Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Operating Systems Software Windows Linux

VMware ESX 2 vs. MS Virtual Server? 68

Posted by Cliff from the hare-vs-the-gorilla dept.
Saqib Ali asks: "I m sure most of you have heard that Connectix, the makers of Virtual PC/Server, have been acquired by Microsoft. Based on the technology acquired, MS has developed a new product called Microsoft Virtual Server, using which a Windows Server 2003 based server can run multiple operating systems concurrently. I am doing a preliminary analysis of using MS Virtual Server vs. running VMware ESX Server 2.0 on Clustered Linux Environment. Both solutions offer a way of running multiple OSes in a virtual environment using the same underlying OS (Windows 2003 or Linux). Of course, running VMware on Linux, offers the stability, scalability, and reliability of Linux, and also prevents a business form being locked into one single vendor. However running Microsoft Virtual Server does have some merits from a business perspective (vendor viability, reduced licensing costs etc). Any thoughts on merits/benefits/downside of using either of the technology stacks?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

VMware ESX 2 vs. MS Virtual Server? More

VMware ESX 2 vs. MS Virtual Server?

Comments Filter:

  • I wouldn't consider a Microsoft Virtual Server (Score:5, Funny)

    by DA-MAN ( 17442 ) on Thursday September 04, 2003 @08:55PM (#6875132) Homepage
    Why trust a company to produce a virtual server, when they have yet to produce a working actual server!!!

    ust my .02 cents.

  • License? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by LennyDotCom ( 26658 ) <Lenny@lenny.com> on Thursday September 04, 2003 @09:04PM (#6875182) Homepage Journal

    Virtual Server helps resolve the issues associated with older servers that are out of warranty and diminishing support for earlier hardware and operating systems.
    That sounds fine but if youir running NT4 on an old server and want to move it to a new box running win2003 on a vitual server do you have to buy a new license?
    and what about the fact that M$ has or wil stop supporting NT4

    • MS will stop supporting NT4 if it hasn't yet already, nevertheless there are applications that run only on NT. So businesses will be running NT - whether they use it in a Virtual Evironment or not is a different question.
    • What is MS's history of treting customers?

      Has VMWare shown they think of you as their hostage?

      What will happen to the MS product if it dominates the market?

      If these were questions people asked when evaluating MS vs. Ashton-Tate, Borland, Lotus, WordPerfect and Novell - things would look quite a bit different.

      Vote with your dollars, and don't support the further monopolization of mid-range IT by MS. The repercussions extend deeper than one product.

  • What I want to know is... (Score:4, Funny)

    by HotNeedleOfInquiry ( 598897 ) on Thursday September 04, 2003 @09:05PM (#6875187)
    scoff mode

    Do you still have to pay SCO $699 for each Linux instance that you run. Or are they covered by the Microsoft Unix license.

    /scoff mode

    • Could you have multiple instances on linux running on a Windows box at $699 a pop. You could create a beowulf cluster and have the worlds most expensive, slowest, and most unstable super computer.

      • Say you were trying to use VMWare under Linux to create a beowulf cluster of Linux virtual machines each running VMWare each running a beowulf cluster of Linux virtual machines each....

        Ooooohhhh, my head hurts.

        • Say you were trying to use VMWare under Linux to create a beowulf cluster of Linux virtual machines each running VMWare each running a beowulf cluster of Linux virtual machines each....

          Sorry, VMware knows when it's running inside itself and won't allow it. Not sure how, but I know the network "card" and video "card" have "VMware" in their identifier string, so that's a good bet...

          However, there's nothing stopping you from combining technologies -- so you could have VMware under Linux, running a beo

  • Who the heck is going to have experience with
    the product, given that it isn't even beta yet?

    Is there any benefit on the licensing side?
    I understood there was no reduced cost for any licenses for virtual machines. MS requires you have a legal copy of the OS for each virtual machine.

  • ESX does not run under linux (Score:4, Informative)

    by QuantumG ( 50515 ) <qg@biodome.org> on Thursday September 04, 2003 @09:36PM (#6875356) Homepage Journal
    it has it's own BSD style kernel which does more sophisticated (fair) scheduling and memory management (on-demand page sharing between VMs). People think it's linux based because it has the GNU toolchain ported to it (ie, they're morons).
    • Actually ESX technology is not based on either:
      The following is a passage from http://www.vmware.com/products/server/esx_faqs.htm l [vmware.com]: "VMware's patented and patent-pending technology serves as the foundation for VMware ESX Server; it is not derived from Linux or FreeBSD." However vmware's GSX technology can run on either Linux or Windows.
    • We have two ESX servers running at work. They both came with Redhat as the core OS. The Linux kernel appears to just use a small chunk of memory and is modified to allow processes to grab memory external to their normally allowed virtual address space, while the ESX server software apparently manages the rest of the memory itself. But, the server also runs as a Linux process. It definitely relies in Linux's driver support to support the underlying real hardware. It's neat; they have more than just the GNU t
      • We have two ESX servers running at work. They both came with Redhat as the core OS.

        I wouldn't describe it as the "core" OS, it's just there to provide a basic interface so you can log in an administer the underlying virtualization layer. It's analogous to using DOS to boot Netware. From the docs:

        ESX Server runs natively on server hardware, without a host operating system. This allows it to more fully manage the hardware resources and provide the highest levels of security and performance isolation. ESX

    • It is also Linux related in that I believe it uses linux kernel modules for hardware support. However I think the kernel itself is written inhouse and has nothing to do with Linux or BSD. What toolchain to suggest instead of GNU?

      • Re:ESX does not run under linux (Score:4, Informative)

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 04, 2003 @11:08PM (#6875832)
        Vmware ESX server does not rely on Linux kernel modules for hardware support. It does rely on ESX kernel modules for hardware support.

        The console OS is Linux and can see any device Linux is capable of seeing with the proper driver. However, if the ESX kernel does not support your device (RAID controller, NIC, etc.) you can't assign it for use by virtual machines. Currently ESX server only supports a small subset of devices in comparison to Linux. The ESX kernel does use the kernel module paradigm, but that is as far as the similarity goes.

        The console OS (Redhat Linux) serves primarily as a bootloader for the ESX kernel. It does run processes which aid in I/O for Remote Console sessions among other things, but that's it. The ESX kernel sees the console OS as just another virtual machine.
      • I made a mistake in the posting. I meant vmware GSX (which runs on Linux) and not vmware ESX
    • it has it's own BSD style kernel which does more sophisticated (fair) scheduling and memory management (on-demand page sharing between VMs). People think it's linux based because it has the GNU toolchain ported to it (ie, they're morons).

      Yes, it does. ESX server is based on RedHat 7.2. It's a Linux kernel that boots when you power on the machine. Only at the end of the bootup process, the Linux kernel is swapped out into it's own single CPU VM, and the VMware kernel is swapped in and controls the re
      • It doesn't run under linux. This kind of confusion is the reason why ESX doesn't sell. People see the RedHat bootup and think ESX is just a preinstall of GSX on Linux. Even when you tell them that it has it's own kernel they say "but it runs under linux right?".. here's a tip, a kernel doesn't run under anything, otherwise it's not a kernel.. that's the definition of 'kernel', it's the piece of software that doesn't run underneigth anything else on your machine.

        Of course, sales and marketing have told e

        • here's a tip, a kernel doesn't run under anything, otherwise it's not a kernel
          But the definition of a VM is that one or more kernels run under the VM.

          Other than backdoors into the VM, the kernel is incapable of even knowing that it is running under a VM.

          Boot into DOS. This is DOS running in Real Mode.
          Load a memory manager. Now the memory manager has control of the hardware. DOS is running in V86 Mode, the exact same DOS. If the memory manager decided to excercise it's control, it would be capable of doin
    • The vmkernel is not BSD! It is a proprietary kernel completely developed in-house. Also, ESX definitely does not "run" on Linux. The Red Hat 7.2 is used as a bootstrap loader for the vmkernel. The Red Hat installation is the console OS (vmnix) and it runs a "privileged guest" of the vmkernel after the kernel starts. To say that ESX runs on Linux would be like saying Windows 2000 "runs" on ntldr.

  • A major downside (Score:4, Funny)

    by Radical Rad ( 138892 ) on Thursday September 04, 2003 @09:36PM (#6875358) Homepage
    Any thoughts on merits/benefits/downside of using either of the technology stacks?"

    Yeah, if I "consolidate" all my servers onto a Windows 2003 box running Connectix, then my servers (all non-MS) would go down every time some script kiddy wants to show the world how 3l337 he is with a new worm.

    • Offcourse if I consolidate all my server/services on Windows 2003, I will make sure it is always patched up and behind a highly secure firewall, Intrusion detection system, and honey pots if applicable ;)

      • Re:A major downside (Score:4, Funny)

        by Radical Rad ( 138892 ) on Thursday September 04, 2003 @11:10PM (#6875850) Homepage
        Offcourse if I consolidate all my server/services on Windows 2003

        Was that a Freudian slip? Either you or your subconcious is very clever.

        Seriously, there have been enough MS exploits that use legitimate ports and spread so quickly that something would get through and take out the whole thing.

        I have heard the promises that people could consolidate many servers and domains to a lesser number running on one of these things but I can't help but chuckle at the thought of running windows in windows on windows in a production environment. This MS Virual Server is just a way to get people to pay more money for what they were promised years ago: a stable platform with separate memory spaces to keep apps from stepping on each other. Now instead of an nt server running 5 apps you can pay for an "enterprise" nt server and ms terminal server and 5 more copies of regular nt server plus the 5 apps and all the various "client access" licenses. But stability might be somewhat improved. Gartner should put that in their TCO pipe and smoke it... instead of crack.

  • Still a Single Vendor (Score:3, Insightful)

    by swdunlop ( 103066 ) <swdunlop.gmail@com> on Thursday September 04, 2003 @09:43PM (#6875392) Homepage

    Of course, running VMware on Linux, offers the stability, scalability, and reliability of Linux, and also prevents a business form being locked into one single vendor.

    You will still be locked into a single vendor; the one that supplies VMware, which is not Free Software; while this company doesn't have the reputation of jettisoning products on a marketing department's whim, you still need to worry about what happens if the company in question goes under, or is purchased by an aggressive competitor, like Microsoft.
    • That is very valid argument. I didn't think of that.

      However with MS Virtual Server, there are 2 components (2003 and MS Virtual Server) that are locking into a vendor.
      On the other hand, in the Linux + VMware GSX solution, there only one component (vmware GSX) that is locking us in a vendor
      • That is definately a key point, as there would be two licenses to worry about, instead of just one. If Microsoft terminated either product, your company would need to migrate. That being said, our site has been very happy using Linux+GSX for hosting multiple Win2k servers.
    • actually, it's the sales department which determines when each version of VMWare ships. Their customers tend to buy the product at their end of their budget cycle (gotta spend all the money you are given or you won't get as much next quarter) and if there isn't a release available there's hell to pay.
  • I m sorry, I mentioned vmware ESX in the article, but instead it is GSX that is supported on Linux.

    ESX directly runs on System Hardware (kinda like an OS by itself) and is not based on Linux or BSD Kernel.

  • Microsoft's page isn't exactly clear what OS's are supported. I see they mention NT, 2000, 2003 and OS/2 (which shares some roots with NT). Maybe soon we'll see a patch submitted to Linus so new kernels work on this. I can see support for older OS's being a problem. "OS/2 doesn't work.", "Call IBM" "NT doesn't work.", "Sorry, it's no longer supported."
    • This isn't the server version, but here's something interesting (similar system requirements to VMware Workstation 4.0):

      http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/virtualpc/dow nl oads/trial.asp

      ALL Windows versions 3.1 and up, DOS, Netware, OS/2, Linux (they fucking specifically say Linux), etc., etc. It takes LOADS of HDD space, though (500 FSCKING MB FOR WINDOWS 95?!?!).
  • Even if the Microsoft thingy should support running any guest operating system NOW, they will most likely stop this as soon as they stomped VMware into the ground.

    I just can't believe people still jump on this stuff after M$ showed this kind of action on so many occasions.
  • How good do you think Microsoft's support is going to be when you have a problem with Linux in the VMs? VMWare is OS neutral; Microsoft is not. When a company calls a product you use a cancer, I don't think you want their help solving a problem; you lose all your leverage.

  • However running Microsoft Virtual Server does have some merits from a business perspective (vendor viability, reduced licensing costs etc). Any thoughts on merits/benefits/downside of using either of the technology stacks?"

    Okay, you mention two "merits" here, let's discuss these: Vendor Viability: Sure, M$ is quickly maturing to the realm of death and taxes, abhorrent but inevitable. However, the benefit of this vendors perceived longevity needs to be balanced against the companies oft stated desire to

    • The other item to balance off against this is the vendor's long-standing history of OS issues and application exploits.

      There's one more item, related to "vendor viability": Sure, M$ will likely be around for a while, but there is no guarantee that any of their products will be viable. They can and will stop supporting any product if they think they can get more money out of it i.e. force people to upgrade.

      So using VM software to run older OSes and apps on newer hardware is probably less viable with

    • ....and if you have the in-house expertise to handle Linux. hey you just hit the nail on the head. Let's see which there are more of, qualified MS experts or qualified Linux experts. I bet on average you can get an MS expert a lot cheaper than a Linux expert. Invest in the infrasructure then hire the peons, not skimp on infrastructure and hire a snobby Linux zealot with a god complex.
      • ....and if you have the in-house expertise to handle Linux. hey you just hit the nail on the head. Let's see which there are more of, qualified MS experts or qualified Linux experts. I bet on average you can get an MS expert a lot cheaper than a Linux expert. Invest in the infrasructure then hire the peons, not skimp on infrastructure and hire a snobby Linux zealot with a god complex.

        Now you, my friend, have hit it exactly on the head.

        Ever heard the old adage you get what you pay for? Comparing a qua

  • Microsoft Virtual Server is the most extreme example of vaporware I've seen in a LOOONG time. Connectix announced it in 2002, and now Microsoft is saying that it won't be ready until 2004. Meanwhile, ESX has been used in production at Fortune 500 companies for 2 years+. Hmm...
  • Its the 'native' version of vmware.. From what I have seen, its a better product then ESX, for either host OS. ( guest OS is not relevant in this context )
    • Ingore my post.. i got the 2 products backwards again...

      They should have had a better naming system...

      Move on, nothing else to see here...
  • Don't forget that Virtual PC is emulating the CPU and VMware is virtualizing the CPU.

    Thats why there is a Virtual PC for Mac (PowerPC) and no VMware for Mac.

    VMware is a lot similar to IBM's z/VM, in that non-privileged CPU instructions run directly on the hardware.
    Think VM assists in MVS (ala z/OS).

    So VMware will always be faster, but will never leave the x86 arch in its current form.

    • Maybe the reason virtual server isn't out yet is that they're working on a virtualizing emulator. Or, well, a virtualizer. But you know what I mean, kind of like you can use bochs with plex86 now, or do I have that backwards?

Slashdot Top Deals

Congratulations! You are the one-millionth user to log into our system. If there's anything special we can do for you, anything at all, don't hesitate to ask!

Close