Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Plans Hypervisor for Longhorn
ninjee writes "Microsoft reiterated plans to launch its own Windows-based 'hypervisor' software for running multiple operating systems. Bob Muglia, senior vice president in the Windows Server Division, said on Tuesday that the software will be 'built directly in Windows and will allow companies to virtualize multiple operating systems.' "
will this "Hypervisor" come in the form of a paperclip?
"Hi! It looks like you're trying to load an alternate operating system."
I wonder how many of the x86 family of Unix will run in this Windows-based virtualization product. I don't think Microsoft would intentionally cripple the functionality of a *nix OS running in hypervision, but they might.
"Rocky Rococo, at your cervix!"
... built right into the operating system... just like IE, and Windows Media Player...
"When life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade. Make life take the lemons back!" -- Cave Johnson
From TFA:
Microsoft's rival in this area is shaping up to be Xen [...] Xen doesn't yet support Windows, however
AFAIK Xen actually does support Windows, and it's not exactly a rival because it was originally sponsored by Microsoft Research - here is a relevant link
Having said this, I'm still convinced that full virtualization is the wrong approach and the separation technologies such as Linux VServer, FreeBSD jails or Solaris Containers will ultimately kill hypervizors.
"...allow companies to virtualize multiple operating systems."
It will also allow you to:
reintermediate enterprise markets
synergize synergistic metrics
strategize vertical e-commerce
deploy viral bandwidth
and lastly...
unleash user-centric portals
TFA says that MS's rival in this area is shaping up to be a product called Xen. I will humbly admit I've never heard of Xen, and TFA says it has a lot of support. But isn't this VMware's market too? Not sure how much market share VMware currently has, but it's been a very solid product in my experience.
Yeah, yeah, VMware is not free (as in beer), and it is closed source (AFAIK). Nor is it built in to the OS. But I think it has strong support and probably a large customer base.
Comments?
http://nerdfortress.com/
The problem that you have with Microsoft and virtualization is licensing.
Do you have to buy a new $800 server license every time you create a new VM? If not, is someone going to bother to tell the online activation system about this?
Let's say you have an ISP, and you want to sell hosting with IIS and MS-SQL to your customers. It would be great if you could use virtualization software to partition the machine -- it would make it easier to manage and more secure.
All the tools you need to do this now are available -- VMWare will do it.
But you can't, because you'd go broke. You have to buy a copy *per customer*.
Meanwhile, I can buy an account at a vps provider (mine is linode.com) for $20/month, and run my own web server and database engine just fine.
They have to address the licensing, or it won't fly.
They are doing this for DRM.
Their Hypervisor will enforce DRM, so even linux can't override it.
They'll make it so all device drivers must be signed to go into the Hypervisor which will be the only thing with any I/O privs that aren't virtualized.
They'll make it so new hardware has closed interfaces and can only be supported by a driver at the Hypervisor level.
Any drivers in any OS level won't be able to circumvent the DRM, since they'll just THINK they are talking to hardware, but will get virtual hardware instead - and the Hypervisor won't let it read any protected content through the virtual I/O, it will blank it out (e.g. all zero bytes from the "soundcard") or something similar.
The drivers designed for the Hypervisor won't work in any higher level, since they'll need to do a crypographic handshake with the hardware to verify it is "real" and the hardware will also monitor bus activity so it'll know if any extraneous activity is occur (as it would if it was being virtualized).
Everything will have a standard interface to the O/S, so Linux will still run but be very limited and slowed down - since only Windows will be allowed "preferred" access to hardware, other O/S will be deliberately crippled.
They'll say you can still run Linux.
Hardware manufacturers won't release specs, they'll say use the Hypervisor and you can still use Linux.
You'll still need to buy Windows to use any hardware - Linux won't even boot on the raw hardware.
MS doesn't care if Linux isn't killed - the above allows them lock in - no windows - your PC won't boot - since nothing but the Hypervisor will know how to talk to the IDE card, etc.
What about manufacturers that want to support open interfaces, etc? Microsoft will deny them a key which they will need to talk to the Hypervisor - and the Hypervisor will refuse to talk to them.
Support anything other than solely the Hypervisor and you can't use the Hypervisor. No Windows - lose too many sales.
And they can say other O/S's are still allowed.
They'll just not be able to give you freedom to use your hardware as you see fit (DRM, need to pay more to get software to unlock other features on your hardware), only Windows will run well, and you need a Windows license and Hypervisor for every PC or else it is unbootable.
Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
Actually, if Longhorn is to be a nice, fast, secure, modern OS it needs to be released without all the crap that ensures compatability with older versions of Windows dragging it down. They obviously can't just drop all old software, so virtualising the old Windows versions (just like Apple did with Classic under OSX) would be the way to go.
Alternatively, Longhorn will still be bogged down with all the old shit and this will just be a half assed attempt to embrace, extend and exterminate other operating systems. We'll see.
Pinky: I think so, Brain, but won't Bill have to divorce Darl McBride first?
Crow T. Trollbot
Then you will be able to contaminate multiple operating systems instances with a single instance of IE running on a single instance of Windows !
I have discovered a truly marvelous proof of killer sig, which this margin is too narrow to contain.
In short, you hate when people verbize stuff.
All at the same time!
And hypervisor is just the working name. The final product will be called KlustrPhuk.
The thing about Hypervisor that seems strange is that it was NOT cut from Longhorn while some other, more interesting, bits were.
That says that it is strategically very important to Microsoft.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
I'm attached to the Xen project, so I have an obvious bias ;-)
;-)
Nevertheless:
* I'd consider Xen a true hypervisor because it runs on the "bare metal" and multiplexes multiple "supervisor" kernels on top of itself.
* It was *not* designed as a full virtualising hypervisor, however.
* Paravirtualising gives better performance than full virtualisation on x86 - however full virtualisation is still nice for running things like Windows.
* Full virtualisation will be available on Intel Vanderpool / AMD Pacifica machines. Before those are ubiquitous, if you want to run virtualised Windows with maximal performance, yes, you should run VMWare
Oh, and there are quite a few similarities with the MS hypervisor:
* drivers run in a guest OS, not in the VMM itself
* guests can be ported to the VMM the achieve better performance (yes, MS are doing it. They call it "enlightenments". Hmmm. Doesn't Zen have something to do with enlightenment?)
* special VMM virtual devices for better performance
These characteristics are also shared by IBM's POWER hypervisor on pSeries.
I'm a Xen dude but I'll try not to be biased ;-)
:-)
Xen: paravirtualisation - modify the architecture dependent code of an OS so that it's hypervisor-aware
Pros:
* near-native performance
* simpler hypervisor
Cons:
* need to be able to port OSes (i.e. can't run Windows)
- NB this will be solved on Intel Vanderpool / AMD Pacifica CPUs
* need to run a non-standard kernel
- NB Xen support is integrated into the NetBSD mainline already and will be in the Linux mainline soon(ish). At that point, the Xen-aware kernel will be standard
VMWare (and MS Hypervisor, assuming it supports full virtualisation): full virtualisation - fake out an x86 machine in its entirety
Pros:
* Run Windows
* No kernel patching needed
Cons:
* Peformance penalty for kernel-intensive and IO intensive workloads
- NB VMWare mitigates this somewhat using custom VMWare-aware drivers to improve IO performance
- NB The MS Hypervisor provides these virtual drivers AND explicit APIs like Xen, so ported OSes can avoid these penalties
* Hypervisor is more complex
- NB nothing you can do about this if you want to support unmodified OSes on vanilla x86(_64)
The Xen and MS Hypervisors both have better hardware support than VMWare ESX because they run standard drivers in a virtual machine, rather than supporting them in the hypervisor itself. Note that VMWare GSX and Workstation don't have this problem because they run inside a host OS.
HTH,
Mark