Comments on: Children, Behave! http://www.linux-mag.com/id/3247/ Open Source, Open Standards Mon, 22 Mar 2010 09:52:52 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0.11 by: thatblackguy http://www.linux-mag.com/id/3247/#comment-1961 Mon, 12 Jan 2009 22:42:31 +0000 http://www.linux-mag.com/id/3247/#comment-1961 I agree with you to a degree. The powers that be should have a standard virtualization interface within the linux kernel that would allow anyone to develop virtualization products. In comes KVM which was introduced to the linux kernel in version 2.6.20 (http://virtualize-it.highspeed-data.net/index.php/linux-2620-integrates-kvm-hypervisor-for-hardware-virtualiztion/). This could be a start when it comes to kernel-based virtualization standards because it is possible for anyone to develop a type-1-like hypervisor product using KVM! However I do not believe that any of these companies that develop a type-1 (or bare metal) hypervisor will do things any differently than what they are doing now. It's called competition. I also agree that while VMware is one of the most polished and easy-to-use solutions out there, there are others like VirtualBox and Virtual Iron that have open source versions of their products and seem to be doing just fine. So VMware probably wouldn't lose much if they contributed some source but on the other hand, would you give your secrets away if you were them? I still have customers running Pentium 3/4 CPUs that lack the Intel-VT feature set, and from a performance standpoint any properly provisioned machine can can do well. But if your system is lacking key resources you may even consider to use something like OpenVZ which is limited to a degree but uses very little overhead, or VirtualBox which also can run different operating systems on linux free of charge (like VMware server). And don't forget Virtual Iron which is a type-1 hypervisor solution running on Xen. I agree with you to a degree. The powers that be should have a standard virtualization interface within the linux kernel that would allow anyone to develop virtualization products. In comes KVM which was introduced to the linux kernel in version 2.6.20 (http://virtualize-it.highspeed-data.net/index.php/linux-2620-integrates-kvm-hypervisor-for-hardware-virtualiztion/). This could be a start when it comes to kernel-based virtualization standards because it is possible for anyone to develop a type-1-like hypervisor product using KVM! However I do not believe that any of these companies that develop a type-1 (or bare metal) hypervisor will do things any differently than what they are doing now. It’s called competition.

I also agree that while VMware is one of the most polished and easy-to-use solutions out there, there are others like VirtualBox and Virtual Iron that have open source versions of their products and seem to be doing just fine. So VMware probably wouldn’t lose much if they contributed some source but on the other hand, would you give your secrets away if you were them?

I still have customers running Pentium 3/4 CPUs that lack the Intel-VT feature set, and from a performance standpoint any properly provisioned machine can can do well. But if your system is lacking key resources you may even consider to use something like OpenVZ which is limited to a degree but uses very little overhead, or VirtualBox which also can run different operating systems on linux free of charge (like VMware server). And don’t forget Virtual Iron which is a type-1 hypervisor solution running on Xen.

]]> by: zerlgi three http://www.linux-mag.com/id/3247/#comment-985 Sun, 13 Apr 2008 17:11:28 +0000 http://www.linux-mag.com/id/3247/#comment-985 What about KVM. ... Kernel Virtual Machine (unless I am mistaken), another linux virtualization option. my other 2 cents: OpenVZ = very quick, but not true VM, hence useage of Virtual Environment, coz it's like super-chroot. Hosts on certain distros of Linux. Gratis & Libre. Xen = supports h/ware vmx/vmt for better performance: Linux host. Gratis & Libre. VMware server = easy to set up and use. Supports hosts on Win/Lin/Mac. Gratis At the moment I mostly use OpenVZ and VMware. Provisioning tools in Xen were too painful last time I tried (end 2007). What about KVM.

… Kernel Virtual Machine (unless I am mistaken), another linux virtualization option.

my other 2 cents:
OpenVZ = very quick, but not true VM, hence useage of Virtual Environment, coz it’s like super-chroot. Hosts on certain distros of Linux. Gratis & Libre.

Xen = supports h/ware vmx/vmt for better performance: Linux host. Gratis & Libre.

VMware server = easy to set up and use. Supports hosts on Win/Lin/Mac. Gratis

At the moment I mostly use OpenVZ and VMware. Provisioning tools in Xen were too painful last time I tried (end 2007).

]]> by: twburger http://www.linux-mag.com/id/3247/#comment-33 Wed, 30 May 2007 19:38:15 +0000 http://www.linux-mag.com/id/3247/#comment-33 With Intel's new iVT hardware there should be more standardization between the VMs. If not, at least they will run faster. With Intel’s new iVT hardware there should be more standardization between the VMs. If not, at least they will run faster.

]]> by: Jason Perlow http://www.linux-mag.com/id/3247/#comment-32 Mon, 28 May 2007 21:35:55 +0000 http://www.linux-mag.com/id/3247/#comment-32 Fundamentally I cannot agree with that because the methodology I proposed for VMWare is the exact thing that Sun is doing with Solaris, OpenSolaris, OpenOffice and StarOffice, or what Red Hat does with Fedora and RHEL and what Novell does with SLES and OpenSuSE. It seems to be working for those vendors quite well, and their community certainly isn't perceived as a group of beggars. If anything those product development cycles would not be anywhere near as accelerated as they are without the participation of the community. This is what I am trying to drive home with the folks at VMWare. As to "everything depends on the license" I believe it is possible to address the IP needs of the originating company and the developer community with a number of different OSI-approved licenses. GPL2, GPL3, LGPL, Apache, Mozilla, CDDL and BSD are all legitimate Open Source licenses, and can satisfy a number of different needs. Personally, I think that GPL3 holds the most promise for dealing with IP issues going forward, but that's for the community to decide. Fundamentally I cannot agree with that because the methodology I proposed for VMWare is the exact thing that Sun is doing with Solaris, OpenSolaris, OpenOffice and StarOffice, or what Red Hat does with Fedora and RHEL and what Novell does with SLES and OpenSuSE. It seems to be working for those vendors quite well, and their community certainly isn’t perceived as a group of beggars. If anything those product development cycles would not be anywhere near as accelerated as they are without the participation of the community. This is what I am trying to drive home with the folks at VMWare.

As to “everything depends on the license” I believe it is possible to address the IP needs of the originating company and the developer community with a number of different OSI-approved licenses. GPL2, GPL3, LGPL, Apache, Mozilla, CDDL and BSD are all legitimate Open Source licenses, and can satisfy a number of different needs. Personally, I think that GPL3 holds the most promise for dealing with IP issues going forward, but that’s for the community to decide.

]]> by: Eric Drake http://www.linux-mag.com/id/3247/#comment-31 Mon, 28 May 2007 15:12:44 +0000 http://www.linux-mag.com/id/3247/#comment-31 I took a look at your proposal. Open source of course doesn't really mean anything because everything depends on the license. But what seems to be the ever present issue in the free software world is that people using proprietary solutions want that solution made free software. As long as people refuse to use free software as a matter of principle even if they have to work around some lost functionality, proprietary software vendors know they can keep things just the way they are by being one step ahead of any free software. Until freedom becomes the number one priority, users of proprietary software seeking open sourcing of their favorite product will always be seen by proprietary software vendors as beggars. I took a look at your proposal. Open source of course doesn’t really mean anything because everything depends on the license. But what seems to be the ever present issue in the free software world is that people using proprietary solutions want that solution made free software. As long as people refuse to use free software as a matter of principle even if they have to work around some lost functionality, proprietary software vendors know they can keep things just the way they are by being one step ahead of any free software. Until freedom becomes the number one priority, users of proprietary software seeking open sourcing of their favorite product will always be seen by proprietary software vendors as beggars.

]]> by: Jason Perlow http://www.linux-mag.com/id/3247/#comment-30 Sun, 27 May 2007 23:07:20 +0000 http://www.linux-mag.com/id/3247/#comment-30 I still think the idea of an Open Source version of ESX has legs. Here's a copy of the presentation I made at TSX a few weeks ago: http://www.theuw.net/~perlow/shared/JasonPerlow-OpenESX.pdf It was for a session called "VMWare's next big idea" and I was selected from a large list of entries that were made at the 2 day symposium, to compete with 3 other people who also presented their ideas for a $500 prize. I didn't win, the guy who came up with the idea so VMWare's partners could "print money" did. I still think the idea of an Open Source version of ESX has legs. Here’s a copy of the presentation I made at TSX a few weeks ago:

http://www.theuw.net/~perlow/shared/JasonPerlow-OpenESX.pdf

It was for a session called “VMWare’s next big idea” and I was selected from a large list of entries that were made at the 2 day symposium, to compete with 3 other people who also presented their ideas for a $500 prize.

I didn’t win, the guy who came up with the idea so VMWare’s partners could “print money” did.

]]> by: Jason Perlow http://www.linux-mag.com/id/3247/#comment-29 Sun, 27 May 2007 22:56:24 +0000 http://www.linux-mag.com/id/3247/#comment-29 VMWare is polished but its hypervisor only supports a limited amount of hardware, a small subset of what the Linux kernel supports. Open Sourcing the vmkernel hypervisor and other parts of ESX server would enable it to run on more hardware, and allow extensions into things like the service console. I proposed this to VMWare at the most recent TSX forum in Las Vegas, and they were open to the idea for further discussion. So it's not that far out a concept. They know Xen is a threat and they can sit on their laurels for only so long until they need to do something drastic. VMWare is polished but its hypervisor only supports a limited amount of hardware, a small subset of what the Linux kernel supports. Open Sourcing the vmkernel hypervisor and other parts of ESX server would enable it to run on more hardware, and allow extensions into things like the service console.

I proposed this to VMWare at the most recent TSX forum in Las Vegas, and they were open to the idea for further discussion. So it’s not that far out a concept. They know Xen is a threat and they can sit on their laurels for only so long until they need to do something drastic.

]]> by: Eric Drake http://www.linux-mag.com/id/3247/#comment-28 Sun, 27 May 2007 19:05:43 +0000 http://www.linux-mag.com/id/3247/#comment-28 Err ... If vmware is so polished why would they open source their engine ? If they are the superior virtualization technology what does open sourcing their engine bring them when the open source versions are judged by you as lacking polish ? And if you are so supportive of free software, why don't you give up the proprietary polish and work on polishing up the free software that's available ? And if you don't have polishing skills, why don't you help provide information that a user of free software would need if they don't want to run vmware ? Get real! Err … If vmware is so polished why would they open source their engine ? If they are the superior virtualization technology what does open sourcing their engine bring them when the open source versions are judged by you as lacking polish ? And if you are so supportive of free software, why don’t you give up the proprietary polish and work on polishing up the free software that’s available ? And if you don’t have polishing skills, why don’t you help provide information that a user of free software would need if they don’t want to run vmware ? Get real!

]]> by: Iray Valo http://www.linux-mag.com/id/3247/#comment-19 Fri, 25 May 2007 07:46:46 +0000 http://www.linux-mag.com/id/3247/#comment-19 Don't forget that you can't compare those solutions so straightforwardly as the underlying technology is quite different. Check <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtualization" title="Virtualization" rel="nofollow">Wikipedia's page on virtualization</a> And as Mike says, with the next generation hardware support, Xen is really leading the way. Don’t forget that you can’t compare those solutions so straightforwardly as the underlying technology is quite different.

Check Wikipedia’s page on virtualization

And as Mike says, with the next generation hardware support, Xen is really leading the way.

]]> by: mike crown http://www.linux-mag.com/id/3247/#comment-10 Thu, 24 May 2007 15:10:00 +0000 http://www.linux-mag.com/id/3247/#comment-10 The people you refer to as Xen are probably XenSource. Xen itself is a hypervisor, tool set and kernel patch, XenSource is a company that sells a Xen based Linux product (that smells like CentOS) with some very, VERY polished tools. Also check out Virtual Iron, who sells a different spin on Xen. Their concept used to be that you plugged a CD in one machine and let the rest of the machines network/PXE boot; smooth but not what I needed so I haven't looked lately. Red Hat Enterprise 5 has Xen tools built in. I'd say it IS being supported, and since you can count on a minimum of 5 year support for any Enterprise edition, (probably more like 10 to 15) I'd say that Xen won the Red Hat nomination. There are some other serious players on the field, but the battle seems to be boiling down to Xen Vs. VMware. Xen is cost free, free to download, open source and you can get it with CentOS 5, Novell, Red Hat Enterprise 5, Gentoo, Debian or probably through any other major Linux distributor now. VMWare is not open source and probably never will be. VMWare is owned by EMC who has lately not been at the top of the charts for customer satisfaction. It is free of cost, but if you look at Enterprise edition cost comparisons you need a VERY hefty budget to consider VMWare. Of course, every distribution that sells support will tell you that they have the best one. Ask any of the distros using Xen and they'll tell you why Xen is better than VMWare, ask EMC and they'll tell you why you need VMWare. Shocking isn't it? The really interesting news is that Window's next server edition will almost certainly use the same same type of virtualization that Xen uses. Longhorn (this incarnation) plays nice with Xen on Novell and Longhorn hypervisor hosts Novell nicely too. Short version: * Microsoft, Red Hat, Oracle, Novell, and Debian all seem to be planning on working with , or flatly supporting Xen. * Xen was designed to take advantage of new hardware options from AMD and Intel (new enough that you still have to ask specifically if you're buying servers) * EMC's VMWare offers an older hardware the ability to do virtualization that Xen cannot. Did you know you can run VMWare inside of a Xen based system? I don't know about efficiency, but when I tried it, it worked. The people you refer to as Xen are probably XenSource. Xen itself is a hypervisor, tool set and kernel patch, XenSource is a company that sells a Xen based Linux product (that smells like CentOS) with some very, VERY polished tools.

Also check out Virtual Iron, who sells a different spin on Xen. Their concept used to be that you plugged a CD in one machine and let the rest of the machines network/PXE boot; smooth but not what I needed so I haven’t looked lately.

Red Hat Enterprise 5 has Xen tools built in. I’d say it IS being supported, and since you can count on a minimum of 5 year support for any Enterprise edition, (probably more like 10 to 15) I’d say that Xen won the Red Hat nomination.

There are some other serious players on the field, but the battle seems to be boiling down to Xen Vs. VMware. Xen is cost free, free to download, open source and you can get it with CentOS 5, Novell, Red Hat Enterprise 5, Gentoo, Debian or probably through any other major Linux distributor now.

VMWare is not open source and probably never will be. VMWare is owned by EMC who has lately not been at the top of the charts for customer satisfaction. It is free of cost, but if you look at Enterprise edition cost comparisons you need a VERY hefty budget to consider VMWare.

Of course, every distribution that sells support will tell you that they have the best one. Ask any of the distros using Xen and they’ll tell you why Xen is better than VMWare, ask EMC and they’ll tell you why you need VMWare. Shocking isn’t it?

The really interesting news is that Window’s next server edition will almost certainly use the same same type of virtualization that Xen uses. Longhorn (this incarnation) plays nice with Xen on Novell and Longhorn hypervisor hosts Novell nicely too.

Short version:
* Microsoft, Red Hat, Oracle, Novell, and Debian all seem to be planning on working with , or flatly supporting Xen.
* Xen was designed to take advantage of new hardware options from AMD and Intel (new enough that you still have to ask specifically if you’re buying servers)
* EMC’s VMWare offers an older hardware the ability to do virtualization that Xen cannot.

Did you know you can run VMWare inside of a Xen based system? I don’t know about efficiency, but when I tried it, it worked.

]]>