Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Red Hat Wants Xen In Linux Kernel

Posted by ScuttleMonkey on from the ground-control-to-kernel-tom dept.

DIY News writes "Red Hat is aggressively pushing to get Xen virtualization technology included in the Linux kernel as quickly as possible. This move comes as Microsoft is pushing its own virtualization products and recently relaxed some of its licensing requirements around Windows Server 2003 to facilitate more pervasive adoption and use of those technologies."

50 of 278 comments (clear)

  1. Xen into kernel by b100dian · · Score: 5, Interesting

    What exactly does "virtualization technology included in the Linux kernel" means?
    That you can run virtual machines with that kernel? that that kernel can be hosted into a virtual machine?

    Or that you can install parallel kernels and run part of the ELF binaries on the other machine?..

    --
    gtkaml.org
    1. Re:Xen into kernel by Elitist_Phoenix · · Score: 3, Informative

      From a link in TFA:
      "Xen is a virtualization technology available for the Linux kernel that lets you enclose and test new upgrades as if running them in the existing environment but without the worries of disturbing the original system"

      --
      "I'm going to f***ing bury that guy, I have done it before, and I will do it again. I'm going to f***ing kill Google"
    2. Re:Xen into kernel by caseih · · Score: 5, Informative

      Since you've received few answers to you actual question, getting xen into the kernel means the xen patches required to run the linux kernel in a xen hypervisor (both as a guest and a host) will be a part of the mainstream kernel and be able to be built trivially. RedHat ships 3 different kernels now with FC4. One is a normal kernel available in both smp and non-smp configurations. Then we have the XenU kernel, which is a kernel designed to boot in a guest xen session. The Xen0 kernel is the kernel that you'd actually boot on top of xen and use as your main OS.

      Once the Xen0 kernel is running on top of xen, you have basically a normal linux kernel running that does all the hardware support. Then you load up Xen guest machines running the Xen0 kernel and these run their in their own virtual machines complete with their own disk images and linux distro. So xen doesn't really have anything to do with running elf binaries on the other machine. If you ran FreeBSD in the guest, it would run those binaries inside of that OS and that libc. When Xen 3.0 comes out, if you have the new intel or amd chips that support on-chip virtualization, then Windows XP can even run as a guest underneath the linux kernel-Xen0 host.

    3. Re:Xen into kernel by secureboot · · Score: 5, Informative

      Don't let that comment fool you though. Xen is much, much more. What if you organization had 4 distinct sites they wanted to host on one server? Start up 4 virtual machines, and back up their running state from time to time. If one goes down, just restart it from your clean backup IN SECONDS. Better yet, do it automatically. At the same time, Xen enforces separation from the host OS that the virtual machines are running on, so you don't have to worry about it being compromised (well, not in any way anyone has been able to demonstrate or even postulate yet).

    4. Re:Xen into kernel by hey! · · Score: 5, Interesting

      easier management of computing resource, unless I miss my mark.

      In rough terms:

      Admin Cost = N * (H + S)
      where N is the number of computers, H is the network and system hardware admin costs for a single machine, and S is the sys admin costs for the machine. Distributing:

      Cost = NH + NS

      This is a gross simplification, since we all know that complexity is not a linear function of network size, but it will do to be goign on with. Now we take NH and by virtualizing the machine it becomes simply H, so

      Admin Cost (multiple virtual machines) = H + NS

      Basically, I think it'll be common practice in the future to create virtual machines out of thin air by copying a config file or some directories on a machine with available bandwidth. If the cost of enough surplus hardware is less than (N-1)H, then wouldn't it be cheaper to virtualize?

      Of course the complexity is that costs aren't linearly related to N, or for that matter constant in the size and class of machine you are managing. Which is another way of saying YMMV. I think there's clear application in many kinds of situations, for example in software development where we're constantly worried about the various combinations of software our work will have to coexist with. It'd be very convenient to be able to pull a certain system configuration out of a library and have it up in a few minutes, then trash it after a few hours of use. But it may have potential in production environments too.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    5. Re:Xen into kernel by MyHair · · Score: 3, Informative

      The Xen0 kernel is the kernel that you'd actually boot on top of xen and use as your main OS.

      Nitpicking the "main OS" wording: it's the host OS. I would think in a production server environment you'd keep this OS minimal and not do much in the Xen0 domain so you don't risk crashing or compromising the host environment. On the other hand, if it's a game box it would make sense to have the 3d video drivers in domain 0, and if it's a workstation it may or may not make sense to have the host OS run apps and have the user domains for testing purposes.

      Once the Xen0 kernel is running on top of xen, you have basically a normal linux kernel running that does all the hardware support. Then you load up Xen guest machines running the Xen0 kernel and these run their in their own virtual machines complete with their own disk images and linux distro. (my bolding)

      Typo: The guests are XenU (user) kernels which typically have no real device drivers and are therefore much smaller. Very well put, though. Note that you can use any block device as a disk image: a file, an LVM volume or even an actual hdd.

    6. Re:Xen into kernel by secureboot · · Score: 3, Interesting
      Check out the Xen User Manual. Look at the xm commands possible. You'll see one is save/restore. That is what implements the functionality I'm talking about.

      Another responder mentioned live migration being much harder - he's right. He's also right when he says this is also done, with some really, extremely, very cool results. You can migrate a Quake server from machine a to machine b iff you assume some SAN or NAS in 60ms downtime, PRESERVING NETWORK CONNECTIONS. That means if you're remotely logged into a virtual machine, and it migrates from machine a to b, you won't get logged out of the virtual machine!

      This is ridiculously cool technology. Take note everyone. It seems like 80% of comments here are incorrect, however. Read the papers on the Xen site if you want to know how paravirtualization actually works. It takes time, but if you're interested, it's worth it.

  2. Xen... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Xen isn't all that hard, you just need some jump boots and a particle weapon of some sort.

  3. Umm by interiot · · Score: 5, Informative

    Well, Xen is free, and Intel/AMD hardware solutions are comming soon, which will allow Xen to run Windows unmodified. So, once everyone is upgraded to the new CPU's, virtualization will become a basic standard feature for everyone. MS can compete by giving their solution away for free, but either way, it doesn't get better than free for the consumer.

    1. Re:Umm by LaughingCoder · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I am having trouble understanding the rules of engagement. If MS "gives away" IE for free, they get called to task. If they "give away" Media Player for free, they get in hot water. Now why exactly would giving away virtualization not result in the same harsh treatment? Is it because there aren't established for-profit companies in that space already? How about VMWare? If MS gave away virtualization, the "anti-trust" crowd would drag them into court faster than you can say "billable hours".

      --
      The more you regulate a company, the worse its products become.
    2. Re:Umm by 'nother+poster · · Score: 5, Informative

      Microsoft got in trouble because the integrated their browser and media player into the operating system. If they would simply have had a browser and media player on your Windows install CD that you could install, or not, there wouldn't have been nearly the ruckus. What they did was make the install of the items required, and made it impossible for the average user to remove them without crippling the operating enviroment.

      Operating system virtualization on the other hand pretty much requires it be hooked into th OS by its very nature.

    3. Re:Umm by NutscrapeSucks · · Score: 3, Informative

      There's a lot of misinformation on this thread. Microsoft actually wasn't convicted of "dumping" or "bundling", at least in the US. They were mainly busted for exploiting their contracts with OEMs.

      Furthermore, all of their anti-trust problems were in the desktop market. As long as virtualization was positioned as a server feature, and as long as MS didn't threaten any VMWare supporters, I don't think they would have any legal problems.

      --
      Whenever I hear the word 'Innovation', I reach for my pistol.
  4. Two birds, one stone by bernywork · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Not only do they get the ability to knock the shit out of Microsoft, by taking away the base platform from them, they also get to try to get some market share from VMWare.

    Imagine if you would the ability to use Xen for unlimited operating systems, no licensing cost of the base OS, thinking about it, I would prefer to be in Microsoft's shoes as opposed to VMWare's. Only difference is that Xen when compared to VMWare is a very immature platform and no IT manager is going to take Xen over VMWare just yet (Unless cost is a BIG factor).

    I would have to say that this is still very cool, with all the new Virtualization options come out in the new cores shortly and if they can get to market before Microsoft, this is a great way to pick up some customers. Kudos to RedHat and IBM and Intel and everyone else for making this happen.

    --
    Curiosity was framed; ignorance killed the cat. -- Author unknown
    1. Re:Two birds, one stone by b100dian · · Score: 3, Interesting

      no IT manager is going to take Xen over VMWare just yet (Unless cost is a BIG factor)
      With VM Player and vi you may get a free virtual machine.. see http://b100dian.lx.ro/wordpress/index.php?p=90

      --
      gtkaml.org
    2. Re:Two birds, one stone by dc2447 · · Score: 3, Informative

      That gives the impression that Vmare is a great product, I'd debate that. I find it a PITA alot of the time. XEN isn't the only kid on the block, Qemu works really well too.

    3. Re:Two birds, one stone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      You must have never used vmware before for it's best use.

      vmware in linux is the absolute #1 tool useful for reverse engineering. I can pipe the rs232 and usb as well as ethernet ports fo the hosted OS to files or through sniffers on my linux machine and figure out quite quickly how a device is talking to it's hardware or server on the net. Capturing an entire session into a input and an output file makes is trivial to reverse engineer something.

      this can not be done with zen or the utter crap that msft is making.

  5. Aggressively pushing? by gringer · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "My goal is to get this done in the most collaborative way possible with anyone in the community who wants to participate," Stevens said, adding that Red Hat is committed to putting on this project enough of its staff who have the technical knowledge necessary to get the work done.

    Perhaps it's only me, but this doesn't sound aggressive; this sounds friendly and cooperative.

    --
    Ask me about repetitive DNA
    1. Re:Aggressively pushing? by bcmm · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I don't think it meant "aggressive towards the open source community". It's Microsoft they'll be competing with, and it seems that it's going to be Linux, rather than just Red Hat, against them.

      So, they're "aggressively" pushing Linux instead of Windows as a virtualisation host OS. Six staff members hired to work solely on integrating it into the mainstream kernel is fairly aggressive (toward MS), I would say, as it could lose them a major new market.

      --
      # cat /dev/mem | strings | grep -i llama
      Damn, my RAM is full of llamas.
  6. Forking? by Lardmonster · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Why don't they fork? Or just build and rpm their own kernel, like they did with GCC 2.96?

    --
    The more advanced the technology, the more open it is to primitive attack
  7. The irony by Alioth · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The irony is that Microsoft provided some of the funding for Xen (probably for the early experimental Xenised versions of Windows XP). Yes - Microsoft does fund GPLd projects. Often in a company that big, the left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing, so whilst Gates/Balmer spout off about how evil open source is, another part of MS is funding it (or even releasing it on Sourceforge).

    --
    Oolite: Elite-like game. For Mac, Linux and Windows
    1. Re:The irony by drsmithy · · Score: 4, Insightful
      [...] so whilst Gates/Balmer spout off about how evil open source is [...]

      No, both are quite specific it's the *GPL* they don't like, not Open Source in general.

    2. Re:The irony by photon317 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      For the exact same reasons that I prefer the GPL to every other open source license. If you release code under a BSD-ish license, Microsoft can co-opt your work into a proprietary product directly without playing the same open source game that you are.

      --
      11*43+456^2
  8. It means by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting
    in part making Linux aware of the virtual architecture provide by Xen, not by Intel or AMD. Some of it is for better performance. Some of it is to make it just work. The latter is more worrying since there may be serious security issues as one of the major advantages of VM should be better security than that which is provided by Linux to begin with.

    The other problem here is there are other VM's out there and they all have different requirements for kernel modifications so talk about mess.

    The major underlying problem there is Intel and AMD just don't get it. They put in some rather pathetic and lame support for virtualization and think they're all done with it. They have this Not Invented Here attitude that has kept them ignorant of virtualization technology that has been around for decades and doesn't have as much of these problems.

    1. Re:It means by Octorian · · Score: 5, Informative

      I still remeber reading that the whole x86 architecture didn't meet the requirements for virtualization, meaning that this recent trend is probably the result of VMware figuring out some "tricks to make it work", and then everyone else jumping on the bandwagon.

      In any case, if you really want to learn about the fundamental concepts behind virtualization, I strongly recommend reading the following paper: Formal Requirements for Virtualizable Third Generation Architectures

      Yes, it was published in 1974, but most of the concepts are still very applicable and make a lot of sense. (though the architecture examples are obviously dated)

      This is a very good paper which lays out all the ground rules. Sure, it may sound a bit academic in terminology and explanation, but it is still quite readable.

    2. Re:It means by Chirs · · Score: 5, Informative


      The full x86 architecture is not suitable for virtualization, because there are a few instructions which fail silently when run from user level.

      VMware uses various techniques to get around this, including full simulation and binary re-writing.

      Xen uses another approach, where they port to an instruction set that is basically x86 without the problematic instructions. This approach requires that the guest OS's be modfied.

      This will all change with the new virtualization instructions being added by both AMD and Intel. Once that is in place, Xen will be able to run unmodified guest OS's (such as Windows, for instance). There will be a speed hit though, so modified guests will be prefered if speed is an issue.

  9. My Bias by Vodak · · Score: 3, Funny

    The anti Redhat Linux part of me is saying Do not cave into the demands of Redhat because they are becoming as bad as Microsoft with pushing Linux to their own sinister goals. But then the sane part of me says " If the technology is awesome it should be in the standard kernel."

    And then the crazy part of me says. "Heh, I can compile modules for the Xbox controller and other weird hardware into the kernel. Maybe useful technology should be in the kernel =]

    but then again. I just might have to many voices in my head

    1. Re:My Bias by RotateLeftByte · · Score: 4, Informative

      Remember that anything RedHat pushes into the Linux Kernel will automatically become available for ALL OTHER LINUX DISTROS. So please forgive my ignorance, but where is the "badness" in that aim? AFAIK, nothing that RedHat has developed has been proprietary in any way. They do have a track record of buying things from other companies and releasing them as OSS stuff. Again please let me know of the badness in that aim.

      IMHO, virtualisation is going to become very important to all sofware developers over the next few years. If it is easy to fire up a Debian system on top of a SUSE and have Mandriva & RedHat running as well then you can test your app on all these platforms at the same time. Hurrah!

      --
      I'd rather be riding my '63 Triumph T120.
    2. Re:My Bias by Vodak · · Score: 3, Funny

      No; The retarded part of me is saying "RED IS PRETTY!!!" while eating crayons.

  10. (c) me, 2005 by Library+Spoff · · Score: 5, Funny

    *hmmm*
    Must remember to patent the idea of trojan/virus that uses visualisation to run a spam/DOS server
    in a Windows environment...

    Rubs hands with glee as he tries to sell the idea on IRC.

    --
    Acid House saves Souls
  11. Sun could be in RedHat's crosshairs by Zugot · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Sun can do this now with Solaris 10. Virtualization is a cool technology, and everyone in this space seems to be heading there.

    --
    -- Bryan
    1. Re:Sun could be in RedHat's crosshairs by Octorian · · Score: 3, Informative

      Solaris "zones" technically aren't really virtualization, per se. Rather, they are virtual-machine-"like" process containers. Inside of a zone, it behaves very much like a virtual machine, but it really isn't.

      This concept likely provides many advantages for system resource management on a server, where you only care about a single operating system. It does not, however, let you run different OSs at the same time.

  12. Why Xen and not vservers? by ptaff · · Score: 3, Interesting

    While Xen appears as a neat package, why choose Xen instead of vservers?

    The hardware cost of running multiple copies of the same OS with vservers is smaller than Xen - there is one and only one copy of glibc in memory, one and only scheduler, and so on.

    1. Re:Why Xen and not vservers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      "While Xen appears as a neat package, why choose Xen instead of vservers?

      The hardware cost of running multiple copies of the same OS with vservers is smaller than Xen - there is one and only one copy of glibc in memory, one and only scheduler, and so on."

      But part of the purpose of a virtual machine is that you can run a different operating system in each partition, including different schedulers and libc versions.

    2. Re:Why Xen and not vservers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      With Xen, a kernel panic effects only that kernel, the other kernels keep on running. Under vservers, it takes down the machine.

      Under Xen you can reduce the parent kernel down to obare minimum, reducing the chance of errors.

      eg: you want to run an experimental iptable module on one of the virtual servers, no problem, if it crashes, all the other servers keep on trucking.

      Essentially Xen provides a better sandbox from a stability/security perspective.

    3. Re:Why Xen and not vservers? by NitsujTPU · · Score: 3, Informative

      Xen is 100% different. Also, Xen supports over 100 VMs per machine.

      Also, Xen does things to make that 1 copy of glibc a reality. Arguably, that 1 scheduler is one of the primary reasons you would prefer Xen.

    4. Re:Why Xen and not vservers? by tbcpp · · Score: 3, Interesting

      We have a X terminal server here at work that uses vservers. Doing it over again, we would probably use Xen as opposed to vservers. The vserves have weird bugs once and awhile. Such as processes not being able to talk to eachother for nor apearnent reason. The entire system will work fine for weeks, but once and a while there will be a problem that nothing short of a restart of the vserver will fix. If Xen works, and you aren't short of resources, use Xen by all means.

      --
      Man is the lowest-cost, 150-pound, nonlinear, all-purpose computer system which can be mass-produced by unskilled labor.
  13. Mandriva 2006 includes Xen by general_boy · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Mandriva Linux 2006 includes xen0 and xenU-enabled kernels and the Xen supervisor utilities package. The Community version of Mandriva 2006 can be downloaded from many Linux mirror sites.

    I'm running such a box now with a total of three Linux domains (one host domain and two guest)... much easier than manually patching everything.

  14. Re:Irony? by pecanNZ · · Score: 3, Funny

    BLACKADDER: Baldrick, do you know what irony is?
    BALDRICK: Yeah, it's like tinny or brassy, only it's made of iron.

  15. Re:How does virtualization work? by peterpi · · Score: 3, Funny

    That's not a problem with linux; you take what X decides is good for you and thank your lucky stars if you don't have to edit your config file ;)

  16. Re:How does virtualization work? by digitalhermit · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Virtual machines also have virtual screens that are independent of each other. You can, for example, have a 800x600 window right next to a 1024x768 window. Depending on how you have it configured, toggling between full screen sessions of the VM will either re-size the screen or play inside a portion of the existing screen. It's still virtual video, however, so there's no conflict.

    For printers you can either set up a print server or the printer gets attached to a particular OS instance.

  17. Re:How does virtualization work? by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 5, Funny
    But then what do you when two or more OS instances want to monkey around with hardware that has state?

    The Schrodinger Corp. makes special PC cases that can handle those requirements.

  18. SuSE has had Xen since V. 9.3 by cypherz · · Score: 4, Informative

    http://www.novell.com/products/linuxprofessional/c omparative.html

    --
    This sig kills fascists.
    1. Re:SuSE has had Xen since V. 9.3 by zeromemory · · Score: 4, Informative

      Yeah, but having Xen in the kernel mainline gives the project much more credibility and exposure.

      A problem with Xen has been facing is keeping up with all the changes occuring in 2.6. If Xen is merged into mainline, there's a much better chance that Xen will be able to support the features and bug/security fixes that get added to 2.6 with each release.

      For example, the current Xen stable (2.0.7) supports kernel 2.6.11.12. Every time a new security hole is discovered, system administrators using Xen have to manually backport a fix from the latest kernel. Having Xen in mainline should make this process much easier.

      --
      I'm Trappped at Berkeley.
  19. It's not personal, it's just marketing by FishandChips · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The Slashdot summary is a bit misleading. What the article says is that Andrew Morton has been expecting a kernel submission for Xen for quite some time now but a) has yet to receive it, and b) needs to go through the usual process with other "stakeholders" before any incorporation. Later the article quotes the Xen folks themselves who point out that "feature creep" and the need to generally get things really solid and stable has made everything take a little longer.

    What the article actually seems to be saying - it uses the word "agressive" a lot as if this was some kind of virtue - is that Red Hat has a new senior honcho who'd like to make his mark. The issue of incorporating virtualization technologies into the Linux kernel is taken as a given by all parties. Which is hardly news. Chalk one up to the Red Hat marketing department for a nicely planted "news" story about their increased investment in the area (new hires, etc.), perhaps.

    --
    Las qué passoun
    tournoun pas maï
  20. Re:Usermode Linux already in the kernel. by zeromemory · · Score: 4, Interesting

    These guys(Xen) have all these companies donating money to them, but have been beaten to kernel inclusion by UML.

    Being the first to the party doesn't always mean you're going to the best; see DevFS vs. udev.

    Xen has much greater performance than UML and supports more operating systems. While UML is currently more mature and stable than Xen, it's only a matter of time before Xen surpasses UML as the preferred virtual server technology. Hell, even Linode, a strong proponent of UML technology and virtual server hosting provider is migrating to Xen.

    FYI, I'm currently running a Xen-based system with 15 virtual server instances for a system administration course at UC Berkeley on a server built with cheap off the shelf components (AMD Athlon 64 2800+, 1 GB RAM) and everything is quite snappy. It'd be difficult to even approach such usability with UML, and I'm using Xen 2.0.7. I can't see what Xen 3.0 will bring.

    --
    I'm Trappped at Berkeley.
  21. Of course by RandomPrecision · · Score: 3, Insightful

    In desiring to put Xen in the kernel, they have already failed.

  22. Re:What? by LinuxHam · · Score: 5, Informative

    Multiple OSes at once? [..] I never got the whole concept of virtual servers

    Its mainly an enterprise play.

    If you're an old-timer UNIX admin, you may have difficulty understanding the point of server virtualization (i.e. multiple OS instances). In UNIXland, it has been normal and customary for several completely unrelated applications to run under the same OS instance, together servicing thousands of users. That never worked well in Windowsland. That being said, it didn't stop manufacturers from making staggering improvements in performace and capabilities of Intel servers. Companies grew to expect single Intel boxes to perform at the levels of large UNIX servers. The only way to achieve that in recent years has been to use industrial strength virtualization technology (basically, ESX). The boxes are beefier than ever, and ESX isn't cheap, but it works wonders.

    For $50k, you can run 50 VMware guests on one very beefy box (not counting SAN), but you'd want a second for failover. For $75k, you can run about 100 guests on 14 blades in 7U (again, not counting SAN) and have the guests automatically migrate to the blades most able to run their workload at that moment in time. Ask a blade to come down for maintenance, and all the guests scatter to other blades before the blade powers off. Replaced a dead blade with a blank? Your systems management policies detect the new blank and automatically install ESX on it so guests can migrate back and evenly spread out the load.

    Sounds crazy, I know, but that's a taste of what we're doing in the enteprise space these days.

    --
    Intelligent Life on Earth
  23. I'd rather see Linux VServer included by gtrubetskoy · · Score: 4, Interesting

    There are a few problems with Xen. First, it's i386 only. Second (and this is the biggest problem IMO) - Xen is venture-backed, and seems to be extremely eager to show their investors a return. Nothing wrong with that, but it's important to consider the motivation, and the consequence of a funding pull back. If XenSource does not turn out to be a great business, then will Xen still be developed and maintained? Why not wait a little bit, in the open source world quality over quantity matters and time pressure should not influence development.

    Also, there is another project that I plug every chance I get - Linux Vserver. Unlike Xen, this is a purely volunteer effort, and is very innovative and attemtps to solve a difficult issue. Unlike Xen, these guys actually do not want to be in the mainline for now, becuase they think it will slow down development. Because Linux VServer is taking a different approach to virtualization (better known as separation, which was pioneered by FreeBSD jails and is also now supported in Solaris), the end result is cross-platform, i.e. runs on any architecture that Linux runs on.

    Now in the past whenever I posted about Linux VServer a lot of folks said that Xen allows you to run multiple operating systems and that that is why it is so useful. I think that in reality running multiple OS's isn't all that valuable - the only case where it may be very useful is software development, but that's a tiny fraction of the Linux users. We've been using Linux VServer for hosting, and we are absolutely convinced that this is the right solution - for using Xen for example would introduce all kinds of problems (starting with resource bloat).

    Yet unfortunately the OSS world has become PR driven lately. Very few people are technically capable of looking at things based on its merits and just go after the things that have the most buzz, not realizing that the buzz is artificially generated.

    1. Re:I'd rather see Linux VServer included by Anthony+Liguori · · Score: 3, Informative

      There are a few problems with Xen. First, it's i386 only.

      Not true. Today, Xen supports i386, x86_64, and ia64. Xen is currently being ported to PowerPC also.

      Second (and this is the biggest problem IMO) - Xen is venture-backed, and seems to be extremely eager to show their investors a return.

      XenSource is a company backed by VC. Xen is developed by a much larger community though. There are a ton of press-releases that XenSource puts out that have the typical marketting junk that most Open Source folks despise but whatever, XenSource != Xen. Most of there people aren't even actively working on Xen anyway (they have a product for Xen management),

      If XenSource does not turn out to be a great business, then will Xen still be developed and maintained?

      Absolutely.

      Also, there is another project that I plug every chance I get - Linux Vserver. Unlike Xen, this is a purely volunteer effort, and is very innovative and attemtps to solve a difficult issue. Unlike Xen, these guys actually do not want to be in the mainline for now, becuase they think it will slow down development.

      Yup. That's why VServer is not in the kernel--they don't want to be in the kernel. VServer is a cool project, and I would love to see it end up in the kernel. Xen is also a cool project and it would be great to see it in the kernel. The kernel guys *will not* accept crap. Large portions of the Xen Linux port are currently being rewritten to live up to kernel standards. I have a ton of faith in the kernel folks overseeing the process.

  24. Re:MS leapfrogging by dodobh · · Score: 3, Informative

    They won't even know that this originated in the *nix world.

    It didn't. This is mainframe technology. It just didn't work very well on x86 and hence the Windows using world was unaware of it. There is quite a bit of stuff that doesn't exist in the Windows world yet.

    --
    I can throw myself at the ground, and miss.