Massive VMware Bug Shuts Systems Down

mattmarlowe writes "Imagine if Red Hat released a version of Linux, and after it was deployed, customers noticed that any processes with a start date of today would refuse to run? Well, that's what happened to VMware — a company that wants nearly all server applications running in virtual machines within a matter of years." Supposedly a fix will be available ... in 36 hours.

Comments

License Management Software!?

[bigtallmofo]

I don't get license management measures in software that is only going to be used by major corporations.

If someone wants to run virtual machines at home or in a small business, they're likely going to be more than satisfied with VMWare Virtual Server (formerly GSX) and wouldn't even consider the much more complex ESX.

In a major corporation, fear of massive fines and prosecution is enough to stop them from pirating your software. Hardware dongles, software license managers and the like only hurt your paying customers.

Re:License Management Software!?

[db32]

Exactly. It is a tremendous pain in the ass to track all the stupid license keys and crap in use. Departments frequently need software specific to only their department and outside the scope of normal IT support stuff. Phone numbers, licenses, etc. God forbid any of those companies get purchased or go under, then you are stuck with expensive software that you cannot recover.

The call home variety is extremely infuriating. On top of whatever nonsense key/activation crap you have to go through, you have to put up with it trying to call home or deactivating itself. MS isn't the only guilty party in this, but those bastards certainly made the situation much worse.

Re:License Management Software!?

[_merlin]

Having administered ESX, I can say the license management is useful for one thing: it helps you ensure you aren't exceeding what you're licensed for. For example, if you aren't licensed for multi-processor boxes, it will complain until you get a valid license. If nothing else, it gives you some confidence that you will pass an audit.

License management is also useful for things like MATLAB and OPNET that are licensed per concurrent user: you can install on as many machines as you like, but they need to be able to talk to your license server (not that this is _your_ license server on your network - it isn't "calling home") to ensure that the number of concurrent users is below the maximum allowed. That way, if say, everyone needs to be able to run OPNET occasionally, but not very often, everyone can install it, but you only need to pay for a few licenses. You know you aren't exceeding your licenses because it won't let you launch more instances than you're allowed simultaneously. If your users regularly complain that they can't fire up OPNET due to lack of licenses, you pay for a few more seats.

On the other hand, I can't stand software that calls home to ensure that it's "genuine" a la Windows Vista, or those stupid CD copy protection schemes. That's bullshit. Things like that make more work for a sysadmin, not less. I only like license management when it helps me, the admin; I don't care what it does or doesn't do for the software vendor. I'm a selfish pig, I know.

Another thing I can't stand is things like Rational Purify where they attempt to count your "activations" at their end: when you install Purify, it increases the installed count in IBM's system, and decreases it when you uninstall. If the IBM server thinks you're using all your licenses, you can't install. Too bad people always forget to uninstall Purify before wiping their computers for a clean OS install (or scrapping the computers)! And don't get me started on how bad it is to deal with IBM's phone support. This is one copy protection scheme that I do bypass: I install Purify in a VMware virtual machine, snapshot it, uninstall Purify, and roll the virtual machine back to the snapshot. That way, Purify will work in the virtual machine, but IBM's servers will think I haven't used any of my licenses. Also, I can make copies of the virtual machine for multiple people to use. It's easier for me to track the licences than put up with a crap license management scheme.

Re:License Management Software!?

[swabeui]

I'm looking at you North Winds Software. I'll BUY a support contract! If you offered such a thing. If you answered the phone.

North Winds Software? Just a WILD guess... is this 'software' based on MS Access? I wonder where they got the company name from...

Re:License Management Software!?

[MBGMorden]

and as far as everyone else in the business is concerned, any failings in the product is the IT department's problem not theirs

This is true, and particularly frustrating. We recently have converted from an (old, but very functional and stable) 20+ year old COBOL program to a new Windows application in our organization. This is a Visual Basic application that if I'm being kind I'd say is a kludge held together by the electronic equivalent of duct tape and glue. The thing is junk and crashes ALL THE TIME. IT didn't pick this app though - we just get stuck supporting it. However, no amount of explanation can convince these people that the program crashing is not IT's fault. We can reinstall it as many times as they ask for it. We can update everything on their computer. We can buy them a new computer. But the basic fact is the program you bought is crap and full of bugs and nothing IT does is going to make it stop crashing and screwing up data.

Sadly, this is a hard fact to make users accept.

Re:License Management Software!?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm on the other side of the divide---a tiny company that's not too much more than a guy in his garage (just a few of us), and frankly, I agree with you. I'm astonished at the way we do things, even though we sell to huge firms (including big law firms, like yours). Part of it is just size---we don't have the people or skills to do all the safety, security and support steps a big corporation would. Still, freaks me out that the crap I wrote is out there being used to do important things by important people who don't realize how dumb the guy who wrote their software actually is.

Can't start processes?

[oldspewey]

any processes with a start date of today would refuse to run? Supposedly a fix will be available... in 36 hours.

Good thing the fix will be available tomorrow, because if it was available today nobody would be able to run the update process

what do you expect?

[larry bagina]

Who knows what else is lurking in their code base? Certainly not me or you -- we can't see it. We're at their mercy to find and fix problems.

I stick to virtualbox. I'm not going to pretend I've audited the source code, but if I need to, I can.

Say YES to freedom.

My head hurts.

[dc29A]

My head hurts reading that article. Who the fuck wrote it? A ten year old mental retard?

It's like ............... this and VM's this VM's that (Yes, notice the spelling?). Ooooh and the cyberwarfare boogeyman! You can't even find this much Hollywood scenario fear mongering from Hollywood themselves. Oh noes! Our entire infrastructure will be killed by evil cyber terrorists because it runs on VMware!

Oh and and lovely parts like 'w/' instead of 'with'. Hey douchebag, this is not SMS, is it so hard to hit another 2 keys on your keyboard? Oh and for the love of $DEITY$, please learn basic HTML and use links so I don't have to copy paste text into the address bar.

As for Slashdot editors, why the fuck did they pick the worse possible article from the Firehose when plenty others look *WAY* more professional?

Re:My head hurts.

[dotancohen]

Even worse, he got the meme wrong. The title of the blog post should have been "All your VM are belong to us". Idiot.

Re:My head hurts.

[Anonymous Coward]

for the love of $DEITY$

That's either $DEITY or %DEITY%, please learn basic shell scripting for your platform :)

Morale: if you're gonna rant, make sure you do not make the same mistakes as the target of your rant

Re:My head hurts.

[kiwimate]

for the love of $DEITY$

That's either $DEITY or %DEITY%, please learn basic shell scripting for your platform :)

Morale: if you're gonna rant, make sure you do not make the same mistakes as the target of your rant

That's moral, which is a lesson to be learned. Morale refers to high spirits, or lack thereof, as in "his morale was crushed when he realized his error in verbiage".

Yes, it is a bug

[evilpenguin]

But the real bug is license enforcement in the first place. Why would you run the risk of making your business depend on the whims of someone else's IP policies and enforcement?

Now, I'm somewhat realistic. I know that there isn't (yet) an adequate replacement for every piece of closed proprietary software out there. But for my own business (admittedly small) I am building with nothing but GPL/BSD/Apache license code. And it is working. I don't trust closed code. Of course my software will have bugs, some of them serious. But I won't have stuff shutting down because of "license" issues. Why do people go quietly into enforced licenses? Why do people accept remote kill switches on their servers? Why doesn't this strike everyone as a crazy thing to do?

Re:Workaround available

[d_ron_218]

The only way to run a Windows domain controller in VMware is to tie its clock to the physical host's clock. And lots of things break if your domain controllers have the wrong time (Kerberos authentication, NTP across the Windows network, etc, etc). So changing the host clock would generally be a bad idea.

Patch Tuesday

[Thelasko]

FTFA:

VC will continue to show the hosts as licensed and no errors will appear in vmkernel log file until you try to start up a new vm, reboot a vm, or reboot the host.

Um, isn't today Patch Tuesday? This could be worse than we thought.

Re:Workaround available

[Sobrique]

I've had oodles of grief from VMs running as DCs for exactly this reason - they pick up clock skew as they're not running _quite_ in real time. And so they drift, and as soon as they hit the ... is it 5 minute? Kerberos window, your whole domain goes nuts.

Troubleshooting that one was fun.

KVM and XEN

[kenp2002]

The Open Source Model gets a leg up again after this nonsense. A client of mine just ported all their VMs and said good bye to VMware. That's 280 VMs by the way. Thank God we had a contingency plan for switching VM providers for a DR exercise a year ago and here we go.

Management is pretty upset and I doubt we will be switching back any time soon to VMWare products after this.

On a side note this scenario did prove one thing:

Having a VM-agnostic storage makes migration easy. We changed a mount point, powered on the alternate VM host and we were off and running just that quick. We lost the ability to do live migrations for now but beyond that is was a good opporunity to see just how important an VM-agnostic disk storage array is. (I'm not the admin of those machines but I believe we are using iSCSI).

On my side though I had about 50 scripts tapping VMWare via PERL but I guess I can start building workarounds now... No more batch submission and dynamic routing for a week or two... The part I hate the most was I had a nice script to take a batch submission and if necessary migrate a utility node to bigger hardware to accomidate the batch... pisses me off but what can I do, thank you Vmware, that aquisition seems to be improving your product as much as when Symantec aquired Ghost Corp!

Re:Utility computing w/o virtualization

[Anonymous Coward]

Simple...power. Right now our datacenter is strapped for power, and power isn't cheap. Neither is cooling. For 10U and 8000 watts I can install a fully loaded blade chassis with 128 CPU cores and 1 Terabyte of RAM, attach it to a SAN and run 150 VMs in it. Or I can install 150 rack and stack servers at taking up 4 racks and 75000 watts. Let me think here...

And while I'm thinking about it, let's also remember that using VMWare gives you options like DRS and VMotion that you don't get with physical hardware. Or you can replicate your SAN to another SAN at your DR site and have a VMWare cluster waiting there for recovery. Then instead of having to do a bunch of restores to bare metal hardware, you could potentially get your servers back up and running in minutes instead of hours.

There are many, many benefits to virtualization. If there weren't then people wouldn't have been using for decades in one form or another.

No! Don't set the time back!

[Animats]

VMware is suggesting setting the system time backwards to work around their license manager problem. That's a desperation move. Not only will it mess up everything from Kerberos to CVS to "make", if you're running certain licensed software, in particular software licensed via FlexLM, that software will stop working. FlexLM will disable your licenses if the clock goes backwards by more than 24 hours. Now your expensive high-end software protected by FlexLM (Rational, Avid, Matlab, National Instruments, ANSYS, Cisco Unity, Clearcase, Nokia network management, etc.) will stop working. Setting the clock forward again may not re-enable it, either; there's tamper detection.

Also, if you have server/client licensing with FlexLM, or multiple license servers, and the clocks disagree significantly, FlexLM gets suspicious and turns licenses off.