Date: Sun, 09 Jan 2011 23:17:04 -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: <4D2AB270.2070109@mittelstaedt.us> In-Reply-To: <AANLkTin6P7X6_VJevnj=KDttqNn%2BW=bR_Dp1O6iCr%2B%2Bs@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>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 1/9/2011 9:27 PM, Adam Vande More wrote: > On Sun, Jan 9, 2011 at 11:11 PM, Ted Mittelstaedt <tedm@mittelstaedt.us > <mailto:tedm@mittelstaedt.us>> wrote: > > Unless Microsoft makes Hyper-V a cost item, this won't happen. The > situation is like the Firefox/Internet Explorer Chinese finger trap. > > > Maybe I'm not understanding what you mean, but hyper-V is already a cost > item. If you want to run more than 1 guest on Server 2008 r2, pay up. That's only if you run the hyper-v that is included in server 2008 R2 I'm talking about the other version of hyper-v, the free one, that includes Server 2008 that you can download here: http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/en/details.aspx?FamilyID=48359dd2-1c3d-4506-ae0a-232d0314ccf6&displaylang=en the so-called 'bare metal' hyper-v > Actually their cost model is quite a bit more complex than that, and > under certain conditions unlimited VM's can be run without purchasing > more hyper-v guest licenses, but it can be a frickin maze trying to > figure it out. No. Only if your trying to take advantage of the cost discounts of running microsoft guests under the hyper-v in the server 2008 R2 is it a maze - and you can run the microsoft calculator to figure that out: http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2008/en/us/hyperv-calculators.aspx basically what it boils down to is the free version of hyper-v that you can download and that includes server 2008, disallows you from running services on the hypervisor OS itself, and requires you to license each guest individually. if you have a lot of windows guests then of course it pays to pay the couple grand for the full server 2008 R2 and use the hyper-v in that, because if you go that way, you get a cost break if all your running is a bunch of windows guests. That's what the maze is. But if you use the free hyper-v then the cost model is exactly the same as if you use virtualbox on FreeBSD or xen or ESX - there is no price break for buying a bunch of windows os licenses to run under those hypervisors. There is some other stuff missing from the free hyper-v, but it's not really important. The free hyper-v includes the go-fast synthetic devices that hook into the newer Windows 7 and server 2008 guests and that is the important thing. And who cares if you can't use your hypervisor as a fileserver or some nonsense - you can't do that with ESXi either. There's a comparison of them here: http://www.virtualizationpractice.com/blog/?p=3782 I considered that hypervisor when doing the install > since it was primarily the Windows guests that needed the performance, > but I quit once I ran into all the ways they make you pay. > Someone just gave you bad data, Adam. > And VirtualBox is under the same dual GPL/proprietary licensing setup > that Mysql and that Qt uses so even if Oracle stopped development on the > OSE edition, some other group would pick it up. > > > Well that would remain to be seen. I doubt it's much of a sure thing > because the linux community as a whole seems pretty infatuated with > KVM(and for good reason, it a nice hypervisor), and if even if there was > a fork it wouldn't have near the resources it does now. 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. One of > Virtualbox's great features right now is it's superior documentation(Xen > I'm looking at you) and it's rapid development. Most of the development going on with VirtualBox seems to be loading the commercial version down with more management crap. I've posted before on the emulated sio0 problem and there's little interest in fixing that. 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. But the FreeBSD kernel XEN domU work is I think the most interesting, although it's not yet production quality. Ted A fork wouldn't replace > that, at least for some time. > > -- > Adam Vande More
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4D2AB270.2070109>