Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft to Work with Xen on Virtualization
suso writes "Microsoft has released a statement to the press, saying that they are to work with Xensource on making Windows Server work with Xen through Microsoft's own hypervisor technology." Coverage available from Reuters as well. From that article: " As a result of the collaboration, the next version of Windows Server, code-named 'Longhorn,' will provide customers with a virtualisation system that promises to help run both Windows and Linux on the same machine more cost-effectively. Microsoft said it expects to conduct a public trial of Windows Server virtualisation by the end of this year and to release a commercial version of the software within 180 days of the date when Windows Server 'Longhorn' is released. Microsoft aims to release 'Longhorn' by the end of 2007, it said."
As longas they don't "extend" it with incompatible features, it's the more sensible thing I hear from Microsoft in a long time. Actually, it's the first thing I hear from them in a long time that seems to care about what the customer needs. Kudos for them if they are being serious.
Your ad could be here!
I don't think that the code name Longhorn is fooling people any longer.
My rantings, only longer and with better spelling..
Faced with the threat of VMware, they'll cooperate with another underdog in the virtualization market, even if that underdog is a GPL hippie.
There will be plenty of time to finish off the hippie once VMware is contained, I'm sure they think to themselves.
Not only does this make M$ money due to the licensing charges, but it also gets its foot in the door in an otherwise Linux/UNIX shop.
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
I don't really trust Microsoft's latest version of anything. Most people I know don't either.
I really prefer Windows Server 2000...and if I can't get that, then the next best thing is 2003. Longhorn is right out.
Then there's also the matter of Windows Genuine Spyware Disadvantage(TM), which you don't have installed on the old OSes.
If my option to run Xen is to buy the latest from Microsoft, I'd rather buy those Intel VT chips that will eventually be able to allow Xen to run Windows unmodified.
Mod me down and I will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine!
Will Windows run nicely under Xen (and also VMware)
That's what I want.
Microsoft plans to catch up with Linux when it comes to running a Xen host.
This will of course benefit Microsoft because without this, people who wanted to run both Linux and Windows on the same hardware using Xen had to use Linux as the host. (they also of course have to have hardware capable of full virtualisation)
Actually, this _may_ swing things in favour of running windows as the host because for older hardware Xen requires a modified guest. Running linux in Xen on windows allows this because xen modified linux is widely available. Microsoft in the other hand have not and probably will not release Xen-guest enabled windows, despite claiming to support interoperability. It's actually Microsoft style interoperability they want, and as many of us know that only works one way.
-- MartinG To mail me: echo kewyjlcxyzvjfxbqwh | tr bcefhjklqvwxyz
Why would I want to virtualize Linux under Microsoft Windows? The main benefit of linux is a stable kernel versus an unstable kernel (microsoft). I would rather virtualize Windows under Linux, not the other way around.
Wasn't longhorn the codename for windows 95. I think it's already been released.
So MS realises that not all people will migrate from Linux to Windows. So should they offer a MS Linux?
Nah!
Instead they will offer a hypervisor. And make sure that most Linux distributions run fine under that. To help you make the decision to run Linux under a MS hypervisor, the hypervisor will offer better access to some hardware (wireless, modems, 3D graphics, DRM stuff, etc) that has no OS drivers.
Once people get used to running Linux under Windows, MS has a half victory. Now they can control how well Linux solutions run compared to running "natively on Windows".
*shudder*
)9TSS
It seems like the logical direction of Xen's progression.
d ex.html
From the creator of Xen's website "A port of Windows XP was developed for an earlier version of Xen, but is not available for release due to licence restrictions"
http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/Research/SRG/netos/xen/in
The only thing standing in the way of Xen's running Microsoft's products is Microsoft.
and we all know what happened from Windows NT4 to Windows 2000 to Windows XP on RDP, right? Embrace, Extend, Extinguish. Although Xen would be lucky to survive after Vista server is launched.
If you keep throwing chairs, one day you'll break windows....
This is interesting from the standpoint that Xen is a hypervisor. So what does exactly does "between Xen(TM)-enabled Linux and the new Microsoft® Windows® hypervisor technology-based Windows Server® virtualization". Does this mean that the Xen hypervisor will boot a MS hypervisor or am I missing something? Shouldn't MS strive to make Longhorn a proper Xen-aware guest O/S? Maybe this is just marketing speak, but it doesn't sound correct.
There's a pdf on the Xensource website with information on how to install Windows Server 2003 right now. You do need a VT enabled Intel or AMD-V system though:
xensource
Advertising Software
Wolf to work with sheep on dinner.
try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
"Microsoft aims to release 'Longhorn' by the end of 2007"
Just like they aimed to release it last year, and this year, and before christmas...
Ah, bashing microsoft is so much fun!
noobcake or noobmuffin? It is the same price...
Nono... Its the other way around. The Linux community can now make the GNU/Linux kernel, with Xen technology, Hypervisor aware. This allows Windows to host Linux based platforms much easier.
Think of it in terms of getting the Xen folks to make sure that the next Linux kernel works 100% inside "VirtualPC 2007" by allowing them direct access to the Hypervisor subsystem of a Windows Longhorn machine.
The intention being that Windows Longhorn will host a Linux based server better than VMWare. This forces VMWares hand significantly. Its one thing to give away a product for free. This is a whole 'nother level.
Given Bill Gates is a poker lover, you could almost call this is a raise and a call.
"So There Is No Need For You (non-controllable GPL/OSS hippies) To Scratch It, Get Famous For It, Release A TarBall Nobody Can Stifle With Corporate Wrangling. We'll Do It For You."
; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
The latest processors from Intel and AMD have hardware virtualization technology that would enable Xen to run Windoze without any OS modifications. Xen doesn't really need Microsoft's "support" to get Windoze and Linux running together.
I'm not down with it. Actually, I'm not sure I'd be down with it even if it were Windows under Linux. I think it's all getting pretty irrelevant. Still, I'd be just a little shocked to see Microsoft make a Xen Windows kernel allowing Windows to be run Under Linux. I wouldn't use it, but I imagine there are many who would.
Good thing this will run Linux, but will it run Longhorn? Wow, whew, I mean... wow!
Even more amazing if it gets ready before Longhorn... wink, wink, wink...
This is a huge issue that most people don't know enough about yet -- it's the worst possible thing that could ever happen to the industry and would cause the demise of the PC as we know it.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
It's like this:
1) Microsoft announces 'free' Virtual PC for free. Yawn. We're already down the street on this one. Yes, instances of Virtual Server are cool. Move along, please.
2) VMWare announces 'free' VMWare Server-- a while after their other free stuff is announced; a nice embarrassment for Microsoft, who lags miserably here.
3) SUSE comes out with Xen; proving once again that it's as fragile as any code made with toothpicks. Really: this stuff explodes into little bits if you're not careful.
4) Microsoft, not to be out done, and needing to mod their kernel to accomodate Xen's odd functionality, claims future support.
See a trend here?
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
I'm not down with it either. I'd like to see a flag in Xen images to prevent images being run on untrustworthy OS's. I expect Microsoft to be pushing for the opposite.
VMWare Hosted on Windows could also have that "access to the Hypervisor subsystem of a Windows Longhorn machine" and still have an overall better integrated/served product. It is not a long term advantage.
This is Microsoft we are talking about here so the excercise is to figure out how this will be played out.
Will Microsoft take what they learn from 'working' with Xen and use it in their own product( Sybase SQL, Wang DDE, Sun JAVA, etc )?
Will Microsoft find ways to break Xen or cripple it so that the Microsoft product works better?
Or, is Faust making snowballs and Microsoft is really working to make a competing technology work better when at the same time they are working to release their own product which supports only Windows as the Host and only recently stated they'd support Linux as a client VM?
My guess is that it's going to be a mix of the 1st and 2nd actions. And what's with them calling the Server "Longhorn"? Have they not already announced the product is called Vista? Is this a trick to separate how they 'work' with Xen now but release something different in Vista Server? Will it be used to manipulate the public/press perception? Or do they really not have a name for the product yet and still use "Longhorn" in press releases?
LoB
"Anyone who stands out in the middle of a road looks like roadkill to me." --Linus
It should be noted, since no one else seems to have brought up the point, but Xen was originally partly funded by Microsoft. The original history of Xen had it running on both Red Hat Linux and Windows XP. IIRC They used the Shared Source program available to educators to access the source and at the time XP was enabled as a Xen hypervisor client, I don't believe it could act as the hypervisor at the time though.
I quote from the xen development website: A port of Windows XP was developed for an earlier version of Xen, but is not available for release due to licence restrictions.
http://www.mslinux.org/
Way expensive if you ask me though :p
Longhorn... hey, I think I heard that about three or four(more?) years ago. I'm glad I'm not waiting for their server...
will it run Linux?
What's this "Longhorn" thing they speak of.....it's got a name now instead of just a codename. Can you say "Vista"?
I knew it. Microsoft is in league with the Nihilanth. They are working with Xen to take over the world. I'm waiting to hear Gates start talking about our benefactors.
Microsoft is trying to leverage Xen so that they can strike a blow at VMware--"Then enemy of my enemy is my friend". This move not motivated by Microsoft altruism. The main advantage VMware has over Xen is the ability to run Windows. This MS proposal would crush that VMware advantage.
Microsoft 'working closely with' someone means 'Microsoft strongarming someone'.
In this case, its probably to ensure that Linux performance is artificially crippled by Xen until it is worse than Windows performance under Xen.
This letter to The Reg sums it up quite nicely.
Letters:
The faithful gather to worship at the altar of Ballmer in Boston. Perhaps we missed the importance of Microsoft's relationship with its partners. You were quick to set us straight:
I find your lack of faith...disturbing. Microsoft understands the importance of third-party developers, and in fact has opened new markets to some, the anti-virus vendors for example.
No business I have dealt with has ever treated its third-party partners so kindly and solicitously, which Microsoft goes out of its way to do right up to the morning of the day they slip the shiv between the vertebrae.
Gumby
I said it before and I'll obviously have to say it hundreds more, the OS wars are over.
Microsoft is a software bussiness. All they care about is that you have and are paying for their software.
People in the past could only run one OS at a time. Multibooting doesn't count. Even if you multibooted you were still running the same OS 95% of the time. Multibooting was an alternative to buying multiple machines. Now with virtualization microsoft no longer competes with any other operating system, be it Linux or Mac OS. They will all run side by side.
You ain't seen nothing yet, just wait until microsoft creates more windows versions and they each become more distinct such as (gasp!) windows server without a GUI interface.
All they need now is one application you can't live without to compel you buy the OS. In fact computer 'games' literally are right now the killer app for windows but I don't expect that to remain so for long. You'll probably need a seperate version of Media Center edition if you want to play DRM'd music and movies. Microsoft can now tailer make versions of windows bundled with their own software that will appeal to dozens of market segments. The one key advantage of virtualization is that they can give up on trying to keep windows so compatable in the future. Vista will in a sence be the last version of windows burdened by legacy compatability issues. It also means a quicker release schedule and more upgrade versions.
It's just a completely different game. Get your mind out of the past and wrap you mind around the future.
Who in their right mind would ever consider running a Linux 'client' server on a Windows 'host' server?
Anyone that wants to run Linux and isn't an utter moron, isnt going to want to run it inside Windows, except in the few cases of the Windows weenies that want to run eggdrop bots in one becuase they are too afraid to just use Linux as their primary OS, and are too cheap or too stupid to get a second low-end box to run Linux directly on the hardware with.
> Server 2k3 is far more advanced that 2000
Oh? In what way is 2k3 better than 2000 for server duties? Of course I'd ask how any competent admin can deploy either in an Internet facing role but that is one of those questions "That Must Not Be Asked(TM)" lest Microsoft strike you down. Thankfully I'm one of that 1% who are lucky enough to be operating in a 99% Microsoft Free environment so I can ask such questions with relative impunity. Of course the more correct formulation of the question is "How can an admin be considered 'competent' after deploying a Microsoft OS in an Internet facing environment considering their awful security track record."
> > Longhorn is right out.
> You haven't even seen it yet, and you're deciding against it?
It really isn't required to to see the final version, it will be a subset of the betas (expect more defeaturing before final RTM) and they are bad enough. There isn't anything there for an Enterprise IT shop to even consider a feature, so we can't even move to the part of the sales pitch where features can be sold as a benefit to the customer. Seriously, if Microsoft thinks Enterprise IT depts are going to forklift their entire existing workstation inventory for the dubious 'benefits' of Aero Glass they are stark raving insane. And as for servers, Eh? Tell me again why I want Shorthorn?
> > Then there's also the matter of Windows Genuine Spyware Disadvantage(TM), which you don't have installed on the old OSes.
> Funny, as you don't have to install it. It comes as a Automatic update, I uncheck the box to tell it not to install, then I check
> another box telling me not to bother me again. Haven't heard from it since.
And you also won't get updates. And next comes the part where you get 0wn3d. Then comes the suffering. And even that probably won't be an option with shorthorn, I really don't expect them to be giving you a choice in the matter unless you are a major corporate install and considering how widely Corporate XP was pirated they will probably be turning the screws there as much as they can get away with.
Democrat delenda est
Microsoft changed their licensing structure so that if you run Server 2003 Enterprise, four VM's of equal or lessor license are free. That effectively caused my company to drop VMWare ESX servers and switch to Virtual Server (VMwares free version counts under this license change as does Xen when it arrives for windows). We estimate saving an average of ~$2700 per server and consolidating to 25% overall physical servers. I don't know how MS is getting this past DOJ, but it is a hell of a deal and almost completely kills ESX (even though VMWares products are head and shoulders aboves MS's...they are insanely priced).
[RIAA] says its concern is artists. That's true, in just the sense that a cattle rancher is concerned about its cattle.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trusted_computing
> This is not the first time Microsoft has collaborated with Xen.
No, you were right in your next statements, Cambridge had an XP source license. Microsoft didn't 'collaborate' with Xen except in the sense AT&T 'collaborated' with UCB in creating BSD.
This is all about Microsoft coming to terms with the coming sea change of hardware virtualization. UP to now they could simply deny teh right to redistribute the updated device drivers and HAL bits to allow NT based kernels to run in Xen, problem solved. But now comes hardware that rewrites the equation. Before it was "Is it in Microsoft's interest to allow NT based kernels to run in Xen?" and the answer was no. But now it will be running in Xen whether Microsoft wants it to or not, but hardware virtualization is going to be slower than running a modified kernel. Linux already has such a modified kernel. So now the question is "Do we allow the benchmarks for XP and Shorthorn running in Xen to suck compared to Linux?"
> This is just Microsoft trying to ensure that Windows can run as Domain 0, ensuring that you need one more Windows license
> for something that NetBSD would do better.
Most certainly, as other posters have pointed out this initial effort is aimed at running Linux-Xen atop Windows, and takes great pains to make clear the opposite stacking order is not being considered. But they will, it is just taking them a bit of time to yield to reality. Corporate behemoths the size of Microsoft don't turn quicky unless BillG or The Embalmer does another "We are gonna fucking kill Netscape". (Yea I know I am mangling two different events for comedic value.)
Democrat delenda est
The FAQ on the XenSource site make it pretty clear that the result of this partnership will be a commercial product. Specifically, one that does hypercall translation from the Xen ABI to the Microsoft Hypervisor ABI.
The Xen ABI is based on a "hypercall page". This is essentially a table of function stubs. The default hypercall page just does hypercalls for each stub. I presume that XenSource is building a special plugin for the Windows hypervisor that offers a Xen hypercall page to the guest. That page would do hypercall translation to the Microsoft Hypervisor ABI. This would require the ability to write a plugin the the Microsoft hypervisor (hence the cooperation) but it pretty much independent of Xen.
Of course, this leads to an interesting question. Since the hypervisor page runs in the same ring (and address space) as the Linux kernel, wouldn't it have to be GPL'd? Certainly, if you agree that binary modules violate the GPL, this can be viewed as nothing but a special purpose kernel module (and therefore a GPL violation).
It's smart that Microsoft is partnering here to limit it's own legal liability.
FWIW, I am not a lawyer and am purely speculating based only on the publicly available information on the XenSource site.
I think you might be wrong due to the fact that your definition of untrustworthy OS's is 180 degrees off.
I teach and sometimes use a projector to make the screen of my laptop visible to the class. This is not so much a powerpoint type thing as a way to show code - and most of my code is built in linux. I use linux normally, but for some reason the projector doesn't seem to like the linux video out. Under Windows the same resolution seems to work ok. So, I use VMWare to virtualize linux under windows in order to get the projector to play nice. Works just fine.
So you still need a Windows license :) Brilliant move!
I agree totally on your point # 3 - The Xen stuff is still very fragile - Once it won't work with my SATA drives, recently it did but every xm command that I typed made it explode.
IMHO, the whole Xen approach is not scalable - muck around with the base OS so badly that drivers require rewrite. (My b44 Ethernet won't work - Xen won't let it do DMA the way it wants.)
VMWare is lot better as far as speed and stability goes.
I used up all my sick days, so I'm calling in dead.
Having been there and seen what was going on, some information, mostly public and available.
Xen can run Windows, on VT hardware, with a fair bit of fuss and squabble, and has been able to do so for quite a while. Performance isn't something I've looked at specifically (we were much more concerned with stability), but in theory it's going to be somewhat worse than a pure Xen paravirtualized system (the "traditional" Xen model), but better than virtualization as practiced by VMWare. What you do in hardware should be faster than what you do in software. Honestly that's just theory and I don't have numbers. Mind, VMWare are probably going to be using the same VT tricks in their next-gen stuff too.
Note too the difference in terms: Xen is doing some fundamentally different stuff than VMWare, and either needs a modified OS kernel (a trick that's also been done, cloak and dagger-like, or so I'm told), or hardware support (eg: Intel and AMD's VT/Pacifica technology). VMWare essentially provides a virtualized hardware platform of a stock configuration (Xen pretty much shows the guest what you've got on bare iron). For VMWare's workstation and GSX (now VMWare Server) products, bare-iron support is provided by the host OS. For ESX, as I understand, it's VMWare itself that has to provide drivers, and the HCL is pretty slim (current gig has run into this issue several times already). One of the beauties of Xen is that virtually (;-) all hardware support is provided by the Dom0 instance, or for all intents and purposes: Linux's driver support. Which is pretty darned good.
Xen's performance running non-VT is damned impressive. You'll note that VMWare expressly prohibit you from disclosing performance numbers with ESX. Workstation/GSX are typically a 30-40% hit, varying with workload. Xen, running standard Java benchmarking, trotted in at 2-4% consistently, adjusting for total available memory (Dom0 overhead isn't available to the benchmark, ~96-128 MB typically), plus a hair for the Xen hypervisor itself. This being both single instance and multiple guests in aggregate. Pretty good stuff.
I'm sorry to see XenSource getting close to the Vole, but do wish the good folks there well.
Everytime I see a post about Xen, I cringe.
Technology is good. Open Source is good. Management is AWFULL.
As we all know, it is HOW a business is run that makes can make a product mediocre or bad. I have interracted with with some of the clowns who suffer from chronic managerial bad judgement.
Here are the problems with Xensource, from the inside:
1) Penny wise & pound foolish.
They are burning up their VC (not on paying many good engineers good sallaries, but) on: renting a furnished appartment in prime real estate, in downtown San Fransisco for somethinng like $5,000 PER MONTH. Why? So the creator of Xen can have a nice cushy place to crash for the 1 week per year that he visits the company from accross the pond. They are kissing his monkey.
2) Too many VPs, hiring their friends...from their fundamentalist church, their family tree & from the department of arrogance.
3) Hired incapable tech support.
The lady they hired for tech support was incapable of understanding troubles with Xen. Then gets fired because she couldn't perform. Xen managers can't hire good people.
4) Clueless CEO. Frequently gets: new gadgets purchased for him & a frequently kissed hinney.
Their VC sponsor (Seven Rosen Funds) can't manage their own office... let alone install an effective CEO.
5) Using Xen on production computers. Don't bother E-Mailing them about a trouble with virtualizing Exchange (on Windows). They won't get it. They run their E-Mail server on Exchange, which is virtualized. How are you supposed to fix a bug with your software when your compiler has been virtualized & has bugs? Can you say catch-22?
6) They are good on image & bad on results.
7) Their I.T. guy is overworked & pussy-whiped by a bible-thumper boss, to work overtime without pay. Isn't that illegal?
Let's start with a look at the past:
since the beginning of Linux ignoring it didn't work, FUD didn't work (also stated in the Helloween Documents), shared source is looked at with a lot of critic, and now... cooperation. Strange, huuh?
Face the facts: slowly but surely Microsoft is loosing its monopoly, and they have to play fair. (Okay, maybe they won't ever play fair, but they get closer to it.) They have their fingers in nearly everything related to the x86 market, and everything, the "mainstream user" needs, to be happy, e.g. mobile phones, PDAs and so on. Everyone is using M$ the one or other way, it's nearly unavoidable, BUT with this comes, that nearly noone LIKES M$. In Germany nowadays even the VERY M$ friendly Magazines critizise Vista for DRM, unstability and not beeing innovative.
How shall I know what I think before I read what I wrote?