Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2011 01:31:00 -0800 From: Ted Mittelstaedt <tedm@mittelstaedt.us> To: Adam Vande More <amvandemore@gmail.com> Cc: freebsd-emulation@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Testing Luvalley with FreeBSD as dom0 Message-ID: <4D2AD1D4.4080003@mittelstaedt.us> In-Reply-To: <AANLkTi=qiug8efdySqb4jz9%2BnwxabdOUGt_8VavP1Tot@mail.gmail.com> References: <20100418191752.GA72730@triton8.kn-bremen.de> <w2r3b0605b31004181554tb90de59u6df8ebd5b1206caa@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTi=nhk%2BeCG6kbe4LfeaTQWkKaVcr%2BRx2LrKparDO@mail.gmail.com> <20110107194516.GA28544@triton8.kn-bremen.de> <AANLkTikvP8SezKEZYSUimaj3u8fkk2Vw6-aY09KV=RF3@mail.gmail.com> <20110107213643.GA32645@triton8.kn-bremen.de> <AANLkTi=2Nn8xeKudxb2uSR=aLx0GW43gVPCdL-=hjP7z@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTikbuWJbtPYaLW=8BEH4f5oiumzEN6rgwOB5tC=R@mail.gmail.com> <20110109110022.GA10789@triton8.kn-bremen.de> <AANLkTik9Ckh2UAaed=YYbBFCP6yyd6kOmSXdEYmZPiEd@mail.gmail.com> <4D2A55F4.6010704@mittelstaedt.us> <AANLkTim0cfNkEEq7daR=iCD1kaKTpqBdMXavLZoJP3ri@mail.gmail.com> <4D2A9504.7070109@mittelstaedt.us> <AANLkTin6P7X6_VJevnj=KDttqNn%2BW=bR_Dp1O6iCr%2B%2Bs@mail.gmail.com> <4D2AB270.2070109@mittelstaedt.us> <AANLkTi=qiug8efdySqb4jz9%2BnwxabdOUGt_8VavP1Tot@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 1/10/2011 12:15 AM, Adam Vande More wrote: > On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 1:17 AM, Ted Mittelstaedt <tedm@mittelstaedt.us > <mailto:tedm@mittelstaedt.us>> wrote: > > Someone just gave you bad data, Adam. > > > No that is incorrect. I got my data from MS when I tried to check it > out. The second you say "got my data from MS" you know it's bad data. ;-) Our confusion I think is because we are talking about different > products. I wasn't aware of the stand-alone free version of hyper-v > server, thanks for the pointer. The Server 2008 Standard Edition > version of Windows comes with a license to run a single VM. > Check out the link I put in the last post. Hyper-v on the standalone product is the same thing as hyper-v included with Server 2008 R2, it is just bundled and positioned differently. Yes you are correct about the included license to run a single VM with 2008 R2 Server but that is because the only people who buy 2008 Server R2 so they can run Hyper-V are people who are running 20-50 guest instances of Windows 7 or something like that. And they do this because it's cheaper to license multiple windows guest OS's under 2008 R2 Hyper-V than to buy 50 individual licenses and run them under the standalone hyper-v product. (or under virtualbox or xen or esx, etc.) > If you can follow the maze and find offical documentation of this, > you've got farther than me, but here's a third party link indicating the > situation. > > http://www.netometer.com/video/tutorials/microsoft-hyper-v-server-2008/ > That just covers installing the free downloadable hyper-v it only does a bit of handwaving in the first paragraph about the licensing. And the fact it's a video ought to immediately scream "incompetent" If the author really wanted to show the situation he would install the actual server 2008 R2, turn on the hyper-v in it, and then install the free hyper-v on another system and demonstrate both of them side to side. But of course he doesn't because he's just a guy with a webcam and some spare time and doesn't have $2500 to fork over to buy the real server 2008 product. By the way you really run a risk mentioning "product" and "microsoft" in the same paragraph. Microsoft figured out with software what General Motors figured out with the A-body, you can make a single vehicle and badge it differently, then tell people you got a "dozen different products, you got chevrolet, buick, olds, etc." when in reality it's the same car, different nameplates. Microsoft does this, they take a single product and bundle it a dozen different ways, then claim they have different products. For example, Small Business Server is just regular Server + exchange and a fancy gui. Free Hyper-V is just hyper-v with server 2008 included, and Server 2008 is just server 2008 with hyper-v included. Same product, different gui and prices to fool the public. > It is a sure thing. Seriously. The emulated machine virtualization > isn't really commercially that interesting. Seriously! Oracle > makes plenty of money selling support and commercial versions of > VirtualBox that have the extra go-fast storage code in them such > as the one included with Oracle VDI. > > > Are you talking about the guest additions or whatever Oracle calls them > now? No That doesn't necessarily speed up the VM, it just allows things > like clock synchronization, SMB shares, VRPD, page fusion, and USB > passthrough. As far as I know, while they are released under PUEL > license you can't even buy them so it's hard to see how Oracle is raking > in the money there. I see there is a blurb on their site about > contacting Oracle for enterprise rollouts. I think as soon as they > figure out how they can bill they will. I am talking about Oracle-VDI which is a commercial product oracle sells it is kind of a front end to hypervisors, and it includes virtualbox with basically a bunch of software that allows guests to bypass the emulation when accessing the storage system (SANs probably) Yes, they bill for this. Oracle is interested in large enterprise customers like big corps and government. So is Microsoft. The software that those two sell to those organizations is an entirely different universe. This is not to say that you cannot organize a server farm on FreeBSD to run the likes of FaceBook or Hotmail, you can. And in fact FreeBSD once was used for Hotmail. However, to do this you have to know what you are doing. And Oracle and Microsoft don't want to sell to customers who know what they are doing. They want to sell to customers who don't know diddly shit about IT infrastructure and aren't interested in learning, because they are already too busy running whatever thing it is that generates money for them. They want customers that say 'here is what I need, if you can do it then slap a bill down in front of me and I'll write you a check and in 3 months it better work the way I said I want it to work or my lawyers are gonna eat you for breakfast' You see, you didn't even go about it with Microsoft the correct way, at least, not from their point of view. What you should have done when you were checking out Hyper-v is call them and have them refer you to the nearest Microsoft Certified Partner in your city who you could have called and then $150 later in consulting fees you would have the same information that I just gave you here for free. ;-) > At one point, Virtualbox was > going to setup a "cloud" service that you could roll out images too and > I think that's now defuct so another lost revenue stream. That actually > would have been really nice, I would have used that one. > Well, you see hyper-v killed that. The reason why is that only the "retail" Windows images have active WPA in them and will call for activation if they boot up. if your hypervisor is VirtualBox why then that's exactly what you want - because that's the only way you can license Windows under VirtualBox, is on a per-guest basis. But under Hyper-V licensing you want all those images to have the site license product key embedded in them so they can be licensed under the special hyper-v guest OS license on Server 2008 Hyper-v that makes them cheaper. You can't upload and distribute those types of images because of the serial number already being in them. So it's no wonder that such a service never got anywhere. But for the other operating systems there's plenty of people who distribute virtual images. Even illegal ones. For example there's an image of MacOS X floating around that has been modded to boot up MacOS under virtualization. It's just the thing to piss-off your neighborhood Macaphobe when you flip the lid open on your $500 HP laptop and show him the same screen and OS he gets when he fires up his $2500 powerbook. ;-) Ted > VirtualBox's main claim to fame is under FreeBSD it is stable. I've had > both Windows XP and FreeBSD guests running for months with no crash. > That makes it greatly suitable for production work. > > > Agreed, it's been rock solid for me even under periods of heavy use. > > -- > Adam Vande More
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4D2AD1D4.4080003>