with Virtual PC (and even VMWare Server) is that they run on top of an existing OS, rather than being installed bare metal. You have unneeded overhead and another point of failure vs. the bare metal custom install.

      In all actuallity, MS has been heading towards virtulization ever since it bought the Virtual PC product

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by swrona ( 594974 )
      Linux is not the underlying OS of VMware ESX. ESX uses VMware's own proprietary OS, as opposed to the GSX/VMware Server product, that runs on Windows or Linux. ESX just happens to look a lot like linux. And actually, I think that they just re-compiled some of the stuff; since its easier to do that than to re-invent the wheel. To learn more about the VMware product that has got Uncle Bill @ MS worried, you can check out VMware's website for ESX server http://www.vmware.com/products/vi/esx/ [vmware.com]
    • But all of these statements -- that the Windows Virtualization Technology will be stunning ...

      Look, you said it yourself ... FUD. Any time that Microsoft says "will be stunning", when referring to some future product, you know it means "we're promising everything our competition can already do that we aren't even close to delivering, plus some extra cool-sounding stuff so you'll hold off investing in them until we're ready." Look at the features Microsoft promised that Vista would ship with that got remo

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by donaldm ( 919619 )
      I don't think Microsoft is scared of VMware or even Xen. If you are going to run a MS OS on your machine you are required to pay for the MS OS license, however you had better read the Vista licenses first before you do this since some of the "cheaper" licenses forbid you from vitalization. Of course this is not going to stop your pirate but commercial companies had better watch out.

      I do think that Microsoft is scared of vitalization becoming more popular on Linux, Solaris and the commercial Unix's to the ex

    • But all of these statements -- that the Windows Virtualization Technology will be stunning, that Virtualization belongs in the OS, etc. seems to be thowing FUD directly at VMware (and, I assure you, the VMware product is "stunning" -- I particularly like the Server product running on Linux).

      To my knowledge (or my opinion, if you prefer), Microsoft ONLY reacts this strongly if their platform is being threatened. And I don't see what the introduction of a bit more enterprise driver support does to threaten

  • err... (Score:4, Funny)

    by cosmocain ( 1060326 ) on Tuesday February 20, 2007 @02:33PM (#18085928)

    "We want to get this piece right, so we are being very aggressive about the degree of virtualization we deliver with Longhorn."


    talking about getting it right? so the degree will be ...uhm...somewhere near, let me guess, zero?

  • Virtualization (Score:5, Insightful)

    by VAXcat ( 674775 ) on Tuesday February 20, 2007 @02:34PM (#18085948)
    Yawn...if Microsoft could write an OS that had decent multi tasking, a responsive scheduler, and adequate memory allocation and protection, the appeal of running a bunch of virtual machines just to run a bunch of different jobs and keep them from interfering with each other would be much less. This has been done before, most notably by VMS..I used to manage a cluster of large VMS systems, each of which had dozens of Oracle databasea on them, supported interactive editing of documents for hundreds of people, and ran a mixed bag of financial, accounting, engineering and program development applications...all on the same machines....looks like Microsoft and Cutlerdidn't incorporate enough of it in Windows...

    • Re:Virtualization (Score:5, Interesting)

      by tomstdenis ( 446163 ) <tomstdenis AT gmail DOT com> on Tuesday February 20, 2007 @02:41PM (#18086066) Homepage
      There are more than security issues. For example, you may opt for a cheaper co-lo deal by getting a VM slice instead of a dedicated box. In your VM slice you can install/do whatever you want because you're isolated from the other "boxes".

      Also, if you have to have multiple build environments [re: software developer] then it's nicer to fire up a VM instead of a dedicated box.

      Tom

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by MobyDisk ( 75490 )
      I'll agree that the problem is the OS, but in my opinion the issue is configuration. In Linux, when I install .deb or .rpm package, I am 100% confident that I can uninstall that application easily. On a Mac, I just need to delete the app from the applications folder. But in Windows, I just assume I'll have to delete files and registry keys manually, and that I will need to reformat before installing the next version of the software.

  • TIME PARADOX (Score:5, Funny)

    by onlysolution ( 941392 ) on Tuesday February 20, 2007 @02:35PM (#18085964)
    Where did this story come from? 2005?

  • gartner was right... (Score:4, Informative)

    by leuk_he ( 194174 ) on Tuesday February 20, 2007 @02:35PM (#18085974) Homepage Journal
    GArtner predicted [techworld.com] that viriutalization would be a big factor in a next version of the next major OS.

  • A virtual certainty (Score:4, Funny)

    by davidwr ( 791652 ) on Tuesday February 20, 2007 @02:37PM (#18086010) Homepage Journal
    I'm virtually certain that this will come with virtual customer service. Now if only all the bugs would be virtual and I could pay with virtual cash, I might be more than just a virtual customer.
  • I'm fairly sure the hypervisor part of the virtualization-stack will become a commodity... (Though i prefer the ESX-model, with a dedicated, stripped down virtualization host).

    The real business in virtualization will be management tools, - I bet VirtualCenter/Lab Manager will be VMware's main business in a few years.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by moco ( 222985 )
      definitely, but vmware should be seeking to introduce virtualization to other markets. They are already making inroads to business desktops with ACE [vmware.com], but there are many more markets to bring virtualization to. Home computing comes to mind (a virtual PC for each member of the family running on a single physical machine), and i am sure many others.
    • True. But it's still easier to make a good management tool than a hypervisor or implement usual non-VT/Pacifica x86 virtualisation with good performance (the latter arcanely hard). So Vmware, which really excells at software engineering will still have to keep their virtualisation ahead of competition to be industry leader. Yes, they are now pressured by both Windows and Linux, but their package is ahead of both.

      It's hard to guess how ahead Microsoft is with this, but i somehow doubt that it's as advanced a

  • Not just virtualization... (Score:5, Funny)

    by node 3 ( 115640 ) on Tuesday February 20, 2007 @02:40PM (#18086060)
    I'm pretty sure Longhorn Server will stress just about everyone who comes into contact with it.
  • Because Windows machines need to be rebooted all the time for bugfixes, application death, and patches, MS wants you to be able to run several instances of Windows on 1 piece of gear. A decent virtualization layer will allow you to migrate users from 1 instance to another, so you can bounce the instances one at a time. That being said, VMWare currently totally rocks at this, so MS has an uphill battle. One which they'll win, of course, because they have the mindshare and the Windrones will buy it.

  • They basically gave up pretending Windows is a multitasking multiuser platform and now start recommending one Windows per one service. This is of course what everyone has been doing since Windows servers started getting deployed. It's HELL to keep windows with one service running operational, because the system is a black box of maggots. This used to sell lots of server hardware.

    Longhorn on the bottom virtualization enabled, n longhorns on top in sandboxes, guess whether the suc^h^h^hclients have to buy

    • They basically gave up pretending Windows is a multitasking multiuser platform and now start recommending one Windows per one service.


      The issue is not one server per OS, it is one customer per OS instance in a hosted environment. Linux would do the same thing, after all just because it can have multiple regular users doesn't mean that customers who want root access will be willing to share one system. The virtualization allows this.

  • From the looks of things.... (Score:3, Funny)

    by Kenja ( 541830 ) on Tuesday February 20, 2007 @02:50PM (#18086232)
    From the looks of things, it'll put stress real hardware as well.

  • Awesome! (Score:5, Funny)

    by hobo sapiens ( 893427 ) <POLLOCK minus painter> on Tuesday February 20, 2007 @02:55PM (#18086326) Journal
    Awesome! Here's how it will almost be implemented.

    Beta 1 will have it. It will totally destabilize the OS.
    Beta 2 will not have it, but it will be replaced with shiny graphics.
    Beta 2.5 will have to remove the shiny graphics, because these too will destabilize the system.
    Beta 3 will put it back, working perfectly.

    Rc 1 will be totally unstable and also have gaping security holes.
    Rc 2 will look like Server 2000
    Rc 3 will look like "longhorn" but without the virtualization. However, the shiny graphics will be there.

    Anyone signing up for the "upgrade"? I hope you like vapour.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by hobo sapiens ( 893427 )

      40% Interesting
      40% Troll
      20% Funny
      Man. Five mods so far, and only one person got the joke (thanks for the interesting mods all the same, though). I guess I'll keep my day job as a Windows Server admin after all.

      Gotta love replying to the moderators, though. It's a bit like replying to AC, only more futile.
  • VMWare's hypervisor is capable of using VT and Virtualization capabilities of BIOS/HW to improve performance, provide more features. Xen however is near native speed and doesn't require VT or Virtualization to run, but is enhanced by VT and Virtualization. VT and Virtualization for Xen allows FV machines to run "un-modified" OS. Longhorn will be modified it appears to run in a Xen container (para-virtual). This will be interesting to say the least. The question is will I be able to run modified Xen OS in
  • I will take a Hardware solution over a Software solution (remember those fun-assed Winmodems?) any day of the week.

    Microsoft's Virtual server sucked ass. I see that they plan on carrying on that fine tradition into the future.
    • Virtual Server much like Virtual PC always sucked ass compared to Microsoft. They only bought it semi recently which is the real scary part. Hardware solutions are great but are inherently not as flexible as software solution, of course they perform better so there are trade-offs. I believe there is room for both although in my view EMC made a wise move going after VMWare as their products are solid compared to anything else in the market.
  • Given Microsoft's penchant for taking a technology and re-branding it (i.e., adding security problems with one-off "standards"), is anyone else afraid of the security implications of a MS version of virtualization?

    I don't think MS has any SERIOUS interest in virtualization technology other than the fact that it increases their licensing revenues. Why are the re-inventing the wheel? Are they just trying to take control over it to keep tabs on which installations are legal and which are not?

    Maybe I'm just a s

  • The Microsoft spokesman is coy about a release date for Longhorn, saying it could be earlier or it could be later (but it should be in 2007).

    This is great news! I'll be sure to put it on pre-order in 2009.

    Or I could wait for some 12-year old in Russia to offer to sell it to me. I hear it comes with some pills to increase my m4nh00|).

  • Somebody explain this to me... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by rewt66 ( 738525 ) on Tuesday February 20, 2007 @03:40PM (#18087044)
    Why is there all this interest in virtualization?

    Is it because it isolates the services from each other, because people can't write services that don't trash their environment and thereby corrupt other services and/or the OS? If so, that seems to be both the service's fault for being so badly written, and the OS's fault for doing such a poor job of protecting services from each other.

    Is it because Windows can't multitask well and/or doesn't protect processes from each other well? If so, why does anyone think that another layer of Windows is the answer? If Windows can't protect processes from each other, why does anyone think it can protect VMs from each other? If it can't multitask well among processes, why does anyone think it can multitask well among VMs?

    In short, why does anyone think this is the answer? Isn't the answer to get a real OS, one that actually works?

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by lukas84 ( 912874 )
      Because most bigname vendors application demand their own server for certification.

      Why? Not Microsoft's fault, but mostly vendors lazyness.

      On the other hand, virtualization allows for better security by seperating unrelated roles completely without generating additional hardware cost.

    • Re:Somebody explain this to me... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by drinkypoo ( 153816 ) <drink@hyperlogos.org> on Tuesday February 20, 2007 @05:14PM (#18088564) Homepage Journal

      Why is there all this interest in virtualization?

      Because you can have five servers on three machines and if one physical box goes down, the VMs running on that system can migrate to the other two machines and things can pick up more or less where they left off... if you have a SAN anyway.

      It also lets you make upgrades trivially; you can migrate the VM(s) away, upgrade the system, and migrate VM(s) back.

      It keeps your system from being tied to any given OS so all you need ever install on a computer is enough OS to run vmware, and vmware itself. If a machine suddenly explodes and you can't get replacement hardware, you're not forced into reinstalling the OS to get Windows booting again.

      And finally, there are compelling reasons to run applications on their own system on Linux as well, security not being the least of these issues. It's not just Windows. How's the light down in that basement?

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by caluml ( 551744 )
        How's the light down in that basement?

        Ouch :)
      • You could do the same with a distributed operating system. And you would have the advantage of one less layer of overhead.

        • You could do the same with a distributed operating system. And you would have the advantage of one less layer of overhead.

          Clusters come with their own problems. I agree that is the eventual future for most shops, but right now the virtual machine metaphor permits them to work much in the same way they always have, while still providing redundancy etc.

          One of the major strengths of the VM model is that I am not tied to a single operating system, as I would be with a SSI cluster. I can run NT4, Win2k, WinXP,

  • From what I remember reading, the Windows Hypervisor will be a mini-OS below all VMs, including the host OS. But there has to be one designated VM to act as host OS, because it'll be the one responsible to host all drivers, that'll be accessible for the guest OSes via sort of proxy methods using the hypervisor (mainly only for the Windows based guest systems, unless other systems are going to implement the interfaces and functionality).
  • I run a small VMware shop and one of the added benefits for us has been that we are able to corral Windows rather then extend our use of it. ESX Server 3.0.1 is very stable, we can patch and reboot on our terms. Windows in general has proven to be far less reliable, so running Windows VMs on Windows would just compound our problems. Sure, MS will stress virtulization in Longhord, but will jaded admins like myself do the same? I think not.
  • Its interesting to observe the way that Microsoft have always really fought hard to guard the who-runs-who position. They've always tried hard to "embrace and extend" (read: kill) any independent software from running windows OS, but are fine with Windows OS being the top layer and running it. Very wierd and this is just the latest move in that long battle.
  • Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • Software is sold as a stack from operating systems through middleware to application programs. Software companies have to work with the fact that customers often buy a mixed stack from different vendors. Software companies spend a lot of thought on their sales strategy within the stack. They often see sales opportunities elsewhere within the stack as for example Red Hat recently went up the stack by adding Jboss to their product line. Software companies also worry about competing companies which are pos

Slashdot Top Deals

If all else fails, lower your standards.

Close