Entries Tagged as 'Virtualization'

XenSever

When Citrix purchased the rights to XenServer™ they heated up the battle on the virtualization front by legitimizing (and commercializing) virtualization technology based on an open source code base.  Then they added enterprise capabilities to manager a virtualization farm and went head-to-head with VMware; they they struck an alliance with Microsoft to support Hyper-V based technology as well (and Microsoft added support for Xen based technology to their product).

Now Citrix has fired a new volley by making XenServer as well as XenMotion and XenCenter absolutely free.

These aren’t scaled down versions of the product; Citrix has adopted the model to sell support and maintenance contracts to enterprise customers as well as a few add on products.

XenServer was already a good value for enterprise virtualization, now it’s an incredible value for enterprise virtualzation as well as small business and even pro-sumer (home users who want or need more than simple desktop virtualization).

At minimum, any company looking at moving to or enhancing their virtualization platform would be totally irresponsible if they didn’t consider evaluating a product like XenServer before making a decision (and it’s very likely that they’ll find XenServer the most economical solutions since it includes essential components that would add considerably to the costs of a Microsoft or VMware solution).

xensource.com

Originally posted 2010-05-02 02:00:52.

Virtual Server 2005 R2 with Internet Explorer 8

You’ve probably read my rant on IE8 and how broken it is.

If you have IE8, and you need to use Virtual Server 2005 R2 (and perhaps previous versions as well), and you’re tired of having to select compatibility mode manually all the time…

You can add a customer header to your web site to force IE8 into IE7 (compatibility) mode.

However, on a workstation (XP, Vista, etc) that means all of your web sites will force IE8 into IE7 mode; on a server (Server 2003, Server 2008, etc) you can set the header on only the virtual server web site.

Why Microsoft doesn’t issue a hot fix for this is totally beyond me… seem like it would be trivial for them to make the web service app send the META tag; or they could actually address the compatibility issues.

On Vista you’ll find the menu you need via:

  • Computer->Manage->Services and Applications->Internet Information Server->HTTP Response Headers->Add

And the Custom HTTP Response Header you’ll set and value is:

  • Name:  X-UA-Compatible
  • Value: IE=EmulateIE7

On other versions of Windows you just need to get to the IIS management console figure out how to set the custom HTTP header on a site (remember, workstation versions of Windows only have one web site so depending on the version of  Windows you’ll see either ‘default’ or nothing listed).

Originally posted 2009-08-27 01:00:02.

Hyper-V Transition

I’ve started to make the conversion of my servers and virtualization hosts to Windows Server 2008, and with Windows Server 2008 comes Hyper-V.

While I believe there has to be a rather substantial update to Hyper-V, most of  the initial feedback is promising, and the performance is good.

Since I already have an investment in virtualization using Virtual Server 2005 R2 (x64) Hyper-V is the logical choice (though you could consider others — Virtual Box would be a free alternative).

Microsoft makes it possible for you to import Virtual PC or Virtual Server machines only if you purchase the Virtual Machine Manager; for those of us who don’t run a virtual data center that might be a bit much (I think it was available through my MSDN subscription, but I really didn’t want to install it).  For those who don’t mind a few manual steps you can use Matthijs ten Seldam’s Virtual Server to Hyper-V import tool – VMC2HV (I’ve included links at the bottom of the post to his BLOG as well as direct to his SkyDrive for download).

With VMC2HV you will have to manually remove Virtual Machine Additions from your old virtual machines, and manually start the process of HAL upgrade and Virtual Intergration Services Install on your Hyper-V machine, but it’s very straight forward and Hyper-V will actually give you info-tips to guide you along.

The tool is fairly straight forward to use, the only thing you need to remember is to have it swap SCSI0 with IDE0 (if you used SCSI drives on Virtual Server, remember that Hyper-V can only boot from IDE drive; hopefully that will change soon).

Originally posted 2009-01-30 01:00:22.

Windows 7 – Virtualization

So you’ve upgraded to Windows 7 and now your considering the options for running virtual machines…

If you have a PC that’s capable of hardware assisted virtualization (I-VT or AMD-V) and you’re running Windows 7 Professional or Ultimate the decision is fairly easy; use the virtualization technology from Microsoft that provides you with Virtual XP mode (as well as generalized virtualization).

However, if you don’t have a PC capable of hardware virtualization or you didn’t spring for the more expensive version of Windows you have some good (free) choices.

While Microsoft doesn’t officially support Virtual PC 2007 SP1 on Windows 7, since it was designed to run under Vista it will work.  The real downside is that you have fairly old virtualization technology emulating an antiquated hardware.

You could consider buying VMware or Parallels, but why spend money when there’s a better free alternative for personal use…

That would be – VirtualBox (yes, I’ve harped on VirtualBox for the Mac before, and now it’s time to harp on VirtualBox on the PC).

VirtualBox is a project sponsored by Sun Microsystems.  They’ve actually been working on virtualization technology for a very long time, and their virtualization technology is top notch. 

VirtualBox will run on several different operating system, you can even share the virtual machine files between operating systems if you like.  But one of the really nice things about VirtualBox is that it will support machines with or without hardware assisted virtualization and it emulates very modern hardware (which makes the paravirtualization of devices much more efficient).

Unless you have specific requirements that force you to choose other virtualization software, I would recommend you take a good look at VirtualBox.

VirtualBox

Originally posted 2009-11-14 01:00:43.

VirtualBox LinuxDesktop RealPerformance

The other day I installed VirtualBox OSE on my Ubuntu machine so that I could migrate over a Windows Server 2003 machine.  I wasn’t really expecting great performance since I was putting the virtual disks on a single spindle…

Sometimes you get a good surprise.

When I started up the virtual instance, it seemed very fast — so I shut it down and started it again.  Then I performed a few quick tests and I realized that not only was VirtualBox on a Ubuntu 10.04LTS Linux machine substantially faster than on a Windows 7 machine (with a faster hard disk and faster processor), but it was faster than on a Windows Server 2008 machine running Hyper-V.

The really incredible thing was that Hyper-V was running on a disk array with fifteen spindles verses a single spindle for VirtualBox.

I really didn’t have any way to do a set of rigorous tests, but what I found was that as long as the disk wasn’t saturated, VirtualBox was able to handily outperform Hyper-V on every test (read or write) that I performed… it was only when I started to push near to the limits of the drive that VirtualBox and Hyper-V had similar disk IO performance.

I didn’t evaluate how VirtualBox performed on Linux with a disk array, but my guess is that it’s simply much more efficient at scheduling disk IO than Hyper-V; and likely Linux is more efficient at disk IO than Windows period.

I’m a huge fan of VirtualBox; and if I knew now what I knew about Hyper-V eighteen months ago I would have avoided it like the plague and simply used VirtualBox or Xen as a virtualization solution.

I’ll put a more thorough investigation of disk IO and VirtualBox verses Hyper-V performance on my “TO-DO” list; but I don’t expect it’ll float to the top until this Winter at the earliest; until then my advice is choose VirtualBox (or Xen).

Originally posted 2010-08-24 02:00:27.

Thinking Inside the VirtualBox

Sun Microsystems used to be a major player in the computer world; and I guess since Java belongs to Sun they are still a a fairly major force…

There’s a number of open source or free projects that Sun sponsors:

And, of course, it’s VirtualBox that has inspired this post.

VirtualBox 2.0.4 released on 24 October 2008, and from my initial experiences with it, it’s a contender.

A fairly mature x86/x64 virtualization framework for x86/x64 platforms.  VirtualBox runs on Windows, OS-X, Linux, and of course Solaris.

What sets it apart — well it’s to my knowledge the only fairly mature cross-platform virtualization framework that’s FREE on all platforms.

In general it doesn’t require hardware virtualization support with the exception that to run a x64 guest you must be on an x64 host with hardware virtualization.

Going through the list of features and playing with it there’s really nothing I couldn’t find that it didn’t do (and in playing with it, it seemed to work well)… the one feature that VirtualBox supports that none of it’s competitors had last time I looked (and that Hyper-V is sorely missing) is SATA (AHCI – Advanced Host Controller Interface) support… that provides much more efficient emulation of disk channel connections to the guest (and thus much better performance — and if you recall from my post on Hyper-V the fact that Microsoft doesn’t have SCSI boot support or AHCI support at all is what prevents me from moving to Hyper-V).

VirtualBox does apparently support VMWare virtual disks, but not Microsoft virtual disks (both of them provide open specifications, so my only conclusion is that Sun’s anti-Microsoft bias is at play which is sad since VirtualPC, Virtual Server, and Hyper-V account for a fairly substantial segment of the market, and a growing segment).

Like any product, you really need to carefully evaluate it based on your needs, but my feeling is that certainly for Mac users this might be the choice if you don’t want to by Parallels Desktop… and for Windows desktops this looks to be a very good.

NOTES:

On Windows if you want to use this on a server host machine (ie one that doesn’t require users to control the virtual machine) VirtualBox doesn’t really provide any interface for controlling machines in this manner; however, you can launch a VirtualBox machine from the command line, so you can have your server start up VirtualBox sessions at boot… though there are no tools provided by VirtualBox for managing running instances started this way.  My recommendation is that the VirtualBox team add a tool to manage and launch instances in a server environment.

On Windows (and other OSs) the way VirtualBox handles host networking (the default is a NAT’d network through the host… which could have some performance impact) is buy using the TUN/TAP driver.  Certainly they way Microsoft handles virtualization of the network adapter is far slicker, and I found that using host networking is not as reliable as NAT; hopefully this is an area where there will be some improvement.

Lastly, I haven’t run any actual performance tests head-to-head with  Parallels, VMWare, VirtualPC, and Virtual Server… but I can tell you that guests “feel” substantially faster running under VirtualBox (I was quite impressed — and surprised).


VirtualBox

Originally posted 2008-12-08 12:00:55.

Virtualization Best Practices, Selecting A Vitualization Solution

This will be the first in a multi-part posting.

I use Microsoft Virtual Server on my PCs for virtualization, and I use VMware on my Macs (I used to use Parallels, but it got to be too expensive to keep paying for updates, and when VMware attempts to charge for an update I’ll probably switch to VirtualBox on my Macs); but most everything I have to say here will apply to any virtualization solution you might choose to use.

When you evaluate a virtual solution, you need to look at a number of requirements and features and decide which is right for you:

  • Cost, that’s the initial cost of acquisition, plus updates
  • Hardware requirements, some virtualization solutions require machines with hardware vitualization (most modern processor have that, but not all), some do not — some only require it for 64-bit virtualization.
  • What type of host operating systems are supported (that’s the operating system you will run the virtualization software on, and install guest operating systems).
  • What type of guest operating systems are supported (and what guest operating systems are known to work).
  • How reliable the solution is on the particular host you’re interested in, and how reliably it runs the guests you’re most interested in.
  • How easy the solution is to use, and how well it fits into the host you’ve chosen (software that runs on lots of different hosts may not be engineered to fit the paradigm of your host well, it may look and act the same on all hosts — which really is of no value unless you’re running it on lots of different hosts, in general you should prefer a solution that looks and works like the other software your use).
  • Whether the system supports 64-bit and 32-bit virtualization or only 32-bit virtualization; and whether you need 64-bit virtualization or not.
  • What type of network connectivity the virtualization solution provides (NAT, bridged, etc), and what type you need.
  • The performance of the network virtualization, and how important the performance might be.
  • What type of storage virtualization the solution provides, and what you need.
  • The performance of the storage virtualization, and how important the performance might be.
  • Does the storage system support undo disks, checkpoints, snapshots, etc, and what do you need.
  • What type of device virtualization the solution provides, and what you need.
  • The performance of the core virtualization (and how important slight differences in performance might be).
  • What type of management tools exists, and what you need.

The above list will get your started on evaluating the relative merits of different virtualization solutions.  My recommendation is start with a solution that’s free and try it out, if you find it doesn’t seem to fit your needs, then try solutions that offer a trial period.  And when you identify things you like or don’t like, go back and look at the free solution and compare it again.  Often you will find after getting a broader experience base things look different, and you shouldn’t just stop with the last one you looked at — you should reassess the less expensive alternatives you dismissed.

One final word, don’t install multiple virtualization solutions on a single machine.  Remove the previous software you were looking at (you can retain the virtual machines), reboot, and install the new software.

The next postings will cover basic operating, maintenance, and some ways to make management easier.

Originally posted 2009-01-13 12:39:01.

Docker – Lightweight Virtualization

Docker lightweight virtualization is based on Linux Containers (LXC) and provides an interesting way to insulate applications from the host operating system and efficiently use constrained resources.

You can watch the video on Docker and read more at:

https://docs.docker.com/

https://www.docker.com/whatisdocker/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Docker_(software)

Originally posted 2014-07-24 12:30:37.

VirtualBox on OS-X

After the extremely poor experience with my upgrade to vmware Fusion 2.0.1 I can certainly tell you that VirtualBox was a totally satisfying experience.

First, VirtualBox doesn’t have all the whizzy features that vmware Fusion has; but the only thing I really care about is being able to reliably run a virtual machine.  I don’t need all the features that I don’t use and don’t ever work right — all I really care about is reliability.

The user interface for VirtualBox is clean and simple (though I would recommend you spend a little time looking at all the options for VirtualBox and the settings for virtual machines before you get too carried away).

The documentation and FAQs are excellent.  They cover almost every question that came to my mind before I started (including how you could move a vmware machine to VirtualBox if you wanted to).

Since VirtualBox emulates an Intel SATA AHCI controller, it’s very simple to install XP or 2003 (I actually did both) using IDE drives and then switch over to SATA AHCI (which improves performance).  In fact, all you need to is enable the SATA controller in the machine configuration, start the machine, install the Intel Matrix drivers, shut down the machine, change the connection of the drive from IDE to SATA channel 0, and start the machine… couldn’t be easier.

The only feature I would like to see in VirtualBox is support for more than one processor.  And I guess it would also be nice to see 64-bit support on the Mac (but I don’t use 64-bit virtual machines right now, and that’s something that’s already support by other hosts, so it isn’t far off).

And the only gripe I have with VirtualBox thus far is there doesn’t seem to be a good way to share virtual machine configuration files (well — a soft link would do it).  I guess this isn’t a huge issue since it’s not something that most people would probably want to do (but I do).

At the price (FREE) you just can’t beat it.  VirtualBox works, and it seems to work well.

With vmware releasing code that isn’t fit to be taken out of a garbage can; Microsoft chipping away at the high end of vmware’s market; and everyone giving away virtualization software for the desktop you’ve got to wonder how long vmware can survive.  And frankly, I don’t care — I’ve tossed my copy of Fusion away just like I did my copy of VMware Workstation.  Microsoft provides me with perfectly function virtualization hosting software on all versions of Windows; Xen provides it on *nix; and VirtualBox provides me with a reasonable solution on OS-X (and I’m betting on Apple incorporating Xen or something like soon).

My next task is copying my machines from my MacBook (where I tested VirtualBox) to my two Mac Minis and my Mac Pro… looks straight forward.

Originally posted 2009-02-07 01:00:54.

Virtualization Solutions

On windows there’s basically three commercial solutions for virtualization, and several free solutions… wait one of the commercial solutions is free (well when you buy the operating system), and the other is partially free…

  • Microsoft Virtual PC (runs on both servers and workstations)
  • Microsoft Virtual Server (runs on both servers and workstations)
  • Microsoft Hyper-V (runs only one Windows Server 2008)
  • Parallels Workstation (runs on workstations)
  • Parallels Server (runs on both servers and workstations)
  • VMware Player (runs on both servers and workstations)
  • VMware Workstation (runs on both servers and workstations)
  • VMware Server (runs on both servers and workstations)
  • Citrix (aka XenSource)

For Intel based Mac you have commercial solutions

  • Parallels Desktop
  • Parallels Server
  • VMware Fusion

And for Linux you have the following commercial solutions, and many free solutions (Xen being one of the leaders)

  • Parallels Desktop
  • Parallels Server
  • VMware Player
  • VMware Workstation
  • VMware Server
  • Citrix (aka XenSource)

And for bare metal you have

  • Parallels Server
  • VMware

 

I’m not going to go into details on any of these, I just wanted to give at least a partial list with a few thoughts.

If you’re new to virtualization, use one of the free virtualization solutions.  You can try several of them, and many of them can convert a virtual machine from another vendor’s format to it’s own, but learn what the strengths and weaknesses are of each before you spend money on a solution that might not be the best for you.

Microsoft Virtual Server has some definite performance advantages over Microsoft Virtual PC… there are some things you might lose with Virtual Server that you might want (the local interface); but Virtual Server installs on both desktop and workstation platforms, so try it.

For Mac I definitely like Parallels Desktop better than VMware Fusion; but you may not share my opinion.  VMware claims to be faster, though I certainly don’t see it.  And I might add, that if you have a decent machine you’re running virtualization software on, fast isn’t going to be the number one concern — correctness is far more important.

Also, with each of the virtualization systems, hosts, and guests there are best practices for optimizing the installation and performance.  I’ll try and write up some information I’ve put together that keep my virtual machines running well.

For the record, I run Microsoft Virtual Server 2005 R2 (64 bit) on Windows Server 2003 R2 x64 SP2, and on Windows Vista Ultimate and Business x64 SP1; works well.  And I run Parallels Desktop v3 on my Macs.

For the most part my guests are Windows XP Pro (x86) and Windows Server 2003 (x86); I don’t really need 64-bit guests (at the moment), but I do also run Ubuntu, Debian, Red Hat, Free Spire, etc linux…

Like I said, figure out your requirements, play with several of the virtualization systems and spend your money on more memory, perhaps a better processor, and stick with the free virtualization software!

Originally posted 2008-05-18 20:25:18.