Slashdot Mirror


Xen 2.0 Virtual Machine Monitor Released

An anonymous reader writes "The Xen team are pleased to announce the release of Xen 2.0, the open-source Virtual Machine Monitor. Xen enables you to run multiple operating systems images concurrently on the same hardware, securely partitioning the resources of the machine between them. Xen uses a technique called 'para-virtualization' to achieve very low performance overhead -- typically just a few percent relative to native. This new release provides kernel support for Linux 2.4.27/2.6.9 and NetBSD, with FreeBSD and Plan9 to follow in the next few weeks. Xen 2.0 runs on almost the entire set of modern x86 hardware supported by Linux, and is easy to 'drop-in' to an existing Linux installation. The new release has a lot more flexibility in how guest OS virtual I/O devices are configured. For example, you can configure arbitrary firewalling, bridging and routing of guest virtual network interfaces, and use copy-on-write LVM volumes or loopback files for storing guest OS disk images. Another new feature is 'live migration', which allows running OS images to be moved between nodes in a cluster without having to stop them. Visit the Xen homepage for downloads and documentation."

199 comments

  1. Xen 2.0 Koan by gowen · · Score: 5, Funny

    What is the sound of one hand crashing?

    --
    Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
    1. Re:Xen 2.0 Koan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > What is the sound of one hand crashing?

      Two answers:
      1) Swish!!!!!!
      2) Thump (if it crashes against a desk)

  2. Alas, no Windows... by October_30th · · Score: 5, Interesting
    A port of Windows XP was developed for an earlier version of Xen, but is not available for release due to licensce restrictions

    Sigh... how hard would it be to get a license and distribute it as a binary-only module to people like me who'd be willing to pay for it? I'm sure it'd still be less expensive than the existing alternatives.

    Otherwise this looks very nice. In fact, I didn't know that there was such a mature free virtual machine available.

    --
    The owls are not what they seem
    1. Re:Alas, no Windows... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The issue has more to do with Microsoft's licensing policies than money or binary distribution. 8-P I believe that it was done under the MS educational license.

    2. Re:Alas, no Windows... by Frasier · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Sigh... how hard would it be to get a license and distribute it as a binary-only module to people like me who'd be willing to pay for it?

      Microsoft has their own virtual server product. They propably do not want competition, especially something that allows one to run Windows XP and Linux on the same machine at the same time.

      I would personally love to have access to a Windows system without having to dedicate entire machine for it. But Microsoft has not, is not, and propably will not show any signs of willingness to cooperate with non-Microsoft systems.

    3. Re:Alas, no Windows... by October_30th · · Score: 1
      The issue has more to do with Microsoft's licensing policies than money or binary distribution.

      What other issues could there be preventing the purchase of a full license? VMware developers must have bought a license, so what's the problem here?

      --
      The owls are not what they seem
    4. Re:Alas, no Windows... by bairy · · Score: 3, Interesting

      MS's virtual server allows linux distro's. See my other comment here

      --


      Get paid to search..It's geniune and
    5. Re:Alas, no Windows... by big+ben+bullet · · Score: 1

      you can run xp in vmware

      you can have more than one vmware running on the same machine

      vmware runs on linux and on xp (different versions though) but is not free software

    6. Re:Alas, no Windows... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Restrictions in the educational access license if I remember correctly. Something to do with redistribution. Remember, these guys don't have the kind of money it would take to legally license the windows source code for a saleable product.

      You can find the answer by browsing the xen-devel mailing list in early summer 2004 range.

      If a company wanted to do it, they could get ahold of the code and create/sell a copy of XenWinXP.

    7. Re:Alas, no Windows... by October_30th · · Score: 1
      Yes. I know. I bought and used a copy of VMware before the price went through the roof.

      As I said above, I don't think that Xen + licensed Windows-compatibility module would cost as much as VMware and other alternatives.

      --
      The owls are not what they seem
    8. Re:Alas, no Windows... by petaflop · · Score: 3, Informative

      Which is very interesting, given that that project is sponsered by the EPSRC (Engineering and physical sciences research council) and Microsoft UK. See page 11 of the White paper for details.

    9. Re:Alas, no Windows... by October_30th · · Score: 1

      Yes. As I said above, they'd have to buy a full license since the educational license won't do. And sure it would cost a lot of money, but that could be recouped by selling a Windows compatible Xen. That'd be a financial risk, yes, but they should also think of the potential financial rewards.

      --
      The owls are not what they seem
    10. Re:Alas, no Windows... by swv3752 · · Score: 1

      VirtualPC runs Linux like crap. The sound doesn't work and is less than stable.

      --
      Just a Tuna in the Sea of Life
    11. Re:Alas, no Windows... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Would it be feasible to write a "crack" for the nt/2k/xp kernel (like the ones often seen for games) that would make windows work on xen?

      How about if hardware manufactures started putting this into the bios and calling it a new platform that just so happens to be nearly identical to and backwards compatible with x86. Would Microsoft have to start supporting it then?

    12. Re:Alas, no Windows... by julesh · · Score: 2, Insightful

      How about if hardware manufactures started putting this into the bios and calling it a new platform that just so happens to be nearly identical to and backwards compatible with x86. Would Microsoft have to start supporting it then?

      If a major hardware manufacturer were to release and sell significant numbers of a PC that windows wouldn't run on, MS would do what they used to do back in the Windows 2/3 days -- release a special OEM version that will work (see e.g. RM Nimbus 186s).

      Of course no hardware manufacturer is likely to be able to sell significant numbers of a PC that won't run windows. Catch-22.

    13. Re:Alas, no Windows... by julesh · · Score: 4, Informative

      VMware developers must have bought a license, so what's the problem here?

      VMware runs an unmodified version of Windows by presenting a virtual machine that is practically indistinguishable from a real PC. Therefore they don't need a license.

    14. Re:Alas, no Windows... by bairy · · Score: 1

      I don't know about the stability I haven't stayed on any distro for long enough (I only got VPC a couple of days ago), but yeah the sound is out. There are instructions out there to configure it though. I just love the fact I don't have to have a boot menu 3 screens long

      --


      Get paid to search..It's geniune and
    15. Re:Alas, no Windows... by ColdGrits · · Score: 4, Funny
      VirtualPC runs Linux like crap. The sound doesn't work and is less than stable.

      Sounds like the emulation is pretty accurate then! ;-)

      (Oh c'mon, lighten up, it's a joke...)

      --
      People should not be afraid of their governments - Governments should be afraid of their people.
    16. Re:Alas, no Windows... by geg81 · · Score: 1

      VirtualPC runs Windows like crap, too. If you want a decent commercial VM, get VMware.

    17. Re:Alas, no Windows... by wizzardme2000 · · Score: 1

      Yes, they did port the Windows kernel. But what about making Xen run on Windows?

      Who remembers the QEMU "Secure, Portable, Virtual Privacy Machine"?

      I was working on making my own version, with my own programs and settings, but QEMU is incredibly slow. Xen is the only free virtual machine capable of the preformance that I want, but I cannot use Xen to replace QEMU bacause it cannot run under Windows.

      Maybe I just need to stop complaining, get much better at C, and join their effort.

      --

      Toast lands jelly down. If you jelly both sides of a piece of toast, it will hover in a state of quantum indecision.
    18. Re:Alas, no Windows... by Martin+Blank · · Score: 1

      Microsoft already has competition in the area. VMWare has been around for a long time.

      --
      You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
    19. Re:Alas, no Windows... by Spoing · · Score: 1
      1. MS's virtual server allows linux distro's. See my other comment here

      Yes, and Microsoft is so enthusiastic about allowing Linux to work that they don't even mention it even on the list of supported operating systems. The only non-Microsoft OS listed is OS/2 -- a product that Microsoft had helped initially develop.

      Not a product I'd care to use in a mixed environmnet.

      --
      A firewall can not protect you from yourself. Turn off what you do not need. Do not use the firewall to do your work.
    20. Re:Alas, no Windows... by October_30th · · Score: 1
      But what about making Xen run on Windows?

      That is an interesting approach. Make it run native on Windows and run Linux/BSD/whatever under it.

      Somehow I don't think you get low-level enough in Windows (without the proper licenses) to make it happen.

      --
      The owls are not what they seem
    21. Re:Alas, no Windows... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Cambridge Computer Lab works quite closely with Microsoft and Xen has been being worked on for quite a while by the Network and Operating Systems group within the Lab as part of the larger Xenoservers project. Not sure about distributions of Windows which support it but why not contact the laboritory to see if one is availible?

    22. Re:Alas, no Windows... by Koatdus · · Score: 1



      Vmware works well for me. Even though it costs a few bucks I think that it is well worth the money.

      I setup whole virtual labs in there when I get in the mood to play with Checkpoint for a while.

      Of course I can not run all at the same time but my Athlon 1500+ will run 4 at once without any problem and 5 with lots of swapping.

      Taking a look in my vmware directory I see the following:

      $ ls ~/vmware
      docs iso iso2 linux ltsp other src windows

      $ ls ~/vmware/linux
      fc2-1 fresco-1 fresco-2 gnustep rh-firewall-1 rh-firewall-2 startcom smeserver suse tmp yoper whitebox

      $ ls ~/vmware/other
      netedit netkit

      $ ls ~/vmware/windows
      win2000Pro1 win2000Pro2 win98 winNT-1 winNT-4 winNT-CP1 winNT-CP2 winNT-CP3

      One really nice feature of Vmware is that I made gzipped tarballs of each os when it was "virgin" so any time I want to roll one of my virtual test machines back to a known good state I just untar right over top of the questionable directory and I am back up and running in about five minutes.

      Netkit

      http://www.netkit.org

      in vmware/other is a really interesting package. It uses User-Mode Linux to set up a "router lab" where one can learn about routers and routing. Very well done. They set up the machines for you and also have "Labs" on their website to help you learn.

      --
      Every wrong attempt discarded is a step forward - T. Edison
    23. Re:Alas, no Windows... by Donny+Smith · · Score: 1

      >Microsoft has their own virtual server product. They propably do not want competition, especially something that allows one to run Windows XP and Linux on the same machine at the same time.

      What kind of crap is that?
      VMWare is not the only non-Microsoft company that "allows one to run Windows XP and Linux on the same machine at the same time".

      >I would personally love to have access to a Windows system without having to dedicate entire machine for it

      What the hell are yo talking about??? Buy a copy of VMWare Workstation for Linux, NeTraverse Win4Lin or some other virtualization software.

    24. Re:Alas, no Windows... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, they are - Apple.

      (And yes, I do know and fully understand what I just said, so think before flaming me...!)

      So why am I not going to see an OEM Windows for Macintosh anytime soon? I mean, it's clearly a viable platform, since Microsoft already ports Office to it, so the OS is surely next, right?

      And it run's some LINUX distro's that are also available for x86, and sources cross compile easily... can't possibly see a problem. (Grin!)

      (And yes, that was a rhetorical question - this whole post is intended to point out with gentle humour that selling hardware isn't the complete reason for OEM Windows existence)

      How about Windows for Xbox - that's a Microsoft platform too, right? ;)

  3. Obligotory. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Oh man, can you imagine the overhead on a virtual beowulf cluster using this?

    1. Re:Obligotory. by PornMaster · · Score: 1

      Given the tasks that the average /. reader would actually be trying to run on a Beowulf cluster, there would be no loss of efficiency. :)

  4. That's cool... by grub · · Score: 3, Funny


    So from a Linux or Plan9 VM I can watch the BSD VMs die in realtime!

    disclaimer: I love OpenBSD

    --
    Trolling is a art,
  5. 64 bit? by gr8_phk · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Does it work with AMD64? How about with one 64 and one 32 bit OS? The FAQ just says "x86".

    1. Re:64 bit? by Orgazmus · · Score: 3, Informative

      AMD64 is x86-64, and yes it is x86-compatible.
      It should work

      --
      The system had the verbosity of HTML combined with all the readability of compiled assembly viewed as bitmap images
    2. Re:64 bit? by julesh · · Score: 5, Informative

      From the manual:

      A port specifically for x86/64 is in progress, although Xen already runs on such systems in 32-bit legacy mode

    3. Re:64 bit? by isolationism · · Score: 2, Informative
      Being an Athlon 64 Socket 939 owner I tried to do just that -- unfortunately it didn't compile cleanly "out of the box" (at least, for me) just yet, it errors out on compiling file_stream.o because of something to do with libxutil.so.

      You could probably compile it fine in a 32-bit chroot or something, but I'll leave that to someone else to try. I'm happy to wait for release 2.x for full AMD64 support.

      Of course, don't let me stop you from trying. Anyone who does get it to compile, let us know what you did ...

  6. It's not really useful if... by spidergoat2 · · Score: 4, Funny

    It can't run AmigaDOS.

    1. Re:It's not really useful if... by Zorilla · · Score: 4, Funny

      Yeah, I agree. These guys missed a huge user base by completely missing the point of running virtual machines. It looks like I'm still stuck in the mud until someone develops a solution to get all my TRS-80 apps working again.

      (Note to mods: take a joke)

      --

      It would be cool if it didn't suck.
    2. Re:It's not really useful if... by Sir_Ahzz · · Score: 1

      You miss the point of Xen. It's not to provide yet another full virtualization machine, rather to explore the possibility of bringing the big iron ability to partition hardware to the x86 class of hardware (which doens't have any real support for partitioning at the bios or hardware level). Xen is good for slicing up a machine into discreete chunks for each domain(you call it a virtual machine). It works well for taking a large machien at the best price/performance point and running it as multiple machines.Not for running multiple OS on your home computer. Home users probably won't get much from Xen. :)

      --
      Sig? What sig? OH! THIS Sig. :)
    3. Re:It's not really useful if... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, I'm sure all three of you are disappointed.

    4. Re:It's not really useful if... by Zorilla · · Score: 3, Funny

      Wow. The reference to the TRS-80 wasn't enough. The line that said it was a joke (to avoid thoughtless troll or offtopic mods) wasn't enough. It looks like whenever I am joking on Slashdot, I need to put the following line at the bottom:

      THIS IS A JOKE, DO NOT TAKE IT SERIOUSLY - THIS IS A JOKE, DO NOT TAKE IT SERIOUSLY - THIS IS A JOKE, DO NOT TAKE IT SERIOUSLY - THIS IS A JOKE, DO NOT TAKE IT SERIOUSLY

      --

      It would be cool if it didn't suck.
    5. Re:It's not really useful if... by advocate_one · · Score: 1

      seek and ye shall find... xtrs

      --
      Donald 'Duck' Dunn: We had a band powerful enough to turn goat piss into gasoline.
    6. Re:It's not really useful if... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Amusingly, Mr. Mann is employed by VMware, Inc.

  7. Since we all love screenshots... by Zemplar · · Score: 5, Informative
    1. Re:Since we all love screenshots... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      try to hack my box: 127.0.0.1 eh?

      (laugh; long day, need more coffe ...)

    2. Re:Since we all love screenshots... by erykjj · · Score: 1

      That was easy! Got root no problem... deleted all your files! HAHAHA!

  8. Re:And the point of this application is.. by grub · · Score: 5, Informative


    Let's assume you're an ISP and have a few big machines on the racks. Your customers don't want or need that much horsepower but want their webserver (which you maintain) to run under Linux, or NetBSD, or FreeBSD, or whatever.. You can do it.

    Let's assume you're a developer and want to test your code under various OSs, now you can do it on the same box in realtime (read: no reboots)

    The list goes on and on, it's a great technology.

    --
    Trolling is a art,
  9. Great for free "UX's" but not for Win32 by slashnik · · Score: 5, Informative

    from http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/Research/SRG/netos/xen/faq .html

    1.3 Which OSes run on Xen?
    To achieve such high performance, Xen requires that OSes are ported to run on it. So far we have stable ports of Linux 2.4, Linux 2.6, and NetBSD. Ports of FreeBSD and Plan 9 are nearing completion.

    1. Re:Great for free "UX's" but not for Win32 by advocate_one · · Score: 1

      the reason was given on the webpage... I notice you left that little bit off. Basically, blame Microsoft for windows not being able to run on it. "Furthermore, a port of Windows would be encumbered by licensing issues"

      --
      Donald 'Duck' Dunn: We had a band powerful enough to turn goat piss into gasoline.
    2. Re:Great for free "UX's" but not for Win32 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How about a binary patch to Windows that would let you use Xen?

  10. Not as cool. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    From the FAQ, it states that you can only run OS's ported to it. While this might be great for cluster testing, or software design, this is defintely no VMware replacement. I am slightly disappointed in this, but I can see where it has its place.

    1. Re:Not as cool. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not as hard as you think to port an OS over to Xen. I havne't done it myself, so I can't say exactly how hard it is, I can merely infer from watching the mailing list for xen developers over the last 9 months and seeing plan9, and Freebsd become available fairly quickly for Xen2.0. ;)

    2. Re:Not as cool. by Sir_Ahzz · · Score: 1

      You rae right, it isn't a vmware replacement because vmware uses full virtualization to run the guest OS with the obligatory performance penalties. With xen, we are talking about partitioning out x86 hardware that doesn't directly support partitioning.

      --
      Sig? What sig? OH! THIS Sig. :)
    3. Re:Not as cool. by frenetic3 · · Score: 3, Informative

      No, no... This is HUGE for virtual hosting/virtual private server providers (i.e. web hosting providers that provide you with a virtual machine on which you're root, not some locked down /home directory with a million other people.) VPS'es allow you to run whatever distro you want, be root, run whatever PHP/Python/MySQL versions you need, etc. Basically (IMO) the control and flexibility of a dedicated server without the nightmare of having to replace faulty hardware or dealing with random outages. I have one for the company I run (until it gets too large for a VPS).

      Hosting providers have used UML (and maybe VMware) for this but it's comparatively too slow. Virtuozzo does this (and is successful, and charges a fair amount of $ for it), so they must be shitting bricks right now.

      -fren

      --
      "Where are we going, and why am I in this handbasket?"
    4. Re:Not as cool. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But it sounds like you can't just install whatever distro you or the user want-- you have to port the distro's kernel to use Xen.

  11. Re:And the point of this application is.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ahh..cool.. thanks for the explanation.

  12. Bochs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How is this different, to say, Bochs?

    1. Re:Bochs by afd8856 · · Score: 1

      RTFSS (Read the fucking slashdot story)

      --
      I'll do the stupid thing first and then you shy people follow...
    2. Re:Bochs by tmasssey · · Score: 1
      Bochs is a very, very slow emulator. It is mainly used in areas where completely accurate, tracable emulation is required. It is also portable to non x86 architectures.

      Xen uses virtualization (not emulation) to run multiple processes. It allows the vast majority of code to run natively on the processor. It is not portable. It is, however, very fast: usually within a few percent of native speeds.

      Xen works by modifying the source of the operating system. That allows them to have a much more lightweight virtualization system that is also faster. But that's why you can't run Windows.

  13. MS have one of these by bairy · · Score: 0, Redundant
    This sounds a lot like MS Virtual Machine which lets you run different operating systems.

    It sets up single-file hard drives which you can delete if you don't want em.

    Right now I have windows 3.11(!) + 95 + 98 + me + 2k + longhorn beta + xp + 3 distros of linux + dos 6.22 all as seperate images.

    Sadly it doesn't do mac but despite it's limitations (it uses a seriously old emulated gpu and sound), it has at least let me get linux onto the net without a fuss (couldn't even get linux to install my modem before)

    Anyway plug over, that's what it sounds like.

    --


    Get paid to search..It's geniune and
    1. Re:MS have one of these by LilMikey · · Score: 3, Informative

      Yes, yes... MS bought out Virtual PC. That was a sad day. There's also VMWare and Virtuozzo if you're looking for any way to "run" 2 OSes at once. I'd have to say that VMWare and VirtualPC are in a class seperate from Xen if for no other reason than performance.

      Xen is designed to run the client operating system as peers. No single vm can steal the whole machine away from the others and the performance overhead of the virtulization is almost nothing as indicated here. No Virtual PC in that graph but in my experience VMWare performs slightly better than Virtual PC and my observations are supported by these guys. VMWare and VirtualPC run the OS as just another processes in the real OS. Something terrible happens to the host OS and the VPC/VM slows to a crawl. Something major happens in the virtual OS and the host slows to a crawl. They're more emulation that virtualization.

      --
      LilMikey.com... I'll stop doing it when you sto
    2. Re:MS have one of these by Random+Web+Developer · · Score: 1

      both have a server version too, which is quite different than what you describe.
      they're called virtual server and gsx server iirc (too lazy to look them up)

      --
      Artists against online scams http://www.aa419.org/
    3. Re:MS have one of these by Tony+Hoyle · · Score: 1

      VMware GSX server isn't that much different from VMware workstation, except you don't need to run the GUI to boot the VMs - I have 8 VMs (including my main PDC) booting on a dedicated machine (it's cheaper to pay for VMWare GSX + a 2GB Shuttle than buy 8 PCs, by a long way). They all fire up on bootup, and the remote console lets me log onto them as needed.

      I believe ESX server is something different, but having never seen it (you can't even get a demo without waving money in their face) I couldn't be certain.

    4. Re:MS have one of these by MrMouse · · Score: 1

      ESX Server is a modified RedHat 7.x? distro (when I used it, 1 year ago) that you put guest VM images in. So no VMWare server installed on top of a host OS. It is the OS and server in one. It is pretty slick. I just sent an email to the VMWare sales staff that we were interested in their ESX product. They gave me a 60 day license to try it out. Maybe it helps that I work for large multi-national company with a blue tinge...sometimes. :-)

    5. Re:MS have one of these by ion · · Score: 1

      ESX Server does not run inside a host OS. It run directly on that hardware.

    6. Re:MS have one of these by leonbev · · Score: 1

      You CAN get a free demo for ESX Server if you can convince the VMWare sales staff that your project has the $$$ for a license. If you don't work for the IT department for a Fortune 500 company, though, it's probably not even worth trying.

      Anyway, I'm evaluating a copy for a server consolidation project, and I'm impressed so far. It seems faster and more stable than GSX, the virtual SMP and "virtual switch" technology is a great addition, and the web administration is amazingly simple to use. I'm not sure if it's worth the $8,000 license fee, but I'd recommend it anyway.

  14. Re:And the point of this application is.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Actually, a couple ISPs and datacenters are already working on using Xen for this exact purpose.

    http://xen.terrabox.com will be back online in the next 72 hours. You can find a wiki about xen there. One page is available for listing of any companies that offer Xen based virtual servers. So far the customers that i have setup under Xen have been quite impresed with the speed and stability as compared to the traditional virtualized and meta-virtualied linux vhost setups. :)

  15. This is a VM platform, not a VMWare competitor by ites · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Big difference. VMWare is about virtualising a foreign OS. Since VMWare abstracts at the BIOS and hardware level it can run almost all OSes the CPU will support but it takes a large performance hit.

    Xen is a VM platform, i.e. it lets you set up multiple virtual machines that run with very little extra overhead. A lot like User Mode Linux, except easier to configure and install.

    Here's a typical use case: you want to make a network "security box" that includes firewall, proxy, web server, email, wiki, irc. Now, conventionally you put all these services in the same Linux system (or whatever OS you use). Using Xen you run all of the services in their own virtual machine, so that if the firewall gets compromised, for instance, an attacker cannot get access to other parts of your system.

    It's a very useful tool.

    Oh, another use case I just thought of too: how about a 'hidden' Linux OS on your Windows box that does all your email, browsing, and other Internet work that you want to keep secure. Click the icon, up pops Mozilla, except it's running in a different virtual OS.

    Yup, definitely very useful.

    --
    Sig for sale or rent. One previous user. Inquire within.
    1. Re:This is a VM platform, not a VMWare competitor by Boeboe · · Score: 1, Insightful

      We already have something much more useful tool for that: cygwin. THE way to compile and run native linux apps on windows without wasting an excessive amount of systeml resources.

    2. Re:This is a VM platform, not a VMWare competitor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, UML isn't designed to split up the hardwre directly. Instead it's designed to make use of the host OS's supported hardware. If aperson gets root on a uml, then they could load the host driver and be able to seee the host machine as the user that UML is running as. In theory this could lead to a full root comprimise of ALL of the hosts. 8-P

      Xen can do everything that UML can, just much faster and more secure in my opinion. I used to use 20+ UMLs. Grabbed xen 1.2 and fell in love with the speed difference. Suddenly my athlon boxes could host twice as many virtual hosts as before. :)

    3. Re:This is a VM platform, not a VMWare competitor by salimma · · Score: 1
      Oh, another use case I just thought of too: how about a 'hidden' Linux OS on your Windows box that does all your email, browsing, and other Internet work that you want to keep secure. Click the icon, up pops Mozilla, except it's running in a different virtual OS.

      Or the reverse.. run XP on top of Linux for the few apps that need it. Though I don't think Microsoft will allow that to happen. The Xen guys have XP working as a virtual OS in their labs, but for obvious reasons they can't release that.
      --
      Michel
      Fedora Project Contribut
    4. Re:This is a VM platform, not a VMWare competitor by gtrubetskoy · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Here's a typical use case: you want to make a network "security box" that includes firewall, proxy, web server, email, wiki, irc.

      My preference for this would be Linux VServer or jails on BSD which have practically no overhead. Xen would only be useful if the requirement is to run different OS's on the same machine.

    5. Re:This is a VM platform, not a VMWare competitor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      uh, dude, did you even read the parent post?

    6. Re:This is a VM platform, not a VMWare competitor by julesh · · Score: 1

      We already have something much more useful tool for that: cygwin. THE way to compile and run native linux apps on windows without wasting an excessive amount of systeml resources.

      Err.. right. Cygwin does not run "native linux apps". It is a POSIX compatible C library combined with a VFS layer that presents a Unix-like filesystem when run on Windows. It has nothing to do with Linux, the only thing about that is native is that it is a piece of Windows software that runs on Windows. And given the slow implementation of fork() that they use, I'd say an excessive amount of system resources are wasted, particularly if you run a lot of complicated shell scripts. 'configure' for many packages takes 10-20 minutes to run on my system, compared to about 2 for similar complexity under Linux.

    7. Re:This is a VM platform, not a VMWare competitor by Anthony+Liguori · · Score: 4, Insightful

      VMWare is about virtualising a foreign OS. Since VMWare abstracts at the BIOS and hardware level it can run almost all OSes the CPU will support but it takes a large performance hit. Hehe.. The VMWare marketing guys have gotten you pretty good. What your describing is something called full virtualization. It's what IBM does in PowerPC (with something like the OpenPower platform) and with hardware support can be pretty darn fast. The IA-32 architecture is not capable of full virtualization. If you don't believe me, just read any of the dozens of papers written on the topic. Memory poses a problem (albiet one that's overcomable) but the thing that makes it impossible is the behavior of three instructions. Virtualization's really a simple concept. You run an OS at a lower priviledge than it expects and the priviledged instructions will throw exceptions that can be caught and emulated. Certain instructions on IA-32 silently fail when executed outside of ring 0 making it impossible to emulate those instructions. What tools like VMWare do is run through the executable and change those instructions to illegal instructions or do dynamic rewriting of the executable. That's right, they have to dynamically rewrite the executable. Have you ever wondered why VMWare asks you what OS it will be running? Because it has a big set of tables of where instructions need to be rewritten. Have you ever tried to run a checked build of Windows in VMWare or better yet a newer version of Windows that just isn't supported? It fails miserably. The difference between VMWare and Xen is that Xen accepts the difficulties and then decides that if we're already going to change the OS, let's just make a few more changes to improve performance. Adding VMWare-style virtualization support to Xen wouldn't be that difficult if you have the tables and such that VMWare had. Remember too, VMWare requires OS-drivers to be installed.. there's a reason for that.

    8. Re:This is a VM platform, not a VMWare competitor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Since VMWare abstracts at the BIOS and hardware level it can run almost all OSes the CPU will support

      Does anyone know why it won't run BeOS?

    9. Re:This is a VM platform, not a VMWare competitor by TimMann · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You're largely (though not entirely) mistaken about how VMware virtual machines work. User code runs in direct execution up to where it tries to make a system call or takes a page fault (etc.) and traps into privileged code. Privileged code is *dynamically* translated at runtime; we don't have big tables that tell us exactly where all the instructions in each supported operating system need to be patched. That would be totally impractical.

      We ask what guest OS you're running because we have certain OS-specific optimizations, things that help one OS a lot while hurting others. Most OSes will run fine (though more slowly) on the "other" OS setting. A small number need specific workarounds that are enabled only if you select the right OS setting.

      Checked Windows builds work fine AFIAK. If you have one that doesn't work, file a bug report. New OS versions usually work without VMware changes, though not always. Sometimes they'll exercise a system feature that is slow until we optimize it more in the next release, or sometimes their drivers will try to use a device in a new way that our emulation of it doesn't yet support.

      We do supply some device drivers for guest OSes, not to work around any shortcomings in our CPU virtualization, but because for performance reasons some of the virtual hardware we implement is not the same as any real hardware that the guest has its own drivers for. The only such devices are the virtual display card (which works as a standard VESA device even if you don't install our driver, albeit slowly), one of the two virtual ethernet cards we support (the other is a standard though elderly AMD card), and one of the two pointing devices (the other is a standard PS/2 mouse). Hmm, I think we also supply some SCSI drivers, but only because some guest OSes don't have good drivers for either of the two standard SCSI cards we emulate (one from BusLogic and one from LSI Logic).

      As you can guess from the above, I work for VMware -- in engineering if that makes me more believable to you, although I haven't encountered our marketing folks lying. Standard disclaimer: I'm speaking only for myself here, not officially for VMware.

    10. Re:This is a VM platform, not a VMWare competitor by Sir_Ahzz · · Score: 3, Informative

      Or if you wanted to run different distros. Or if you wanted to isolate virtual server kernels from each other since it HAS been known to have a kernel flaw that let a jail/vserver into the other vservers. From a security standpoint, I wouldn't sell virtual servers like vserver. It's just asking to get your ass handed to you by a hacker in my experience. 8-P With xen, even if you get a root comprimise, or a kernel comprimise, the individual domains are isolated from each other in such a way as to prevent one from interfering with another.

      --
      Sig? What sig? OH! THIS Sig. :)
    11. Re:This is a VM platform, not a VMWare competitor by CustomDesigned · · Score: 1
      Big difference. VMWare is about virtualising a foreign OS. Since VMWare abstracts at the BIOS and hardware level it can run almost all OSes the CPU will support but it takes a large performance hit.

      Xen is a VM platform, i.e. it lets you set up multiple virtual machines that run with very little extra overhead. A lot like User Mode Linux, except easier to configure and install.

      Win4Lin is a commercial product with similar goals to Xen, but runs Windows under Linux. Unlike VMware, sound and video run at full speed. The catch is that only supported (i.e. "ported") versions of Windows run.

      "Porting" the OS means providing drivers and possibly boot code that works with the VM interface instead of with precisely emulated hardware. Win4Lin and Xen do not precisely emulate high speed devices - but provide a device like interface that is efficiently implemented by the VM, but requires custom drivers for the OS in question.

      How much more efficient? My Dad had a Windows ME system, and bought an audio recording application for it to archive all our old reel to reel recordings (including one of Elvis Presley jamming with his church buddies singing "Just a Little Talk with Jesus"). Under ME, the audio driver was cruddy and added pops and dropouts. Solution: install RedHat 7.3 and Win4Lin, and run ME in the Win4Lin VM. The Linux sound driver worked flawlessly, and this carried over to the ME application - which now used the Win4Lin sound driver talking to the VM interface talking to the Linux sound driver talking to the hardware.

      The ME sound application now works flawlessly in the Win4Lin VM under Linux. Want some MP3s of "Hitler's Airwaves" recorded off the radio on reel to reel?

    12. Re:This is a VM platform, not a VMWare competitor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is totally offtopic, but I must give my props to VMware.

      I'm still using VMware Workstation 3.2.1 build-2237, and it works perfectly fine with Windows XP SP2 as host OS and Scientific Linux CERN 3 (and anything else I've tried) as guest. However it works, it's very robust.

    13. Re:This is a VM platform, not a VMWare competitor by josh42 · · Score: 1

      Is there any documentation about how VMware works? I find this really interesting. Obviously some of it is going to be secret/NDA, but if there's a paper or something about the techniques that you use that we're allowed to see, please point me to it. Thanks! :-)

    14. Re:This is a VM platform, not a VMWare competitor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      From a security standpoint, I wouldn't sell virtual servers like vserver. It's just asking to get your ass handed to you by a hacker in my experience. 8-P With xen, even if you get a root comprimise, or a kernel comprimise, the individual domains are isolated from each other in such a way as to prevent one from interfering with another.

      Are you saying that Xen is theoretically not exploitable? I find it very hard to believe. Your ass can be handed to you by a hacker for as long as a hacker can have a network connection to your server.

      The fact that there have been known jail and vserver escapes (which have been addressed) only suggests that those technologies are better watched and are NOW more secure.

    15. Re:This is a VM platform, not a VMWare competitor by Timbo · · Score: 1

      I suspect this is probably a question you get asked a lot, but I don't know the answer. Would it be possible to write a replacement OpenGL driver for certain guest operating systems (i'm thinking opengl32.dll), which passes though to the real GL lib on the host operating system? This is basically what wine does.

      I realise VMWare isn't only used for "running Windows programs on Linux", but I really think this would be a killer extension.

    16. Re:This is a VM platform, not a VMWare competitor by IamTheRealMike · · Score: 1

      Nearly there. Wine actually links Win32 binaries to the native libGL via a set of calling convention thunks. As a result there's little to no overhead involved.

    17. Re:This is a VM platform, not a VMWare competitor by Wesley+Felter · · Score: 1

      Several papers about VMware have been published in academic conferences (try searching on CiteSeer), but I don't think they cover the core binary translation stuff.

    18. Re:This is a VM platform, not a VMWare competitor by Anthony+Liguori · · Score: 1

      Hmmmm, who am I to argue here. Let me clarify a little: User code runs in direct execution up to where it tries to make a system call or takes a page fault (etc.) and traps into privileged code. Ok. User mode code isn't a problem.. privileged code is... Privileged code is *dynamically* translated at runtime; So then do you actually do emulation the first time around? The x86 instruction set is variable sized making it pretty impossible to accurately translate JIT. I'd imagine you'd have to do some form of emulation the first time around. Since the only worrysome instructions should be iret, pushf, and popf, I can't see why you wouldn't use a translation table. It seems like that'd be a pretty big performance win. This *is* what VirtualPC does. See the following presentation. See the "Guest OS Patching" section. we don't have big tables that tell us exactly where all the instructions in each supported operating system need to be patched. That would be totally impractical. Are you sure? I'm specifically referring to just the problem instructions (iret, pushf, and popf). I certainly have seen many problems with VMWare not being able to run non-supported OSes. I've got an MSDN subscription and have not been able to get *any* checked build to run. I'll look into submitting a bug report. I had just assumed it wasn't supported. VMWare is a fine product. I was try to demonstrate the differences in a Full-Virtualization approach verses a Para-Virtualization. Thanks for clarifying. BTW: I wasn't referring to the guest OS drivers, I was referring to the drivers required for install on the host OS. I assume these are necessary to intercept the traps for syscalls and page faults. An OS module is really modifying the host OS. I was trying to point out that VMWare requires host OS modification in order to work. Just pointing out that it's not as transparent as it appears to be :-) Thanks again for the post.

  16. Re:It's not enough by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    running binaries for one distro on another distro isn't machine virtualization. What you want is WINE or win4lin.

    Only an idiot calls something lame when it's the wrong tool for what they want to do.

  17. Re:versus UML? by lanc · · Score: 0

    being able to run BSD as well?

    --
    "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they attack you, then you win." -- Mahatma Gandhi
  18. Re:versus UML? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    UML has MASSIVE context switching overhead.
    UML runs insidethe host OS and thus is a security risk.
    UML doesn't access hardware via native drivers (PCI hardware that is).
    UML is DOG slow compared to xen domains for IO.

    I could go on. UML is/was a good solution, but if you wanted a BSD, plan9, or other OS trunnign on the same hardware as linux, forget it.

    Under Xen, you can run 1 domain that uses hda, hdb, and the USB stuff directly, a second accesses a second IDE set at hde and hdf and a second PCI video card.

    Remembers, xen isn't about just launchign another OS, it's about splitting up the hardware in a secure fashion. :)

  19. Absolutely cool tech! by a_hofmann · · Score: 4, Interesting

    GPLed virtualization software that according to the benchmarks achieves performance unseen in current approaches - sounds like a dream come true.

    It would be astonishing if those benchmark numbers hold true in a production environment, which might well be as the selected benchmarks (SPECint, Postgres, Apache, ..) should give a fair picture of the overall performance hit for the virtualized systems.

    Being able to partition your OS without serious performance implication would open a whole lot of new possibilities for developers that previously where only possible with huge investments in high-end hardware and expensive virtualization software licenses.

    I've already decided: My price for the most useful opensourced application in 2004 goes to..... Xen :)

    1. Re:Absolutely cool tech! by roror · · Score: 1

      Just not fair to compare it with vmware workstation 3.2. vmware workstation 4.5 kicks ass.

    2. Re:Absolutely cool tech! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I don't have a page you can visit but in practice I was able to run 2x as many virtual hosts under xen than I could with the same hardware under UMLs at even faster speeds. I just ran out of physical memory on the athlon machines is all. :)

      So yeah, the benchmarks really are very close to real world results from my personal experience.

    3. Re:Absolutely cool tech! by a_hofmann · · Score: 1

      Yes, it is unfair to compare with an old version of VMware. (Probably this is only a license issue, or would you invest 200 bucks for a new VMware version to be able to do up-to-date benchmarks?)

      Still I suspect that the performance gain not to be that huge. VMware is another class of virtualization software that does not only allow you to run different host and target OSs but also to emulate hardware not installed in the system at all.

      As I understand Xen it only does virtualization of the existing hardware to allow to concurrently run multiple instances of the installed OS. This is a different goal, and IMO explains the big performance gap between those two.

    4. Re:Absolutely cool tech! by Sir_Ahzz · · Score: 1

      Actually, xen2.0 does away with the virtualization of specfic hardware. Instead a privileged domain runs drivers for your hardware directly on the hardware, thereby retaining the speed and compatibility with the systems.

      That privleged domain can then export via VBD and VIF interfaces to other non-privileged domains. Thus Xen can avoid the severe overhead penalty of full virtualization, thus the term para-virtualization. :)

      It really is fast compared to vmware. full virtualization simply can not compete with para-virtualization, and thus why youi must port a guest OS (called a domain) to the xeni386 hardware. :)

      --
      Sig? What sig? OH! THIS Sig. :)
    5. Re:Absolutely cool tech! by roror · · Score: 1

      You can use the trial license for a month, you don't have to pay a buck. I believe the comparision can be done in a month. Therefore, I suspect using a older version is intensional.

      While the performance difference might not be HUGE with vmware 4.5, the margin by which Xen is better than vmware is small indeed. vmware latest might be faster.

    6. Re:Absolutely cool tech! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Xen is higher performing than VMWare because of the different architecture it uses. Both have pros and cons but Xen's technique of porting OSs should result in better overall performance for IO / syscall intensive workloads. CPU bound workloads tend to come out the same on UML, VMWare and Xen.

      The licensing issue the earlier poster referred to is a "No Benchmarking" clause in the license of more recent version. There would be benchmarks of more recent / expensive versions of VMWare, if the license allowed it.

    7. Re:Absolutely cool tech! by ckaminski · · Score: 1

      As someone who's upgraded, from 3.0 to 4.0 and to 4.5, the performance difference, while noticeable, is not a factor of 2 different. In the Xen benchmarks, VMWare was pulling 30-45% the performance of Xen. Now, while the benchmarks might be cooked (always a problem), full virtualization is ALWAYS going to be slower than what Xen, VServer or UML do.

      Intel/AMD need a special processor flag to enable a virtualization mode and fix this problem once and for all. That and some decent BIOS/chipset support for sharing hardware.

  20. Plan9 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Does anyone actually use Plan9?

    1. Re:Plan9 by slashmonki · · Score: 0

      It's a research OS. Don't be surprised to see features developed in Plan9 in Linux or *BSD in a few years' time. Plus they have THE COOLEST mascot.
      http://www.cs.bell-labs.com/plan9dist/gle nda.html

  21. Re:Your sig... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    207.46.0.0 - 207.46.255.255
    Microsoft Corp
    One Microsoft Way
    Redmond, WA
    US

  22. Re:Your sig... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Almost got in... if it wasn't for them darn linux boxen!

  23. Re:And the point of this application is.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Developing cluster applications without needing three machines crammed under the desk. Two VMs to act as cluster members, one VM to act as client and one VM to read Slashdot on.

    Unfortunately, cluster applications will still need testing on real hardware for performance measurement and failover tests, but most of the code development can be carried out on a regular server.

    More importantly, you can keep one VM with your work running and switch over when the PHB comes towards your cube.

  24. Re:Your sig... by Zemplar · · Score: 1

    How did I know that invitation sig just wouldn't be neglected on /dot? ;)

  25. Multiple OSs by Captain+Salty+Pete · · Score: 1

    I've been wondering for years whether this would be feasible, but my idea was to thread each OS to a different processor. That said, I've never known assembly and have no idea whether I'm being painfully naive here.

    1. Re:Multiple OSs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Acorn RISC PC was able to do something roughly similar to what you suggest: it had a StrongARM that would run the native RISC OS, and an optional 586 processor on a daughter-board that would run DOS/Windows at the same time. The two operating systems were therefore threaded (in a rather crude way) to the two different processors.

    2. Re:Multiple OSs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your suggestion makes sense, although depending on how you tackled the task there are tradeoffs you'd make in isolation, ease of porting, etc. In particular, you need to think about device accesses and how to stop the OSs treading on each others toes / hardware / memory...

      "Big Iron" hardware (i.e. big UNIX servers, etc.) have support for "partitioning" a machine statically in this way.

      A couple of OS projects (Asymos, Piglet, TCP Servers) have dedicated CPUs to running (different parts of) the OS, which is a related idea.

      You can dedicate a CPU to each OS instance in Xen if you want, or you can time-slice multiple virtual machines on each CPU. The virtualisation approach taken by Xen is very flexible.

    3. Re:Multiple OSs by ckaminski · · Score: 1

      Sharing hardware is the worst, other than some cache coherency issues, but thread/process migration isn't an issue if you do OS(VM) per CPU, which resolves some issues. In theory, you could do this. I don't know why you'd want to though.

      Figure on a machine with 4 dual core opterons on it, and 8 VM's running websites. All of sudden one gets a spike in customers, and you need all the extra SMP muscle to drive DB, HTTP and possible Java app servers. You'd want to be able to migrate the processes to new threads to keep the hardware running at max utilization (Because if you're a smart hosting company, you're charging for that feature.)

  26. My very own cluster.. by 4nd3r5 · · Score: 1

    With this software you can simulater your very own super computer.. thats absolutely great..

    Big glue gene or what ever prepare to die..

    --
    spelling is for people who doens't know better...
    1. Re:My very own cluster.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The idea of a supercomputer is to run *one* system image on *many* processors.

      This is the opposite: running many different system images on one processor.

      If you want clustering, there's Beowulf already. And guess what, your cluster doesn't turn into a supercomputer just by adding a pile of NICs and a mile of Cat-5. You need cross-system and I/O bandwidth out the wazoo, and low delays a cluster can't dream of, and these hardware solutions are the expensive thing about those IBM or Tera/Cray or SGI or Hitachi or NEC monsters...

      Perhaps Blue Gene/L shall remain most alive and kicking, even with this particular Virtual Machine which requires dedicated OS ports to function at all.

    2. Re:My very own cluster.. by ckaminski · · Score: 1

      Would be nice if Intel and AMD could get off their asses and support true virtualization...

  27. Re:Plan 9....? by Hatta · · Score: 2, Informative

    Plan 9 from outer space??

    Not quite. Plan 9 from Bell Labs.

    --
    Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
  28. Thanks, Xen guys! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oooo - this is really cool! And incredibly timely as well.

    I've got a project at work where I can use this stuff *now*. And it ought to speed up my development considerably.

    Many, many thanks to the folks who put it together.

  29. Re:lame by afd8856 · · Score: 1

    They have ported linux and in for virtual hosting it's what matters. It serves its purpose perfectly right.

    --
    I'll do the stupid thing first and then you shy people follow...
  30. Re:versus UML? by Random+Web+Developer · · Score: 1

    thankx, that was sorta the summary i was looking for.
    And whoever modded this offtopic probably confused this UML with the other UML :)

    --
    Artists against online scams http://www.aa419.org/
  31. No Windows Support by scupper · · Score: 1

    " A port of Windows XP was developed for an earlier version of Xen, but is not available for release due to licensce restrictions."

    Awe, shucks.

  32. Xen? I hated that level by magefile · · Score: 1

    Xen? I hated that level - too much jumping. Oh, wait, this is something else, isn't it?

  33. Mainstream Linux people want to run virtual Win98? by anti-NAT · · Score: 1

    I musn't be a mainstream Linux user anymore by the looks of it, because I don't want to run a virtualised version of any MS products.

    I think mainstream Linux is still in the server space, and I think Xen (and qemu and UML) in those environments would be very useful.

    --
    The Internet's nature is peer to peer - 20050301_cs_profs.pdf
  34. Extremely Useful by t'mbert · · Score: 1

    This is extremely useful!

    For example, I host my websites with host provider. I'd like to install tomcat and run some JSP/J2EE. The application I'd like to run won't work in a hosted environment, where I share my server space with hundreds of other users in virtual domains. I need my own server, but that's cost-prohibitive.

    So if I want to run that app, I have to get a hosted server and set it up. My provider has to rack another server and I have to pay quite a bit extra to get it. Not anymore, now my provider sets a virtual server for me on a single piece of hardware that I share with others.

    There are any number of apps out there that just won't play well in a virtual domain environment, and yet don't justify dedicated servers either.

    On top of that, according to the install guide, the virtual machines can be moved on the fly(!) to other physical hosts, allowing for balancing and perhaps cluster services. If one piece of hardware becomes overloaded, a new host can be setup and the heavily-loaded guest moved to the new host, incurring no downtime in the process.

    Heck, we incur downtime and alot of work to move apps to newer, beefier hardware. Imagine if you could move your app on the fly to new hardware? If you setup all of your servers to run as guest OS in Xen, even if there is only one guest per server, you still benefit for being able to migrate on the fly.

    Timbert

    1. Re:Extremely Useful by DAldredge · · Score: 1

      1and1.com has dedicated servers for 49 per month.

      It's like a celron 2.0, 256MB ram and 40gb of ide disk with 500GB of transfer.

    2. Re:Extremely Useful by julesh · · Score: 1

      They also have very bad customer service, in my limited experience of them (which was, admittedly, trying to port a domain away from them that one of my clients had registered and then promptly forgotten his username and password).

    3. Re:Extremely Useful by DAldredge · · Score: 1

      When did that happen? Some months ago they where having a lot of trouble in that area but they have gotten much better in the past 45-60 days. They now respond to my support requests within 1 - 2 hours.

    4. Re:Extremely Useful by Sir_Ahzz · · Score: 1

      yoiu should go look at the xenoboot project at the same web server as Xen's homepage. :) There are several more very interesting projects there that I think you will drool over. Me, I'm working on taking this commercial since it was so usefull for my own hosting company. :)

      --
      Sig? What sig? OH! THIS Sig. :)
    5. Re:Extremely Useful by julesh · · Score: 1

      Ah, it would have been about 6 months ago. Perhaps they've improved then. :)

  35. Re:It's not enough by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I've spent the last few days beating my head against the wall trying to get windows 98 to cooperate with qemu.

    For fucks sake! If you're going to pay for Windows 98 you might as well also pay for VMWare.

    On the other hand if you're going to pirate Windows 98 you may as well also pirate VMWare.

  36. Reminds me of a riddle (paraphrased): by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Q: Why did the company with the virtual beowulf cluster, which was directly beneath a brothel, go out of business?

    A: Because there was too much fucking overhead!

  37. Re:Mainstream Linux people want to run virtual Win by RLiegh · · Score: 1

    Sorry that I wasn't clearer; I meant that mainstream computer users won't adopt linux until it is able to run the applications that they rely on.

    And no, right now wine and codeweavers don't cut it (I can just imagine telling someone "yeah, here's a free operating system for ya, you just have to pay to run anything you need to run" LOL!)

  38. MODS ON CRACK - MOD PARENT BACK UP by julesh · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    This isn't redundant. It's the only post in the entire thread that asks a very important question.

  39. Re:It's not enough by julesh · · Score: 1

    Many people already own a copy of Windows 98. Most of the PCs that currently exist were sold with a copy of it, I believe.

  40. Re:Xen? I hated that level by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Heh. Long live HL. I was kinda expecting an app hosting / user cushioning system like Novell's Zen Works...

    But maybe we'll get it for KDE as "Ken", at which point I'll revive the Soviet Sad Man :*( for good reason.

  41. Re:lame by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    It's completely lame, in a literal sense. It requires that you port whatever operating system to run in the Xen environment. Oh yeah, that's gonna take off alright.

    Ok, you're obviously not working on anything even remotely interesting. What do you do? Maintain a small office network and troubleshoot printers all day?

    Virtualization is the big thing for datacenters and ISPs. (Hint: google for sun N1). Apart from things like clustering, scalability, etc, etc the most important thing is that it creates an abstraction layer between the raw iron of the server and the OS. This allows you to programmatically create, destroy, clone or copy instances of systems in reaction to network events, outages, etc, etc.

    Oh yeah, that's totally lame! Can't imagine why anyone would want that!

  42. Re:Xen? I hated that level by Ford+Prefect · · Score: 1

    How about my Xen with no jumping puzzles? :-)

    The word 'Xen' does seem to be a bit overused - maybe not as closely as 'Phoenix' or 'Firebird' were for Mozilla, but it's still pretty bad, even if the virtualisation Xen has reached the top of the pile...

    --
    Tedious Bloggy Stuff - hooray?
  43. Re:Xen? I hated that level by iggymanz · · Score: 1

    Zen? I hated that starship computer. Orac was alot cooler

  44. Security box? by misleb · · Score: 1
    Here's a typical use case: you want to make a network "security box" that includes firewall, proxy, web server, email, wiki, irc. Now, conventionally you put all these services in the same Linux system (or whatever OS you use). Using Xen you run all of the services in their own virtual machine, so that if the firewall gets compromised, for instance, an attacker cannot get access to other parts of your system.

    Who in their right mind would ever consider putting a firewall, email, web server, and IRC on the same box? A *firewall* for God's sakes. I wouldn't put that combination together on any one box, even with Xen 2.0.

    Oh, another use case I just thought of too: how about a 'hidden' Linux OS on your Windows box that does all your email, browsing, and other Internet work that you want to keep secure. Click the icon, up pops Mozilla, except it's running in a different virtual OS.

    Sounds more like a job for VMWare.

    -matthew

    --
    "THERE IS NO JUSTICE, THERE IS ONLY ME." -Death
    1. Re:Security box? by Sir_Ahzz · · Score: 1

      Heh, that is the beauty of Xen. Because the xen kernel is small, and does only a few tasks, it is far easier to make it secure at the hardware level. Because of this, running thiskind of setup really will be as secure as having multiple machines. Now I I definitly would not try this on UML or other virtual virtual server sertups like vserver. Anything that relys on an entire OS instead of a specialized kernel like xen is asking to get rooted.

      --
      Sig? What sig? OH! THIS Sig. :)
    2. Re:Security box? by shaitand · · Score: 1

      "Who in their right mind would ever consider putting a firewall, email, web server, and IRC on the same box? A *firewall* for God's sakes. I wouldn't put that combination together on any one box, even with Xen 2.0."

      Someone who only has one or two boxes?

    3. Re:Security box? by mindstrm · · Score: 1

      The point is, the OS instances run concurrently, side by side.. there is no "host" operating system eating up resources.

      If I could run a separate instance of an OS for each service I need a box to perform, it could keep things much cleaner, and weed out dependency issues. IT would also make migrating to more boxes later easier.

      The thing with Xen is that it cuts down on overhead.. a few linux instances side by side don't eat up a bucketload of resources like they do with VMWare.

  45. Re:It's not enough by RLiegh · · Score: 2, Informative

    For fucks sake! If you're going to pay for Windows 98 you might as well also pay for VMWare.

    On the other hand if you're going to pirate Windows 98 you may as well also pirate VMWare.


    VMware is hundreds, read that again: hundreds of dollars; windows 98....isn't.

    Also, the version which I'm using is an upgrade version I have which came with a used laptop I paid $50 for a couple years back. When it asks for the windows disks I'm upgrading from, I throw in the windows 3.1 disks I've had sitting around since 94.

    As far as vmware goes. vmware will not switch to fullscreen mode because of weirdness with DGA under X which I could not fix even after spending a fair amount of time googling for it; that alone puts it in the not-for-thirty dollars camp, and definately not for hundreds of $$$.

  46. Steal or Deal? by ringe82 · · Score: 2, Informative
    Most people with a little knowledge of history would say so, but I think we've got to realize Microsoft finally seems to know there's a time to steal and a time to deal.
    Work on Xen has been supported by UK EPSRC grant GR/S01894, Intel Research, HP Labs and Microsoft Research.
    1. Re:Steal or Deal? by Frasier · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Microsoft Research operates fairly independently and it's focus is in research, not product development. They publish papers and their projects are reasonably open but that openness has mostly not carried over to Microsoft itself.

    2. Re:Steal or Deal? by bastardadmin · · Score: 1

      And I am sure that they used this research to enhance the Virtual PC and Virtual Server products they acquired last year.

  47. Virtualisation features? by jguthrie · · Score: 1

    According to the Xen FAQ, (question 1.4, the one about Microsoft Windows) "virtualisation features in next-generation CPUs should make it much easier to support unmodified OSes". Does anyone know what virtualisation features they're talking about?

    1. Re:Virtualisation features? by laudney · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Google for "Intel Vanderpool".

    2. Re:Virtualisation features? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well Intel have announced "Vanderpool Technology" (VT) which is supposed to somehow allow partitioning or virtualization of an x86 machine.

      Very little public information on how it works (most
      of the announcements have been IDF or similar 'press' friendly events)

      One can guess that AMD have something similar up their sleeves too...

    3. Re:Virtualisation features? by squid_wrangler · · Score: 1
      I'm sure they're talking specifically about the virtualization features in the Vanderpool architecture, but it's worth noting that implementing VMs even with the current Intel x86 architecture implementations would be a lot easier if only the priviliged instructions behaved "properly" when executed in non-priviliged mode.

      One of the biggest problems that a VM implementation under x86 has to solve is dealing with the fact that some priviliged instructions, critical to the proper operation of OSes, silently execute with no visible side-effects when executed in non-priviliged mode. Given that a VM essentially executes the guest OS as a non-priviliged "user application", it is critical that these instructions be trappable, but they're not, so various code analysis and single-stepping (ptrace) approaches are required.

    4. Re:Virtualisation features? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      errr.. linux32 "pretends" to be 32bit on a 64bit machine anyway... fakes cpuinfo etc.

      gentoo specific but i think should cover it: http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/base/amd64/technotes .xml?part=2&chap=4

    5. Re:Virtualisation features? by ckaminski · · Score: 1

      Even if they added a new processor flag to turn on faults... that way existing software would continue to work, and new smarter software could evolve and improve...

      I'm just trying to imagine side effects... If you've got the DMA/IO issue figured out already, I can't see any issues with this?

  48. QEMU by nns6561 · · Score: 4, Informative

    QEMU is a similar open source project. It's supposed to run unmodified versions of Windows even. Does anybody know what QEMU's lastest performance numbers are?

    1. Re:QEMU by dmaxwell · · Score: 2, Informative

      Win98 is barely usable on a 2.4 Ghz PIV. It is good for running proprietary groupware clients and the like. The next version will have decent SB16 support and some small performance increases.

    2. Re:QEMU by Abcd1234 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Actually, it's really that similar at all. Xen is a virtualization architecture that allows you to run "ported" OSs concurrently. QEMU is a full x86 hardware emulator, CPU and all, meaning that the OS thinks it's running on real hardware. VMWare, which is in yet another class, virtualizes the x86 CPU, along with trapping and executing "leaky" instructions (since Intel can't seem to make a real, virtualizable ISA), meaning the majority of the guest software instructions are executed on the underlying CPU, but the rest of the architecture is emulated, just like in QEMU. Note, this requires VMWare to run on real x86 hardware, though, whereas QEMU can run basically anywhere, and Xen could, in theory, run any OS that was ported to the underlying hardware architecture.

    3. Re:QEMU by oldmanmtn · · Score: 2, Informative

      Performance numbers? No. Performance perception: unusably slow.

      I was able to install a recent build of Solaris 10 on it without a hitch, so the functionality seems to be very solid. However, the installation took almost 6 hours, or about 10 times longer than a native installation. Since installation is all about I/O, this doesn't bode well for actually running the OS when the CPU performance will be much more important.

      As for your suggestion that QEMU is similar to Xen: no, it's not. QEMU emulates the entire machine - including the CPU. This leads to the hideous performance I described. Xen doesn't emulate the CPU - the real CPU executes the instructions. I haven't used Xen yet, but this should allow it to run at near-native performance.

      --
      - Old Man of the Mountain ---- "I want to disturb my neighbor"
  49. Re:It's not enough by sanityspeech · · Score: 1

    For what it's worth, I've had this problem before. You can switch to fullscreen in VMware, but only after you edit the module section of your XFree86/X.org config file as appropriate.

  50. cool, I want to run every OS at once by davidwr · · Score: 1

    I want to load my next-gen CPU up with the 2007 version of this, and concurrently run every x86 OS ever written, hosted under Linux of course.

    Performance will probably bog down after the first few dozen OSes are loaded. Even Linux has its limits LOL.

    --
    Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
  51. Re:versus UML? by Sir_Ahzz · · Score: 1

    There is much much more to it than this though. :) If you go read the xen faq I'm certain that you will grasp the significance of this. Xen is a whole new area of virtualized machine software.

    --
    Sig? What sig? OH! THIS Sig. :)
  52. Re:It's not enough by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Couple of changes at VMware you might be interested in:

    1) VMware workstation is now a lot cheaper (I believe around ~$150).

    2) In the new 5.0 version, I believe they've switched to using Xvidmode instead of DGA (at least, that's what the current 5.0 beta is using).

  53. Aybody know... by Deagol · · Score: 1
    If you can run Xen running 32-bit Linux under a 64-bit version of Linux? I've got a case where a user wants to run Matlab (6 I think) on his shiny new 64-bit Linux machine, but it just isn't supported.

    I had suggested VMware, but this might be better (performance and price).

    1. Re:Aybody know... by Sir_Ahzz · · Score: 1

      It's not a question of "running under". It's a question of will the hardware support it. :) The individual domains don't care, nor do they know what os, flavor, etc each other runs. All they care about is the virtual block and interface devices that theyneed to talk to the disks and network interfaces. So yeah, you could run a 64bit linux for a 64 bit amd as domain0 and a 32bit linux for domain1.

      --
      Sig? What sig? OH! THIS Sig. :)
    2. Re:Aybody know... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If it's an x86_64 machine, why can't your user running Matlab under 32-bit compatibility mode?

      The x86_64 port of Xen isn't complete yet. It'd probably be technically possible to run 32 bit OSs on it but last I heard, there was some doubt whether that was useful given Linux's 32 bit compatibility mode... Whether 32 bit OS support under 64 bit Xen is implemented depends rather on someone thinking of a compelling reason for wanting to do this... (or someone donating code ;-)

    3. Re:Aybody know... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mabye matlab doesn't work in 32 bit compatability mode. It is quite possible the 32 bit version detects it is running on a 64 bit OS and refuses to run for some reason or another.

  54. Xen Portability by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Since Xen is implemented at a very low layer of the system (below the kernel, directly on top of the hardware), it's not portable with a simple recompile (like Bochs is).

    However, the Xen architecture is portable to other hardware platforms and the source code is structured to facilitate this. There's a port to x86_64 underway and one developer has been working on IA64 in his spare time. We'd like to see a PowerPC port too.

  55. BeOS by TimMann · · Score: 1

    Google for "beos vmware" (without the quotes) and you'll find messages from lots of people who have tried it, some successfully, and what they did to get it to work. I've seen it run, though I'm not sure which version of BeOS it was.

    1. Re:BeOS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I run BeOS Developer Edition in house.

      VMware Workstation 4.5.2
      guestOS = "other"

      Nothing special.

      -yet another VMware employee.

  56. coLinux (Cooperative Linux) by thefon · · Score: 2, Informative

    I use http://www.colinux.org/ to run linux inside windows 2000/XP. It is free and a lot faster than vmware. You can even download a debian image for a quickstart.

    1. Re:coLinux (Cooperative Linux) by Sir_Ahzz · · Score: 1

      You misunderstand what xen is for if you think it's just for launchign another OS on your workstation. Use the right tool for the right job. :)

      --
      Sig? What sig? OH! THIS Sig. :)
  57. Isolated Device Drivers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's also worth noting that the Xen 2.0 IO architecture (substantially changed from previous versions) allows device drivers to be run in isolated virtual machines, with minimal privileges to drive the hardware.

    The idea is that device drivers will be limited in their ability to trash the system but still able to run with very high performance. This is probably not going to interest most people as much as the obvious benefits to virtual hosting, cluster management, development, etc but it could be interesting for high availability setups.

    There's a white paper on the Xen website that discusses this in more detail.

  58. Re:It's not enough by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I had trouble to switch vmware to fullscreen mode in fedora too. I solved it by using a higher-resolution in fedora. Have u tried this?

  59. How does this compare to what IBM does? by Bun · · Score: 1

    Are there any similarities between this and what IBM does on their mainframes?

    --
    "Anyone that has ever gotten an idea based on any of my work and done something better with it-good for you."--J.Carmack
    1. Re:How does this compare to what IBM does? by Wesley+Felter · · Score: 1

      Yes, Xen is inspired by z/VM and Virtualization Engine.

  60. Re:versus UML? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    Don't forget Xen does live migration and suspend / resume of virtual machine, which (AFAIK) UML does not.

  61. Hooray, no Windows... by rcamans · · Score: 1

    What were you thinking?
    Alas? Not.

    --
    wake up and hold your nose
    1. Re:Hooray, no Windows... by October_30th · · Score: 1
      What were you thinking? Alas? Not.

      As long as MS Office does not run on Linux, Linux desktop is going to struggle.

      At work I just switched over to Mac OSX and installed MS Office for Mac. That's all I need: Unix-like CLI, X11, and the essential tools like MS Office.

      The next best thing would be a PC with a virtual machine Linux and Windows.

      --
      The owls are not what they seem
    2. Re:Hooray, no Windows... by rcamans · · Score: 1

      Uh, let's see now, I work at Dell, and we are now shipping Redhat, Suse...
      Maybe Windows is not dead right now, but soon, very soon... (My personal opinion)
      Please...
      I am so tired of fixing systems with windows issues.
      Although now that I use mozilla for most of my web surfing, I am not getting any of the crud I use adaware, pest patrol, spybot, spy blaster for.
      And no viruses come in...
      Of course I only use mozill on my own systems.

      --
      wake up and hold your nose
  62. Re:Wine? by The+MESMERIC · · Score: 0

    again some moderator voted you down
    i say shoot these ignorant arses in the eye

    we are all talking about emulation/virtualization and while Wine means (Wine is not an emulator) it still addresses the issue of running apps from other OSes in Linux

  63. Any chance for a windows client? by nurb432 · · Score: 1

    While its nice to be able to run virtual UNIX boxes, being able to run multiple instances of windows server would be great ..

    Their site mentioned getting XP running, but I don't see the average Joe being able to get a hold of such a modified beast.. ( and server is more useful then a workstation product anyway )

    Oh, and a bsd host would be nice too since I'm making a list :)

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
    1. Re:Any chance for a windows client? by Sir_Ahzz · · Score: 1

      there is a bsd port. :)

      --
      Sig? What sig? OH! THIS Sig. :)
  64. Re:Virtualisation features? (Amd "Pacifica") by Monkius · · Score: 1

    Also AMD they have something:
    http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/displ ay/200409121 13927.html

    --
    Matt
  65. Nor have the products by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    Really, what has the average consumer really seen come out of Microsoft Research? Not much.

    The paranoid would almost think it's a place to stuff smart people so they aren't working for someone else.

    Personally I think the intentions are good but Microsoft just doesn't seem good at turning a good idea into a practical product.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  66. Xen vs. User Mode Linux by arete · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I'm looking to do exactly what User Mode Linux claims to be for, but it seems like Xen does it too. Which is more reliable? Faster? Easier to install?

    Basically I want just slightly more functionality than a chroot jail - I want to be able to run a service on a virtual filesystem (ie, a filesystem that exists as a file) with an linux OS version that may vary from the host OS (ie, I can upgrade one service without having to do them all at the same time) I want a compromise of one service to have minimum security implications for the others. And I want to be able to move a service/virtualmachine from one physical machine to another with a minimum of hassle.

    Thanks in advance!

    --
    Looking for freelance Actionscript (Flash/Flex) or ColdFusion work and/or freelance developers. Email me, put Slashdot
    1. Re:Xen vs. User Mode Linux by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Xen is better performing than UML for IO / syscall intensive workloads (for CPU bound workloads, VMWare, Xen and UML come out about the same). It also offers features like VM suspend / resume and live migration, which AFAIK UML does not support. Xen doesn't have multiprocessor guests (although it does support SMP hosts) but that's being worked on at the moment.

      Quite a few people are either evaluating Xen or are already using it in production systems.

      I've never used UML so I'm not sure how easy that is to use. Xen 2.0's management tools and user documentation are pretty polished, tho (and a big advance over previous releases).

      Xen would seem to offer the features you want and there's also plenty of cool stuff planned for the future. Equally well, it's probably worth checking out UML for comparison since it's pretty well established and offers good functionality.

      The Xen project's SF.net page has a small example filesystem for a VM, so you should be able to install Xen and try it out without too much hassle. The developer's mailing list is also generally pretty helpful and newbie-friendly...

    2. Re:Xen vs. User Mode Linux by Sir_Ahzz · · Score: 1

      XEN will be faster than UML by far. You can use a lopack file for a unprived domain's disk. each domain is 100% separate from the other. They use the VBD frontend/backend drivers to communicate between each other for disk IO and VIF for network.

      --
      Sig? What sig? OH! THIS Sig. :)
    3. Re:Xen vs. User Mode Linux by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >It also offers features like VM suspend / resume
      >and live migration, which AFAIK UML does not
      >support.

      sbuml.sf.net has suspend/resume for UML. The demo is easy to setup and includes machine migration, though not quite "live"

  67. On the contrary... by Jicksta · · Score: 1

    With this software you would, in theory, create a gimpy cluster from a formidable super computer.

    That's fantastic!

  68. Re:versus UML? by rimu+guy · · Score: 1
    UML runs insidethe host OS and thus is a security risk.

    Correction: It runs in user space (hence the name). It can run as any user (i.e. doesn't have to be root). So that makes it as much (or less) of a security risk as any other program: perl, apache, postfix, etc.

  69. Re:Mainstream Linux people want to run virtual Win by anti-NAT · · Score: 1

    I can just imagine telling someone "yeah, here's a free operating system for ya, you just have to pay to run anything you need to run" LOL!

    I'm curious to know the extent of your "virtualisation" of Win98, in the sense that is your goal to allow the user to run all their previous Win98 applications ?

    The reason I ask is that if it is, then, as much as I'm completely pro-Linux (I don't run anything else), I'd wonder if you are doing your end-users a disservice. If you going down that path, then Linux just becomes a somewhat unnecessary overhead, as I can't see how the users will transition to Linux when all their applications are running under Windows 98, even though it is on a virtualised box.

    I think there are two important criteria for a transition to Linux to be successful.

    Firstly, around 50% or more of the applications the end-user is going to run need to be native Linux applications. If they aren't, then I'd think there is still too much "gravitational mass" pulling the user back towards Windows.

    Secondly, moving between the native and non-native applications, and moving or switching between the native and non-native data needs to be simple for the end-user. Again, if it isn't, the end-user will probably just want to stick with what they know, the non-Linux solution.

    --
    The Internet's nature is peer to peer - 20050301_cs_profs.pdf
  70. FreeBSD by kiwirob · · Score: 1

    Hi TimMann,

    When you are at work how about having a chat to the guys about FreeBSD host support.

    I currently run a very old 2.x version on VMWare and would like to BUY and be able to run your latest products.

    From the ports collection there is version 3.x of VMWare running under linux emulation but I can't buy any liscences for 3.x. I was reading one post on a newsgroup a while ago that suggested that you have to resort to finding liscences on warez sites if you want to get it running.

    With version 5.3 of FreeBSD looking like it will become a stable branch soon I'd really like to buy a dual opteron machine with the new SMP enhancements and run a XP virtual machine for developers that have to use the occasional windows tools.

  71. Okay. by mindstrm · · Score: 1

    Now what we need is a guide to bootstrapping Xen & our favorite linux distributions.