VMware ESX 2 vs. MS Virtual Server?

Saqib Ali asks: "I m sure most of you have heard that Connectix, the makers of Virtual PC/Server, have been acquired by Microsoft. Based on the technology acquired, MS has developed a new product called Microsoft Virtual Server, using which a Windows Server 2003 based server can run multiple operating systems concurrently. I am doing a preliminary analysis of using MS Virtual Server vs. running VMware ESX Server 2.0 on Clustered Linux Environment. Both solutions offer a way of running multiple OSes in a virtual environment using the same underlying OS (Windows 2003 or Linux). Of course, running VMware on Linux, offers the stability, scalability, and reliability of Linux, and also prevents a business form being locked into one single vendor. However running Microsoft Virtual Server does have some merits from a business perspective (vendor viability, reduced licensing costs etc). Any thoughts on merits/benefits/downside of using either of the technology stacks?"

Comments

I wouldn't consider a Microsoft Virtual Server

[DA-MAN]

Why trust a company to produce a virtual server, when they have yet to produce a working actual server!!!

ust my .02 cents.

Re:I wouldn't consider a Microsoft Virtual Server

[stonebeat.org]

well they didnt actually "produced" the virtual server, they just bought the technology from Connectix. So we should be evaluating how good of product Connectix produced.

Re:I wouldn't consider a Microsoft Virtual Server

[DA-MAN]

I don't remember Connectix having a Virtual Server Product. They did have Virtual PC, but that was mostly aimed at running on Mac's.

I wonder how Microsoft will bastardize this one, Visio use to be nice before it became Microsoft Visio....

Once again, just my $0.02

Re:I wouldn't consider a Microsoft Virtual Server

[Anonymous Coward]

> Visio use to be nice before it became Microsoft Visio....

Agree. Same as FoxPro

Re:I wouldn't consider a Microsoft Virtual Server

[cmdrbuzz]

Virtual Server for Windows was in (early) beta when MS bought Connectix.

License?

[LennyDotCom]

Virtual Server helps resolve the issues associated with older servers that are out of warranty and diminishing support for earlier hardware and operating systems.
That sounds fine but if youir running NT4 on an old server and want to move it to a new box running win2003 on a vitual server do you have to buy a new license?
and what about the fact that M$ has or wil stop supporting NT4

Re:License?

[stonebeat.org]

MS will stop supporting NT4 if it hasn't yet already, nevertheless there are applications that run only on NT. So businesses will be running NT - whether they use it in a Virtual Evironment or not is a different question.

Re:License?

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

What is MS's history of treting customers?

Has VMWare shown they think of you as their hostage?

What will happen to the MS product if it dominates the market?

If these were questions people asked when evaluating MS vs. Ashton-Tate, Borland, Lotus, WordPerfect and Novell - things would look quite a bit different.

Vote with your dollars, and don't support the further monopolization of mid-range IT by MS. The repercussions extend deeper than one product.

What I want to know is...

[HotNeedleOfInquiry]

scoff mode

Do you still have to pay SCO $699 for each Linux instance that you run. Or are they covered by the Microsoft Unix license.

/scoff mode

Re:What I want to know is...

[the_other_one]

Could you have multiple instances on linux running on a Windows box at $699 a pop. You could create a beowulf cluster and have the worlds most expensive, slowest, and most unstable super computer.

Re:What I want to know is...

[Josh Booth]

Say you were trying to use VMWare under Linux to create a beowulf cluster of Linux virtual machines each running VMWare each running a beowulf cluster of Linux virtual machines each....

Ooooohhhh, my head hurts.

Re:What I want to know is...

[Thing 1]

Say you were trying to use VMWare under Linux to create a beowulf cluster of Linux virtual machines each running VMWare each running a beowulf cluster of Linux virtual machines each....

Sorry, VMware knows when it's running inside itself and won't allow it. Not sure how, but I know the network "card" and video "card" have "VMware" in their identifier string, so that's a good bet...

However, there's nothing stopping you from combining technologies -- so you could have VMware under Linux, running a beowulf cluster of Windows Server 2003 virtual machines. Each of these is running MS Virtual Server (which probably has the same checks as VMware so it won't run recursively -- but probably doesn't check to see if it's inside VMware). Set up a beowulf cluster of Linux VMs under MS Virtual Server, and then run VMware instances inside of those. Iterate recursively until you can't use the machine any more. ;-)

Anyone up to testing this?

1) It's pre-beta! 2) licensing cheaper?

[anon mouse-cow-aard]

Who the heck is going to have experience with
the product, given that it isn't even beta yet?

Is there any benefit on the licensing side?
I understood there was no reduced cost for any licenses for virtual machines. MS requires you have a legal copy of the OS for each virtual machine.

VMWare works

[Anonymous Coward]

And it's not Microsoft. That should be enough. I wouldn't be shocked if, in the future, Microsoft products stopped playing nicely with VMWare.

Re:VMWare works

[DA-MAN]

It works, and it's available now. I guess the most important question is when will this guy need it!?!?

The Microsoft Virtual Server is in pre-beta, and we all know how long it takes Microsoft to release a product, let alone get to the SP1 phase where people are willing to remotely give it trust.

This guy needs to look at his timeline, this question is like askin what should I get Unreal 2003 or Duke Nukem Forever.

Re:VMWare works

[foooo]

VMWare works, but Microsoft is trying to make you buy a license for every virtual image on the machine.

so.... VMWare($300) on top of windows (at least $100) and
on top of VMWare copies of windows (at least $100) and any copies of office or anything like that (X dollars) TIMES the number of virtual machines that you have saved.

Or you could run virtual images of linux or whatever.

But if you bought VMWare with the purpose of being able to inexpensively and quickly deal with multiple Images (for corporate imaging testing or what have you) or multiple MS operating systems.. then they try and rope you into a MSDN license.

It's nutty

Re:VMWare works

[bhtooefr]

But this guy is looking at VMware ESX Server 2 and MS Virtual Server. You're using the price for Workstation, which is probably much less than ESX (anyone got a quote?). Virtual PC 5 (for Windows) was approximately $130.

ESX does not run under linux

[QuantumG]

it has it's own BSD style kernel which does more sophisticated (fair) scheduling and memory management (on-demand page sharing between VMs). People think it's linux based because it has the GNU toolchain ported to it (ie, they're morons).

Re:ESX does not run under linux

[stonebeat.org]

Actually ESX technology is not based on either:
The following is a passage from http://www.vmware.com/products/server/esx_faqs.htm l: "VMware's patented and patent-pending technology serves as the foundation for VMware ESX Server; it is not derived from Linux or FreeBSD." However vmware's GSX technology can run on either Linux or Windows.

Re:ESX does not run under linux

[BusterB]

We have two ESX servers running at work. They both came with Redhat as the core OS. The Linux kernel appears to just use a small chunk of memory and is modified to allow processes to grab memory external to their normally allowed virtual address space, while the ESX server software apparently manages the rest of the memory itself. But, the server also runs as a Linux process. It definitely relies in Linux's driver support to support the underlying real hardware. It's neat; they have more than just the GNU toolchain in the Linux instance; there is Perl too, and everything else you would expect.

Re:ESX does not run under linux

[spencerogden]

It is also Linux related in that I believe it uses linux kernel modules for hardware support. However I think the kernel itself is written inhouse and has nothing to do with Linux or BSD. What toolchain to suggest instead of GNU?

Re:ESX does not run under linux

[Anonymous Coward]

Vmware ESX server does not rely on Linux kernel modules for hardware support. It does rely on ESX kernel modules for hardware support.

The console OS is Linux and can see any device Linux is capable of seeing with the proper driver. However, if the ESX kernel does not support your device (RAID controller, NIC, etc.) you can't assign it for use by virtual machines. Currently ESX server only supports a small subset of devices in comparison to Linux. The ESX kernel does use the kernel module paradigm, but that is as far as the similarity goes.

The console OS (Redhat Linux) serves primarily as a bootloader for the ESX kernel. It does run processes which aid in I/O for Remote Console sessions among other things, but that's it. The ESX kernel sees the console OS as just another virtual machine.

Re:ESX does not run under linux

[sql*kitten]

We have two ESX servers running at work. They both came with Redhat as the core OS.

I wouldn't describe it as the "core" OS, it's just there to provide a basic interface so you can log in an administer the underlying virtualization layer. It's analogous to using DOS to boot Netware. From the docs:

ESX Server runs natively on server hardware, without a host operating system. This allows it to more fully manage the hardware resources and provide the highest levels of security and performance isolation. ESX Server also incorporates a console operating system based on a Linux 2.4 kernel that is used to boot the ESX Server virtualization layer. It also runs ESX Server administration applications.

Re:ESX does not run under linux

[stonebeat.org]

I made a mistake in the posting. I meant vmware GSX (which runs on Linux) and not vmware ESX

Re:ESX does not run under linux

[chunkwhite86]

it has it's own BSD style kernel which does more sophisticated (fair) scheduling and memory management (on-demand page sharing between VMs). People think it's linux based because it has the GNU toolchain ported to it (ie, they're morons).

Yes, it does. ESX server is based on RedHat 7.2. It's a Linux kernel that boots when you power on the machine. Only at the end of the bootup process, the Linux kernel is swapped out into it's own single CPU VM, and the VMware kernel is swapped in and controls the remaining CPU's and the individual VM's.

Re:ESX does not run under linux

[TheMellonCollied]

The vmkernel is not BSD! It is a proprietary kernel completely developed in-house. Also, ESX definitely does not "run" on Linux. The Red Hat 7.2 is used as a bootstrap loader for the vmkernel. The Red Hat installation is the console OS (vmnix) and it runs a "privileged guest" of the vmkernel after the kernel starts. To say that ESX runs on Linux would be like saying Windows 2000 "runs" on ntldr.

A major downside

[Radical Rad]

Any thoughts on merits/benefits/downside of using either of the technology stacks?"

Yeah, if I "consolidate" all my servers onto a Windows 2003 box running Connectix, then my servers (all non-MS) would go down every time some script kiddy wants to show the world how 3l337 he is with a new worm.

Re:A major downside

[stonebeat.org]

Offcourse if I consolidate all my server/services on Windows 2003, I will make sure it is always patched up and behind a highly secure firewall, Intrusion detection system, and honey pots if applicable ;)

Re:A major downside

[Radical Rad]

Offcourse if I consolidate all my server/services on Windows 2003

Was that a Freudian slip? Either you or your subconcious is very clever.

Seriously, there have been enough MS exploits that use legitimate ports and spread so quickly that something would get through and take out the whole thing.

I have heard the promises that people could consolidate many servers and domains to a lesser number running on one of these things but I can't help but chuckle at the thought of running windows in windows on windows in a production environment. This MS Virual Server is just a way to get people to pay more money for what they were promised years ago: a stable platform with separate memory spaces to keep apps from stepping on each other. Now instead of an nt server running 5 apps you can pay for an "enterprise" nt server and ms terminal server and 5 more copies of regular nt server plus the 5 apps and all the various "client access" licenses. But stability might be somewhat improved. Gartner should put that in their TCO pipe and smoke it... instead of crack.

Re:A major downside

[Anonymous Coward]

No, the script kiddie would show how inept the admin is. OSs don't kill networks, people kill networks.

Get a life!

Re:A major downside

[Anonymous Coward]

Was that a Freudian slip? Either you or your subconcious is very clever...This MS Virual Server

Et tu :)

- Itwerx

(posting AC because I've modded in this article)

Still a Single Vendor

[swdunlop]

Of course, running VMware on Linux, offers the stability, scalability, and reliability of Linux, and also prevents a business form being locked into one single vendor.

You will still be locked into a single vendor; the one that supplies VMware, which is not Free Software; while this company doesn't have the reputation of jettisoning products on a marketing department's whim, you still need to worry about what happens if the company in question goes under, or is purchased by an aggressive competitor, like Microsoft.

Re:Still a Single Vendor

[stonebeat.org]

That is very valid argument. I didn't think of that.

However with MS Virtual Server, there are 2 components (2003 and MS Virtual Server) that are locking into a vendor.
On the other hand, in the Linux + VMware GSX solution, there only one component (vmware GSX) that is locking us in a vendor

Re:Still a Single Vendor

[swdunlop]

That is definately a key point, as there would be two licenses to worry about, instead of just one. If Microsoft terminated either product, your company would need to migrate. That being said, our site has been very happy using Linux+GSX for hosting multiple Win2k servers.

Re:Still a Single Vendor

[QuantumG]

actually, it's the sales department which determines when each version of VMWare ships. Their customers tend to buy the product at their end of their budget cycle (gotta spend all the money you are given or you won't get as much next quarter) and if there isn't a release available there's hell to pay.

GSX runs on Linux

[stonebeat.org]

I m sorry, I mentioned vmware ESX in the article, but instead it is GSX that is supported on Linux.

ESX directly runs on System Hardware (kinda like an OS by itself) and is not based on Linux or BSD Kernel.

What OS's are supported?

[blogan]

Microsoft's page isn't exactly clear what OS's are supported. I see they mention NT, 2000, 2003 and OS/2 (which shares some roots with NT). Maybe soon we'll see a patch submitted to Linus so new kernels work on this. I can see support for older OS's being a problem. "OS/2 doesn't work.", "Call IBM" "NT doesn't work.", "Sorry, it's no longer supported."

Re:What OS's are supported?

[bhtooefr]

This isn't the server version, but here's something interesting (similar system requirements to VMware Workstation 4.0):

http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/virtualpc/dow nl oads/trial.asp

ALL Windows versions 3.1 and up, DOS, Netware, OS/2, Linux (they fucking specifically say Linux), etc., etc. It takes LOADS of HDD space, though (500 FSCKING MB FOR WINDOWS 95?!?!).

Virtual Server is Connectix Virtual PC with more

[Anonymous Coward]

so many OSes that work in Virtual PC will work in Virtual Server. I think they did add some new features - SCSI support, to name one.
it has VNC display support, a web interface.. I had an old beta from February. Was kinda buggy, some stuff wasnt implemented yet, etc.

don't put words in my mouth

[QuantumG]

it's BSD style, not "based on" FreeBSD.

you're an idiot

[QuantumG]

that's all

Hey!

[pb]

QuantumG, I didn't even realize it was you the first time! Sorry if I messed up your 'facts' there, buddy.

Anyhow, here's the link; cheers!

Re:Hey!

[QuantumG]

it's the console vm's kernel, you moron.

Re:compiling the ESX kernel

[bobv-pillars-net]

...(they recommend compiling it with gcc 2.9.6)

Do you happen to have a link to that recommendation? I'd like a copy for my idiocy files. Blasted incompatible unreliable buggy (unprintable) version of a compiler!

MS didn't build the Virtual Server

[BoomerSooner]

it's based of Connectix work.

That being said I have both Virtual PC and VMWare and VMWare is far superior on Windows. I haven't tried Virtual PC for the Mac but VMWare on Linux runs my offices demo server quite nicely.

Re:compiling the ESX kernel

[pb]

it's in the README, which you can get from the link that I gave QuantumG, elsewhere in this thread; I'll quote it in full here:

Included is the source for the following packages:

1) vmnix kernel (linux/)
Modified linux v2.4.9 kernel

2) VMware ESX Server installer (installer/)
Modified version of anaconda-7.2

3) vmklinux
Based on 2.2 and 2.4 linux kernel code

4) vmkload_mod
Based on insmod source from the modutils package

5) rrdtool-1.0.40 and wu-ftpd-2.6.1 (COSApps)
Tools included with the VMware ESX Service Console

6) esxtop
Based on the source for 'top' from the procps package

You must be running redhat 7.2, with gcc 2.96 installed to compile
these packages. See README files located in the subdirectories for
descriptions and compilation instructions.

Unless explicitly stated otherwise, all of the files in this package are
distributed under the GNU General Public License - see the accompanying
COPYING file for more details.

Just start to THINK!

[QaDeS]

Even if the Microsoft thingy should support running any guest operating system NOW, they will most likely stop this as soon as they stomped VMware into the ground.

I just can't believe people still jump on this stuff after M$ showed this kind of action on so many occasions.

Support problem

[macemoneta]

How good do you think Microsoft's support is going to be when you have a problem with Linux in the VMs? VMWare is OS neutral; Microsoft is not. When a company calls a product you use a cancer, I don't think you want their help solving a problem; you lose all your leverage.

Oxymoron: (n) e.g. Microsoft and merit.

[i_r_sensitive]

However running Microsoft Virtual Server does have some merits from a business perspective (vendor viability, reduced licensing costs etc). Any thoughts on merits/benefits/downside of using either of the technology stacks?"

Okay, you mention two "merits" here, let's discuss these: Vendor Viability: Sure, M$ is quickly maturing to the realm of death and taxes, abhorrent but inevitable. However, the benefit of this vendors perceived longevity needs to be balanced against the companies oft stated desire to monoplize Operating Systems. Even the announcement stresses the migration benefits of MSVS. While the claims may be dubious, the goal is not, to provide an environment which encourages migration to an M$ environment. The other item to balance off against this is the vendor's long-standing history of OS issues and application exploits. In the same week that M$ release five security advisories, many to do with flagship applications, I can't believe anyone would seriously be considering MSVS as an alternative. Reduced Licensing Costs: Compared to what? Running Vmware on 2k3? But, VMWare also runs on Linux, and if you have the in-house expertise to handle Linux, why would you incur the higher OS cost of using 2k3? Why would you take the higher overhead of an M$ OS for your host OS? The benefits to me seem minimal, and more than offset by the attendant liabilities.

Re:Oxymoron: (n) e.g. Microsoft and merit.

[wfbush]

The other item to balance off against this is the vendor's long-standing history of OS issues and application exploits.

There's one more item, related to "vendor viability": Sure, M$ will likely be around for a while, but there is no guarantee that any of their products will be viable. They can and will stop supporting any product if they think they can get more money out of it i.e. force people to upgrade.

So using VM software to run older OSes and apps on newer hardware is probably less viable with an M$ product.

Re:Oxymoron: (n) e.g. Microsoft and merit.

[inteller]

....and if you have the in-house expertise to handle Linux. hey you just hit the nail on the head. Let's see which there are more of, qualified MS experts or qualified Linux experts. I bet on average you can get an MS expert a lot cheaper than a Linux expert. Invest in the infrasructure then hire the peons, not skimp on infrastructure and hire a snobby Linux zealot with a god complex.

Re:Oxymoron: (n) e.g. Microsoft and merit.

[i_r_sensitive]

....and if you have the in-house expertise to handle Linux. hey you just hit the nail on the head. Let's see which there are more of, qualified MS experts or qualified Linux experts. I bet on average you can get an MS expert a lot cheaper than a Linux expert. Invest in the infrasructure then hire the peons, not skimp on infrastructure and hire a snobby Linux zealot with a god complex.

Now you, my friend, have hit it exactly on the head.

Ever heard the old adage you get what you pay for? Comparing a qualified Linux expert to the average MCSE is like comparing a PhD in Nuclear Physics to Billy-Bob at your local Shell Station. They aren't comparable. Sure your PhD can pump his own gas, but I ain't lettin' my good ol' boy Billy Bob anywhere near my cyclotron, know what I mean?

Okay, I'll be charitable, let's replace Billy-Bob with an O-line breaking, quarterback-smooshing, running-back-defiling ogre of a Defensive Tackle who can't read a dinner menu. He's still a trained professional, but I'm still not letting him near my cyclotron.

An MCSE is (in my experience: hiring some, supervising many, firing almost _ALL_) very like someone who got through high school, but is still functionally illiterate. I've worked with MCSEs who don't know what a hosts table is FCS! Functional illiteracy comparatively.

So, if you want to spend a bunch of money on a great infrastructure and then turn it over to a bunch of functional illiterates and call that an effective computing environment, you go right ahead. My point is that if you have the snobby Linux zealot, you may not need that infrastructure, or you may, but you can be assured that you are going to get all the bang for all those bucks you spent on that infrastructure. If you turn it over to your local dime a dozen MCSE, you'll get dime a dozen performance. Even if you are going to use M$ products, you are still better off with a competent Unix professional, at least they understand what is going on behind the point and click interface, unlike your average MCSE, who is lucky to know what is going on in front of the point and click interface.

Mod me down, here comes the troll!

MCSE - A shorter acronym for PEBCAK

as I said

[QuantumG]

It doesn't run under linux. This kind of confusion is the reason why ESX doesn't sell. People see the RedHat bootup and think ESX is just a preinstall of GSX on Linux. Even when you tell them that it has it's own kernel they say "but it runs under linux right?".. here's a tip, a kernel doesn't run under anything, otherwise it's not a kernel.. that's the definition of 'kernel', it's the piece of software that doesn't run underneigth anything else on your machine.

Of course, sales and marketing have told engineering about this since the first day the product launched, but engineering doesn't do anything about it.

Re:as I said

[Tony-A]

here's a tip, a kernel doesn't run under anything, otherwise it's not a kernel
But the definition of a VM is that one or more kernels run under the VM.

Other than backdoors into the VM, the kernel is incapable of even knowing that it is running under a VM.

Boot into DOS. This is DOS running in Real Mode.
Load a memory manager. Now the memory manager has control of the hardware. DOS is running in V86 Mode, the exact same DOS. If the memory manager decided to excercise it's control, it would be capable of doing anything it wanted, mostly without the knowledge of and certainly without any cooperation from DOS.

Paper about ESX

[Anonymous Coward]

If you're evaluating these products in detail, check out http://www.waldspurger.org/carl/papers/esx-mem-osd i02.pdf (which won best paper at OSDI 2002) for a detailed discussion of memory management in ESX. Among other neat things, the ESX kernel can transparently share duplicated pages of memory between VMs, allowing you to run, say, 6 gigs of guest memory on a 3 gig host machine without swapping to disk. The paper is definitely worthwhile for anybody interested in operating systems.

Virtual server doesn't exist

[JohnZed]

Microsoft Virtual Server is the most extreme example of vaporware I've seen in a LOOONG time. Connectix announced it in 2002, and now Microsoft is saying that it won't be ready until 2004. Meanwhile, ESX has been used in production at Fortune 500 companies for 2 years+. Hmm...

viable vendor

[Anonymous Coward]

umm, vmware isn't a viable vendor?

which one?

[pb]

I'll admit, details are a bit sparse in the documentation; still, it does say that vmnix is the modified linux kernel (2.4.9) that VMware ESX server runs, which sounds pretty telling to me, O uncivil one.

Re:which one?

[QuantumG]

VMware ESX server runs

and there it is... The VMware ESX kernel runs the modified linux kernel.

Better off with GSX server

[nurb432]

Its the 'native' version of vmware.. From what I have seen, its a better product then ESX, for either host OS. ( guest OS is not relevant in this context )

Arrgh

[nurb432]

Ingore my post.. i got the 2 products backwards again...

They should have had a better naming system...

Move on, nothing else to see here...

Virtualization vs Emulation

[cmdrbuzz]

Don't forget that Virtual PC is emulating the CPU and VMware is virtualizing the CPU.

Thats why there is a Virtual PC for Mac (PowerPC) and no VMware for Mac.

VMware is a lot similar to IBM's z/VM, in that non-privileged CPU instructions run directly on the hardware.
Think VM assists in MVS (ala z/OS).

So VMware will always be faster, but will never leave the x86 arch in its current form.

Re:Virtualization vs Emulation

[drinkypoo]

Maybe the reason virtual server isn't out yet is that they're working on a virtualizing emulator. Or, well, a virtualizer. But you know what I mean, kind of like you can use bochs with plex86 now, or do I have that backwards?

Re:Virtualization vs Emulation

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, Virtual PC for Windows virtualizes the CPU too. It's Virtual PC for Macintosh which does emulation.

don't be an idiot

[Anonymous Coward]

Quantum Fag

that certainly is one possible interpretation

[pb]

[nt]

test

[Anonymous Coward]

test