Slashdot Mirror


VMware to Make Server Product Free (as in beer)

yahyamf writes "CNET News.com is reporting that in the face of increasing competition in the OS virtualization market VMWare is going to give away its GSX server product for free, in the hope that customers who try it will eventually migrate to the more powerful ESX server. The company recently released a free VMWare Player which could only run but not create virtual machines. The company faces competition from rival products such as SWsoft's Virtuozzo, Mircrosoft's Virtual Server, as well as open source software like Xen"

16 of 216 comments (clear)

  1. Mmm? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    So where can I find this free beer everyone keeps talking about?

  2. Intel VT by lisaparratt · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I would have thought the most scary thing facing VMware is Intel Virtualisation Technology - it makes what was previously very hard fairly simple. It also doesn't require the guest OSes to be hacked, ala Xen.

    I suspect we can expect to see a huge swathe of hypervisors being released over the next few months, if only so x86 Mac users can run Windows apps!

    1. Re:Intel VT by rfinnvik · · Score: 5, Insightful

      VMWare's real "killer app" in my opinion is VirtualCenter/VMotion. The management tool is better than anything else I've seen for managing virtual infrastructure - and the ability to move live VMs between hardware nodes is just impressive :)

    2. Re:Intel VT by TheRaven64 · · Score: 4, Informative
      There are two parts to virtualisation:
      1. CPU virtualisation.
      2. Peripheral virtualisation
      The first of these is practically impossible on x86. VMWare and VirtualPC (x86 edition) manage it using some really, really, ugly hacks that kill performance (and then some more hacks to boost performance). Xen works by ignoring the problem. An operating system on Xen must be ported to not use any of the x86 instructions that don't easily allow virtualisation.

      The second is not very hard conceptually. You just need to do some kind of multiplexing and then expose your devices as if they are a fairly general device of the category. While this is conceptually simple, it is practically a lot of work. Again, Xen dodges the problem here slightly be requiring that the domain 0 OS supports the hardware, and then providing generic virtualisation routines for various categories of device (consumer VMWare and VPC do the same - not sure about the server lines).

      VT / Vanderpool / whatever make the first of these much easier (about as easy as it's been on RISC machines for the past decade or so and on mainframes for the past three. Yay for x86). They do very little for the second part of the puzzle. On PowerPC or SPARC, it might be possible to implement OpenFirmware drivers for hardware that are virtualisation-aware (IBM's servers do something a bit like this). I don't know if EFI has this capability; if it does then things like VMWare might become obsolete.

      Oh, the final part of the puzzle is clustering. Xen and the server-grade VM systems provide clustering support which allows virtual machines to be transparently migrated between cluster nodes. This is quite useful, since you can run N VMs on M machines, and squeeze the low-activity ones onto a small number of nodes, then have then migrated to their own node when they are under high load.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
  3. What about existing customers? by tumutbound · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I'd certainly be pissed off if I'd just paid $1400 for GSX only to be told this week it's free.
    I've been paying for regular updates to VMWorkstation over the years, does this mean I can stop and just use the free products?
    That said, it's still worth the money I've been paying.

  4. Limitations? by Comatose51 · · Score: 5, Interesting
    This is not a troll comment but can it run on a cluster? Will it detect that it's running on a Linux cluster and refuse to run? Here's what I'm thinking, a bunch of older computers clustered using one of those Live CDs that make them part a cluster just by popping the CDs in. I believe the software, can't remember the name, also does single system image or something like that where the cluster appears as a single system to the applications. Then run VMWare on top and run any OS you want! In my scenario, I'll be running Windows because our software is written for Windows but takes forever to run. I've considered building a cluster but couldn't think of an easy way to make it run on Linux. I was going to try Xen but VMWare is super easy to use, if my experience using it on Windows carries over to Linux.

    Very exciting indeed.

    --
    EvilCON - Made Famous by /.
  5. Re:Good Move! by jruschme · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Which leaves the even bigger question of where this all leaves Workstation?

    Player makes sense... small run-only environment, embeddable, etc.

    But if GSX goes free what would a pricy workstation offer?

  6. Strange thing to say ... by cablepokerface · · Score: 4, Interesting

    in the hope that customers who try it will eventually migrate to the more powerful ESX server

    It's not only more powerful, it's fundamentally different. It's requires a different sort of administration. Also, the usage is different. gsx wil rarely be actively used in high uptime required production environments, esx will. esx also enables functionalities such als vmotion (if you have a san that is) and will be used more often in blade server configs.

    I really wonder if people will view esx as an 'upgrade' to gsx.

  7. Wait a second.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    Doesn't TFA say they are "expected" to make their product free?

    expected != will

  8. Re:hey don't leave out qemu by birder · · Score: 4, Informative

    What are you talking about? VMware allows you to make the MAC address anything you want. Edit the config file and change the generatedAddress for the ethernet controller.

  9. Re:hey don't leave out qemu by Professor_UNIX · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Why do proprietary fanatics think they need to be apologists for commercial software? Because VMWare produces some fantastic products. I couldn't care less if software is commercial or not as long as it fits my needs and my budget. There is simply no open source alternative to VMWare right now that even comes close to what it does at the speeds it does it. Quit being a blind open source fanatic and look around the world sometime. The vast majority of people have no problem paying for software if it fits their needs.

  10. Re:Good Move! by jaseuk · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Well the only major difference between GSX and workstation is that GSX allows you to control startup / shutdown of virtual machines so that they can start at windows boot, it also supports remote administration and I believe you can manage the machines through their other tools such as VirtualCentre. I don't believe there is any great difference in system requirements for GSX over Workstation.

    Ultimately GSX, Workstation and player are all essentially the same technology. ESX only differs by being a custom linux distribution making it very easy to install and a web interface to control operation and a few enterprise features such as VLANS and the VMotion addons. They've also moved some of the virtual machine I/O and handling into a kernel module rather than running in userland to gain some sort of performance advantage. Rather strangely ESX seems to be slow at supporting iSCSI. Of course there are also tools to limit bandwidth and control CPU usage on individual machines, whereas with GSX and Workstation it's a free for all.

    Personally after trialling VMWARE ESX and GSX I actually prefer GSX. The "grow on use" disk type available for GSX is certainly better for small single use servers, flexibility to grow and keeps image sizes down for backups. I also really miss the client CD-ROM and floppy support which again is absent from ESX. The control panel also seems quite flakey.

    Personally I feel that VMWARE have got the pricing structure wrong somehow. The only way to truely consolidate is to use big machines (20-30GB RAM) the problem here is that the cost of 4GB RAM modules is rather prohibitive, then add in some server redundancy and all the VMWARE licensing fees and it doesn't make sense any more. I'd actually prefer to pay a reasonable cost per active virtual machine, that way we can keep redundant hardware and move machines around as we see fit for performance or DR purposes.

    I'm quite keen for GSX to be free or cheap, it'll then make cost sense to consider a VMWare strategy.

    Jason.

  11. You can make your own VMs for VMware player by soboroff · · Score: 4, Informative
    "The company recently released a free VMWare Player which could only run but not create virtual machines."

    Sure you can. Take a gander at http://www.hackaday.com/entry/1234000153064739/

    What you don't get with VMware player is the nifty GUI to help you with the setup.
  12. Re:Good Move! by paradizelost · · Score: 4, Informative

    Multiple Snapshots. GSX Does not have them, workstation does. and let me tell you, It's damn nice.

    --
    "In a world without walls and fences, who needs Windows and Gates?"
  13. Re:SECONDED by j0217995 · · Score: 4, Informative

    I use a combination of them as well to run Linux on my windows box. If you use qemu to create the image file in vmware format you can then setup any vmplayer file to run any operating system. Currently I have the following image files, Ubuntu (Breezy), Ubuntu (Dapper), Windows 2003 Server, Debian, and BSD. All files were created first in qemu then I installed through VMPlayer. Runs as well as an official VM Player file available for download. See https://wiki.ubuntu.com/VMwarePlayerAndQemu for more information.

  14. Re:WTF by civilizedINTENSITY · · Score: 4, Informative

    What the fuck does "free as in beer" mean?

    It used to be that on election day the political machines would send men out to all the bars to buy everyone beer to toast their candidate. The idea was that the free beer would lead them to vote for the guy. Since there is an implied obligation to vote their way, the beer wasn't really free. This is then contrasted (in the "free as in beer or free as in speech") to freedom of speech, which is obviously a different sort of "free". Likewise, "Live Free or Die" doesn't imply life without cost, but rather the cost of living free.