VMware ESX 2 vs. MS Virtual Server? 68
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?"
I wouldn't consider a Microsoft Virtual Server (Score:5, Funny)
ust my
Re:I wouldn't consider a Microsoft Virtual Server (Score:3, Informative)
Re:I wouldn't consider a Microsoft Virtual Server (Score:2, Interesting)
I wonder how Microsoft will bastardize this one, Visio use to be nice before it became Microsoft Visio....
Once again, just my $0.02
Re:I wouldn't consider a Microsoft Virtual Server (Score:1)
MS didn't build the Virtual Server (Score:2)
That being said I have both Virtual PC and VMWare and VMWare is far superior on Windows. I haven't tried Virtual PC for the Mac but VMWare on Linux runs my offices demo server quite nicely.
License? (Score:3, Interesting)
Virtual Server helps resolve the issues associated with older servers that are out of warranty and diminishing support for earlier hardware and operating systems.
That sounds fine but if youir running NT4 on an old server and want to move it to a new box running win2003 on a vitual server do you have to buy a new license?
and what about the fact that M$ has or wil stop supporting NT4
Re:License? (Score:2)
Re:License? (Score:2)
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)
Do you still have to pay SCO $699 for each Linux instance that you run. Or are they covered by the Microsoft Unix license.
Re:What I want to know is... (Score:2, Funny)
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.
Re:What I want to know is... (Score:2, Funny)
Ooooohhhh, my head hurts.
Re:What I want to know is... (Score:2)
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
1) It's pre-beta! 2) licensing cheaper? (Score:1)
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.
Re:VMWare works (Score:2)
The Microsoft Virtual Server is in pre-beta, and we all know how long it takes Microsoft to release a product, let alone get to the SP1 phase where people are willing to remotely give it trust.
This guy needs to look at his timeline, this question is like askin what should I get Unreal 2003 or Duke Nukem Forever.
Re:VMWare works (Score:4, Informative)
so.... VMWare($300) on top of windows (at least $100) and
on top of VMWare copies of windows (at least $100) and any copies of office or anything like that (X dollars) TIMES the number of virtual machines that you have saved.
Or you could run virtual images of linux or whatever.
But if you bought VMWare with the purpose of being able to inexpensively and quickly deal with multiple Images (for corporate imaging testing or what have you) or multiple MS operating systems.. then they try and rope you into a MSDN license.
It's nutty
Re:VMWare works (Score:2, Informative)
ESX does not run under linux (Score:4, Informative)
Re:ESX does not run under linux (Score:3, Informative)
The following is a passage from http://www.vmware.com/products/server/esx_faqs.ht
don't put words in my mouth (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:ESX does not run under linux (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:ESX does not run under linux (Score:2)
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:
Re:ESX does not run under linux (Score:2)
Re:ESX does not run under linux (Score:4, Informative)
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.
Re:ESX does not run under linux (Score:2)
Hey! (Score:1)
Anyhow, here's the link [vmware.com]; cheers!
Re:Hey! (Score:2)
which one? (Score:1)
Re:which one? (Score:2)
and there it is... The VMware ESX kernel runs the modified linux kernel.
that certainly is one possible interpretation (Score:1)
Re:compiling the ESX kernel (Score:1)
Do you happen to have a link to that recommendation? I'd like a copy for my idiocy files. Blasted incompatible unreliable buggy (unprintable) version of a compiler!
Re:compiling the ESX kernel (Score:2)
Included is the source for the following packages:
1) vmnix kernel (linux/)
Modified linux v2.4.9 kernel
2) VMware ESX Server installer (installer/)
Modified version of anaconda-7.2
3) vmklinux
Based on 2.2 and 2.4 linux kernel code
4) vmkload_mod
Based on insmod source from the modutils package
5) rrdtool-1.0.40 and wu-ftpd-2.6.1 (COSApps)
Tools included with the VMware
Re:ESX does not run under linux (Score:3, Informative)
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
as I said (Score:2)
Of course, sales and marketing have told e
Re:as I said (Score:2)
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
Re:ESX does not run under linux (Score:1)
A major downside (Score:4, Funny)
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.
Re:A major downside (Score:2)
Re:A major downside (Score:4, Funny)
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)
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.
Re:Still a Single Vendor (Score:3, Insightful)
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
Re:Still a Single Vendor (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Still a Single Vendor (Score:2)
GSX runs on Linux (Score:2)
ESX directly runs on System Hardware (kinda like an OS by itself) and is not based on Linux or BSD Kernel.
What OS's are supported? (Score:1)
Re:What OS's are supported? (Score:1)
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/virtualpc/do
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?!?!).
Just start to THINK! (Score:1)
I just can't believe people still jump on this stuff after M$ showed this kind of action on so many occasions.
Support problem (Score:2)
Oxymoron: (n) e.g. Microsoft and merit. (Score:1)
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
Re:Oxymoron: (n) e.g. Microsoft and merit. (Score:1)
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
Re:Oxymoron: (n) e.g. Microsoft and merit. (Score:2)
Re:Oxymoron: (n) e.g. Microsoft and merit. (Score:1)
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
Virtual server doesn't exist (Score:2)
Better off with GSX server (Score:2)
Arrgh (Score:2)
They should have had a better naming system...
Move on, nothing else to see here...
Virtualization vs Emulation (Score:1)
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.
Re:Virtualization vs Emulation (Score:2)