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!
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.
No longhorn is the codename for Vista. Blackcomb is the codename for Vienna (Vista server) if I remember correctly. The codename for Win95 was chicago, also if I remember correctly.
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.
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.
Hmm, as a model of how Microsoft kills it's competition, I don't think I'd pick Citrix who seem to be doing quite nicely with a market cap of $6+B
AFAIK, Longhorn is still the name being used for the server version of their new line.
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.
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.
> 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
> 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 big difference between ESX and virtual server is in the VM management - with VirtualCenter and a SAN, you can move running VMs between hosts, to redistribute load, or for maintenance. Granted, VirtualCenter is yet another piece of expensive software to buy. I'd guess there are still advantages to running ESX on its own, compared to Virtual Server, in that it runs on bare hardware, with (presumably) less overhead than running a full version of windows with VMs on top of it. ESX is also braindead simple to install and admin.
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.