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

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.

Re:Well, this seems pretty obvious.

[blogchan]

What does XenSource get out of this deal ? One of the following:

• Cash
• Publicity (which helps an ailing company that recently fired all its executives and has struggled to make a dent on the market even after a full year)
• Leverage when pushing their VMI interface into linux kernels, over VMwares interface
• More importantly, behind the scenes deal to add a VMI interface into Windows, along with the licensing agreement. Someone else qutoed from the Xen website that "A port of Windows XP was developed for an earlier version of Xen, but is not available for release due to licence restrictions". To get around antitrust issues, MS will make the interface public eventually, but this wont give VMware enough time to hook into this.

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.

Re:Doesn't help much...

[Ignominious Cow Herd]

Running Windows unmodified is not ready for primetime yet.

Amen to that Brother!

Oh, you meant running under Xen? Sorry, I thought you meant, you know, by itself. My bad.

But, what about the opposite.

[CaptnMArk]

Will Windows run nicely under Xen (and also VMware)

That's what I want.

Re:But, what about the opposite.

[Olmy's Jart]

No, that does not appear to be what that press release is saying.

It's saying that Microsoft will be able to run Xen enabled guests on Windows Server. IOW... They are acting as the Xen hypervisor and can run canned Xen images. I don't see anything in that announcement that gives me any encouragement to believe you will be able to run Windows under the native Xen hypervisor. They're not talking about "running Xen" only "running Xen enabled guests under the Microsoft virtualization". Different critter.

In fact, reading that release, they seem to have gone to great pains to word it to exclude running Windows as a guest under the Xen hypervisor. It's all spun very carefully, there.

In other words...

[MartinG]

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.

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:Longhorn?

[lord_rob the only on]

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.

Is this how MS will battle Linux?

[pesc]

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*

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.

Xensource information

[oprig]

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

In other news....

[ch-chuck]

Wolf to work with sheep on dinner.

Re:Gasp! Cooperation, but MS's hypervisor under Xe

[Korgan]

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.

Re:And why not?

[TheRaven64]

This is not the first time Microsoft has collaborated with Xen. Xen was developed at Cambridge, which has strong ties with Microsoft. The Xen team was granted access to the Windows XP (I think, possibly 2K) source code, and ported the kernel to run on a previous version of Xen. They were not, of course, allowed to distribute these changes.

It's all a bit academic now, since Xen can (or will soon be able to; I haven't checked the status of Xen for a while) run Windows on any chip with virtualisation extensions anyway. 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.

Re:Good

[plague3106]

Actually, it's the first thing I hear from them in a long time that seems to care about what the customer needs.

No, MS has always been good about listening to its customers; sometimes they are slower than customer like, but they do listen. People wouldn't stick with software that wasn't doing what they required of it.

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.)