While server virtualization is nothing new, with the forthcoming release of Virtual Server 2005, an application that virtualizes the Windows 2003 Server operating system, Microsoft promises to ease server application migration and simplify testing environments using a unique take on the technology. Read the article here.
Review: Microsoft Virtual Server 2005
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
Is this something like colinux ?
or more like a VMWare/Virtual PC ?
I don’t quite understand the following quote from the article:
<quote>
Virtual Server 2005 creates virtual machines on top of the Windows 2003 Server operating system, instead of at the hardware level like many of its competitors.
</quote>
Looks like colinux / usermode linux indeed
Actually is it using Virtual PC which is similar to VMWare. The author is quite clueless I guess. I guess the point he is trying to make is that virutalizaiton layer sits on top of the host operating system, rather than running directly on the hardware (ie. hypervisor). ie. VMWare Workstation and GSX vs. ESX
Doesn’t this make it bascially just a machine emulator?
I think take up of this product will play along the same lines as Citrix vs Terminal Server, with VMWare playing the role of Citrix.
VMWare is well established and well known. It has the range of management tools to go with the core virtulisation technology that make it’s product stand above the current MS offering (just as Citrix have above TS). Also, VMWare are platform agnostic (as long as its x86!) and provide support for a wide range of guest OSes.
It would be interesting to see how the performance of a RH or Suse install under the MS offering compares to the same under VMWAre ESX (and then repeat the test for Windows Server 2003). If MS want serious adoption of the product, *nix OSs have to be supported & run as fast (or faster) under MS virtual server as they do in those from VMware.
This is a product which is equivalent to VMWare ESX and provide enterprise level management tools and total programmable interface. The description in the article is completely incorrect and Virtual server is not like coLinux. It is an x86 emulator which supports upto 32 processors on the host.
It is mainly targeted to enterprise for server consolidation for legacy servers but there are other interesting uses for it. The best thing i like about virtualization is i can make full use of my hardware by running windows in one VM and linux in another. It is fun.
-Wolf
If I understand correctly, it means that Windows is including a virtualization software with its OS? In an effort to put VMWare out of business? Like what happened with IE vs Netscape?
Why on earth should you NEED to have IIS installed and running on the host server for this to work? Maybe it’s cool to have a web-based administration tool, but that should not be the only option. This is another example of Microsoft creating interdependencies between different components that you really shouldn’t need otherwise. That’s half the reason why Windows is the unsecure mess that it is.
This looks more like a product advertisement than a review. If this is actually a review it’s a pretty piss poor one. This was definitely not worthy of posting on OSNews.
Connectix the original company who made it, had Web based interface which only works with IIS long before Microsoft acquired it, so you can’t really blame Microsoft for this.
And please you should get yourself out of this blame Microsoft mode and always think before you say things because many times there are some technical reasons too along with business interests.
They are not including it as a part of the OS, instead they are selling it as a product and there is no harm in competing on fair grounds. VMWare still has better performance than Virtual Server and so they stand a chance but their price is not competitive, they are almost 4x more expensive than Virtual Server, so Virtual Server also has its market share.
“If I understand correctly, it means that Windows is including a virtualization software with its OS? In an effort to put VMWare out of business? Like what happened with IE vs Netscape?”
Not likely. Thru the purchase of Virtual PC, MS has pretty much taken an established path on this deal.
Let the better product decide who wins in the end. Perhaps it will get VM to drop their prices to a more comfortable level.
As the zealots are always pointing out; Competition and other choices/options are always a good thing.
Virtual Server is just like VMware GSX, which is not the same as ESX. ESX runs a custom kernel directly on the hardware with its own hardware drivers. GSX and VS both run on top of the Windows operating system, relying on Windows’ drivers to communicate with the hardware. Since you’re going through Windows, it won’t have the same scability as ESX.
We did benchmarking between all three with an early beta of VS. VS compared very well to VMware, until you hit a performance wall due to running on Windows Server. VMware ESX kept chugging with more and more virtual machines running until we got tired of adding them and stopped.
VMware ESX is a gem, especially with their VirtualCenter running to enable quick provisioning, managing, and even moving. Hopefully they can keep their huge lead in performance by continuing to innovate.
BTW, according to VMware, Microsoft tried to buy them first, but they didn’t want to let Microsoft decide their fate.
Yes you are correct, my bad i mistakenly mapped it to ESX instead of GSX.
I guess VMWare took the right decision, because even i hate that all Microsoft products are only for windows and as soon as connectix was bought by Microsoft, their support for *nixes got dropped. Microsoft for sure has a business reason for doing this, but as a technical person, i don’t appreciate it.
I am happy that VMWare is still out there with no Microsoft connection because they were the first one to virtualize x86 on x86 and they are the best. On the other hand, Virtual Server is targetting more towards legacy OS consolidation (basically convincing enterprise to migrate from NT4 servers) to 2k3 and it has its own place with a cheaper solution.
From what I read the on the VS site, I don’t think Microsoft wants to compete with VMWare (at least with this release). They want the people to migrate to Windows Sever 2003, and VS will help on that. But I don’t think MS wants you to run 3 VM’s, one with Exchange and SQL other VM with Linux for a high production enviroment. IMHO…
Having an HTTP server running is a security risk, you should NOT be required to have IIS installed on a non-web server just because Microsoft doesn’t include a standard client for administration. Why not just use an MMC plugin like every other piece of server software Microsoft sells.
Yes, opening a port for Http does increase the attack surface of a machine. but how would another config tool work remotely? opening a port for it increases the attack surface too. and if you don’t open the ports to the outside world, then you can run either as local processes, requiring you to compromise the machine to attack. what’s the difference, apart from admin complacency?
“Let the better product decide who wins in the end.”
I %100 agree with your statement Don. The unfortunate part is that there is no way VM could ever become the better product in this case because they don’t have full access to the inner workings of the MS API. Microsoft has the ability to change windows DLLs where they know they can optimize without adversly affecting other programs or parts of the OS. VMWare must develop in the context of the API interfaces that are made available by MS, in this sense they are very limited.
This is what is truely troubling with Microsoft. They establish market dominance with their OS and make only limited parts of it available to product developers. Then, when identify that a product is good, they first try to buy the company, if they can’t do that the build their own version, and when it doesn’t perform as well as they think, they squeeze the little guy out by making what they have not work as well with the OS.
This is the muscle behind MS that must be stopped. OS can do this…and it will.
What you said becomes totally irrelevant when we talk about emulation at hardware level. If the virtualization software (like in ESX) is running beneath the OS then there is no advantage, right?
” %100 agree with your statement Don. The unfortunate part is that there is no way VM could ever become the better product in this case because they don’t have full access to the inner workings of the MS API. Microsoft has the ability to change windows DLLs where they know they can optimize without adversly affecting other programs or parts of the OS. VMWare must develop in the context of the API interfaces that are made available by MS, in this sense they are very limited”
I’ll grant you MS has an advantage. Welcome to the wonderful world of doing business with the intent of making a profit. It’s their code and they ain’t about to part with select pieces and parts for any amount of money. They certainly have ever right to do that, regardless what we might think of it.
“This is what is truely troubling with Microsoft. They establish market dominance with their OS and make only limited parts of it available to product developers. Then, when identify that a product is good, they first try to buy the company, if they can’t do that the build their own version, and when it doesn’t perform as well as they think, they squeeze the little guy out by making what they have not work as well with the OS.”
Again, I agree with your thoughts. It can be very difficult/impossible to catch up with someone this dominant when you are forced to play by their rules.
“This is the muscle behind MS that must be stopped. OS can do this…and it will.”
MS is going to play a very active role in the success or failure of their corporate future. That’s extremely powerful motivation to begin doing things correctly.
I believe MS in many ways created the current traction towards open source.