Why is OS virtualization not popular

[iinfi1]

When we talk of virtualization the only thing that comes to our mind is a VMWare, a Xen or Hyper-V. Hypervisor based solutions have their own advantages when you want to install multiple instances of different OSs.
But OS level virtualization solutions like Parallels, Solaris containers have lesser overhead on the underlying h/w and greater consolidation ratio! The only con being, you cannot install multiple OSs and multiple flavors of the same OS on the same box.
My question is why is OS Level virtualization not as popular as its hypervisor cousin?

[Michal Kapalka (mikap)]

hi,

in my opinion it's about marketing, and also money that are invested to the products, for me only Vmware is usable for Vitualisation, on x86_64 platform ( intel / amd CPU ),

HyperV - better not
XEN - could be
Vmware - expensive but the best for the mixed os virtualisation

check this :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operating_system-level_virtualization

And also you have

HP / IBM / SUN virtualisation Redhat (KVM)


mikap

[iinfi1]

thank you for your response Michal
i had already read the wiki link which you had posted. That points to only one drawback in OS Level virtualization solutions i.e. it cannot support multiple OSs on the same hardware node. Hence my question was are there further drawbacks with OS Level virtualization solutions which prevents corporates from looking at it?

Parallels for that matter doesnt support HA in Windows. eg in a four node parallels cluster of windows 2003, if node 1 goes down, containers in node 1 move to another standby node but session is not maintained. Users who are connected to those containers are logged out. Thats not the case in VMWare

For Hyper-V u said "better not"
Any specific reason? I find Hyper-V is eating VMware's market slowly but steadily.
But Parallels Containers (from a 10 year old company) hasnt been able to gain a stronghold in the market. Its popular with hosting providers,yes and may become popular with the boom of Desktop Virtualization.

Any comments appriciated
Thanks

[Michal Kapalka (mikap)]

hi,

Parallels for that matter doesnt support HA in Windows. eg in a four node parallels cluster of windows 2003, if node 1 goes down, containers in node 1 move to another standby node but session is not maintained. Users who are connected to those containers are logged out.

- we are using MS clusters on 2003 but also AAM from legato now EMC, you will be surprised, more on this link :

http://www.emc.com/products/detail/software/autostart.htm

Thats not the case in VMWare

- yes that true, this is possible with Vmotion + Fault Tolerance ( check the Virtual CPU limit )

more at :

http://www.vmware.com/products/fault-tolerance/

For Hyper-V u said "better not"

- did you try to install HyperV server ?? yes it is very simple to add a role on the server, but you need also have some management, check the prise and also how to install it, maybe you will be the same opinion as i am and my colegues.

- and at the and VDI ( virtual desktop infrastructure )

- great solutions from Citrix or Vmware, but you need a extra licence if you like to put the physical machines to the VDI enviroment.

- if you have already computers, in your comapny wit the licensed Windows its very expensive, but if you like to install 200 PC with think client from scratch yes thats very very good solution.

- The most expensive part of virtualisation is the Storage, because you have lot of images ( templates ) ok you could use Dduplication of course, but also you need to store the Users data.


- at the end every solution is good and some are better, but the main problem is about money, HW ( servers, storage and dont forget to LAN infrastructure 1 Gbit/s with trunked ports together , but the future is the 10 Gbe + FCoIP ) + VMWARE licenses + MS licenses

and if you show this management of your company you will be suprised from they answer.

mikap

[Roger Faucher]

If Michal is referring to the need to deploy VMM (Virtual machine Manager) in a Microsoft Hyper-V environment, I don't see how that is different from the need to deploy vCenter in a VMware environment, Actually, one big difference is that VMM can be used to manage Microsoft AND VMware VMs. ;-)

Another compelling aspect of Hyper-V is that if you install it under the Datacenter version of Windows Server 2008 R2, you don't have to pay for any of the Windows licenses in the VMs:
http://www.microsoft.com/licensing/about-licensing/virtualization.aspx

Make a great day!

Roger

[iinfi1]

thank you all for the information

[iinfi1]

when i have a datacenter edition of the windows 2008 r2 with hyper-v enabled, i can run unlimited virtual instances of just the win2k8 in the same node. isn't it?
if i run windows xp or windows 7, as virtual guests in the same node, i think i will have to pay for that!!
correct me if i m wrong

[Roger Faucher]

Yes, only server licenses (WS2008, 2003 and 2000) are covered (to my knowledge). Microsoft desktop virtualization solutions can be found here:
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/enterprise/solutions/default.aspx

Make a great day!

Roger