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."

Comments

Good

[Marcos Eliziario]

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.

Well, this seems pretty obvious.

[kripkenstein]

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.

Re:Well, this seems pretty obvious.

[lyz]

Honestly, I think this has more to do with getting there server product into the datacenter and compeding with (L)Unix then to compete with VMWare. Notice how there is no mention of porting thier desktop OS to xen?
Due the the viral nature of a Microsoft server, when one gets into the datacenter suddenly you are forced into buying more products from Microsoft since nothing else talks to the freeking thing.

And why not?

[ArcherB]

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.

Doesn't help much...

[fireboy1919]

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.

virtualize linux under windows?

[NynexNinja]

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.

Re:virtualize linux under windows?

[Phishcast]

The main benefit of linux is a stable kernel versus an unstable kernel (microsoft)

Replace "unstable" with bloated or proprietary and I'll agree. The stability/BSOD arguments against Windows don't really carry that much weight any more.

Re:virtualize linux under windows?

[Frumious Wombat]

Because if done right, you'll use Windows as the host, because the Windows functionality you need will run sufficiently better, and Microsoft sells another license. Or, you run Linux as a the host, but think warm thoughts about Microsoft because they put money into Xen, buy another license, and Microsoft gets your money as well.

Basically, it's to capture mindshare, prevent datacenters from migrating their Windows systems to Linux hosts when they start running virtualization, and ensuring that, even if you are primarily a Linux-type, you're still paying Microsoft. When you're that big, every extra dollar counts towards proving to Wall Street that you're still growing. There's a lot of money to be made in Virtualization, by ensuring that your OS (Vista/Windows 2007-and-Counting Server) is the host everywhere, rather than the client. If you also sell client licenses for older versions of the OS, for people with apps that can't migrate, so much the better.

Re:virtualize linux under windows?

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

I would rather virtualize Windows under Linux, not the other way around.

You and almost everyone else, but this is MS we're dealing with here. Running Windows under Linux undercuts MS's lock-in strategy. Given the choice of either, customers would choose the more secure, stable OS for the host, which means MS would have to make Windows secure and stable to compete and that just isn't the way they do things. Instead they plan to make it easy for you to run Linux under Windows, but not the other way around, thus removing most of the benefits of running Linux at all. Time will tell if they can keep newer hardware's built in virtualization from running Windows under Linux anyway.

Re:virtualize linux under windows?

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

The stability/BSOD arguments against Windows don't really carry that much weight any more.

I disagree. As a workstation, Windows XP is fairly stable, however it is prone to resource depletion over time and weird problems that can only be solved by a reboot. I agree it is stable enough for most people, but it is certainly not as robust as running Linux. When you consider if the host goes down both so do the clients, but if a client goes down other clients and the host need not, the stability of the host becomes even more vital. More importantly, Windows is more prone to security issues and compromises necessitating a reinstall or restoration from a known good copy. Since it is much easier to accomplish this for a client, rather than host OS and since the security issues themselves are partially mitigated by a more secure host OS, this becomes a real consideration.

Finally, for both servers and workstations, Linux has much better resource management and multitasking. As a result, by running Windows as a client resource blocking can be mitigated in some instances. There have been rare but documented instances of operations running faster in windows under virtualization as a side effect of this. Also, for the server, Window's failure to multitask in a stable way often leads to the need to run multiple servers or virtual servers to maintain stability. Obviously, running Linux as the host OS would mitigate this concern.

Windows has come a long way for stability, but it is not on par yet and in a variety of ways it is still lacking.

Re:virtualize linux under windows?

[laffer1]

In my opinion the host os should be locked down and no services should be offered through it other than virtualization. In that setup one would not need to install patches very often. Obviously a firewall should be setup to block incoming traffic to the host os, etc. This applies to any os used to host others.

In this situation its entirely possible to run windows for a solid year or so before a reboot as long as the virtualization software handles resources well. You could make an argument that a BSD could run longer. I've only used netbsd on a sparc desktop so i don't know its uptime potential, but I do know that I need to reboot FreeBSD servers periodically if they run linux stuff. Every few months there is a kernel patch for FreeBSD anyway.

Re:Is this how MS will battle Linux?

[KiloByte]

And, even worse, they can make Linux run in a TC sandbox -- a key step to making TC required by law.

The OS Wars are Over

[BlueCoder]

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.

Mod the parent "astroturf"

[jmorris42]

> 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.

Re:Mod the parent "astroturf"

[killjoe]

"I have no problems asking any critial questions of MS; we're a company that buys their software, nothing more. Its not like if we speak bad about them they'll revoke our licenses or something."

Actually I think they do indeed reserve the right to do that. In fact they reserve the right to revoke your license any time for any reason at all.

Nice job shilling though. Congratulations.

Asking the right question

[jmorris42]

> 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.)