Slashdot Mirror
Longhorn Server Will Stress Virtualization
Rob writes in with an article from CBROnline based on an interview with Microsoft's UK server director. He says the timing of the release of the next version of Microsoft's server OS, dubbed Longhorn, depends on the company getting virtualization ready to go. Microsoft has apparently decided to embed its hypervisor technology into Windows, an OS-centric approach to virtualization shared by XenSource Inc., its open-source rival and partner. This contrasts with the model of virtualizing the hardware layer being pursued by VMWare. The Microsoft spokesman is coy about a release date for Longhorn, saying it could be earlier or it could be later (but it should be in 2007).
...and one vmware-server-linux to try and delete them all.
Microsoft seems to be TERRIFIED of VMware (EMC). Why? Is is because VMware allows the use of Windows UNDER Linux? (Whereas, it seems, Microsofts preferred approach will be Linux under Windows?).
Of course, having Linux as the HOST OS means that driver vendors will have to support Linux more in the enterprise. And, I believe that Linux is the "better" OS in that the kernel has gone through a more stringent review process.
But all of these statements -- that the Windows Virtualization Technology will be stunning, that Virtualization belongs in the OS, etc. seems to be thowing FUD directly at VMware (and, I assure you, the VMware product is "stunning" -- I particularly like the Server product running on Linux).
To my knowledge (or my opinion, if you prefer), Microsoft ONLY reacts this strongly if their platform is being threatened. And I don't see what the introduction of a bit more enterprise driver support does to threaten Windows.
Ok, I have a guess: It could be that Linux is so good that it makes for a more solid OS base. This then provides a compelling platform to begin virtualizing Windows Servers on. But, if the enterprise is ALREADY basing on Linux, why not start transitioning to native Linux? After all, its stable enough to host Windows, right? A chink in the platform.
But that implies that Microsoft believes that Linux is that good...
Just another "Cubible(sic) Joe" 2 17 3061
There are more than security issues. For example, you may opt for a cheaper co-lo deal by getting a VM slice instead of a dedicated box. In your VM slice you can install/do whatever you want because you're isolated from the other "boxes".
Also, if you have to have multiple build environments [re: software developer] then it's nicer to fire up a VM instead of a dedicated box.
Tom
Someday, I'll have a real sig.
Because Windows machines need to be rebooted all the time for bugfixes, application death, and patches, MS wants you to be able to run several instances of Windows on 1 piece of gear. A decent virtualization layer will allow you to migrate users from 1 instance to another, so you can bounce the instances one at a time. That being said, VMWare currently totally rocks at this, so MS has an uphill battle. One which they'll win, of course, because they have the mindshare and the Windrones will buy it.
I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
...and then inside the DomU's you can have any OS you want...
Theoretically. As a matter of reduction to practice, if you don't make all those DomU's with EXACTLY the matching level of Xen kernel as the dom0, everything will fall through your fingers. Xen is really over hyped right now. The 64 bit stuff is flakely, live migration is flakey, hardware support is weak, the whole thing is still quite clearly in a beta state. Just peruse the list archives at http://lists.xensource.com/ to get an idea of what ordinary deployers of xen are routinely facing. Kernel panics are hardly unusual. In off the shelf SLES10, I can routinely crash dom0 (and by implication ALL guests) by simply issuing a migrate at the wrong time. Xen is still very young.
You will be right a year from now. The trend is clear. Not today, though.
C//