Which is Better: A Partitioned OS or a Partitioned Machine? (IT-Director) [LWN.net]

IT-Director questions Linux-only virtualization technologies. "While we are rather fond of hardware-based virtualizations, software approaches such as VMware or Xen are quite capable, and do support multiple operating systems on a machine. In fact, Xen is already slated to be included in SUSE 10 later this year. Given the push for efficiency evident in the marketplace, combined with a best-of-breed approach to applications and operating systems, virtualization schemes that do not support multiple OSes seem to achieve less than the full potential of virtualization."

(Log in to post comments)

Which is Better: A Partitioned OS or a Partitioned Machine? (IT-Director)

Posted Feb 8, 2006 18:04 UTC (Wed) by eric_boutilier (guest, #35765) [Link]

Note also that we (Sun) have made a major commitment to both Solaris 10 Containers and Xen.

For more info, here's an OpenSolaris Xen "linkroll"

--Eric Boutilier

Which is Better: A Partitioned OS or a Partitioned Machine? (IT-Director)

Posted Feb 8, 2006 22:26 UTC (Wed) by tomsi (subscriber, #2306) [Link]

I think they are talking about the enterprise server (SLES) which will come in version 10 this year.

Which is Better: A Partitioned OS or a Partitioned Machine? (IT-Director)

Posted Feb 8, 2006 23:40 UTC (Wed) by wildpossum (guest, #17744) [Link]

Well, if your host is already working flat out running multiple Linux instances, does it really matter that you're not running an instance of Windows on it as well? Can't you dedicate another real box to running the virtual Windows instances? What's with IT-Director's obsession with one-of-everything on every box "full potential of virtualisation". Do they have a vested interest in Vmware?

Which is Better: A Partitioned OS or a Partitioned Machine? (IT-Director)

Posted Feb 9, 2006 1:02 UTC (Thu) by sbergman27 (subscriber, #10767) [Link]

Who says they're working flat out? I have sites where I deploy Linux desktops that I'd have to go all Windows with if it weren't for VMWare's ability to run essential Windows apps in a pinch. And no, Crossover Office (and vanilla Wine) just barfs when trying to run most of them, despite dozens of hours of determined effort.

Which is Better: A Partitioned OS or a Partitioned Machine? (IT-Director)

Posted Feb 9, 2006 4:05 UTC (Thu) by wildpossum (guest, #17744) [Link]

But Vmware just made the desktop product free as in beer, so presumably they are pitting their enterprise product against Xen. So the question still is "if your SERVER is running flat out" with multiple instances of Linux on Xen why would you want to add Windows to the mix?

Which is Better: A Partitioned OS or a Partitioned Machine? (IT-Director)

Posted Feb 9, 2006 21:07 UTC (Thu) by sbergman27 (subscriber, #10767) [Link]

I'll let you know at such time that I have servers that are running flat out.

I don't have servers that are running flat out. I have islands. Those islands being client sites, each with a Linux server and each with a mix of Linux and Windows desktops at best. At worst, everyone is running Windows apps and run a Windows terminal emulator to run my "foreign" Linux app.

I despise Windows. I don't even allow it in my home. But the ability to say, hey. I can run those apps with a Linux server and Linux clients is invaluable.

Openvz can't do that. Xen will be able to do it, on new high end processors, in the near future.

The arrogance of some Linux "advocates" takes me aback.

The article basically says that the ability to virtualize multiple OSes is a benefit. I agree.

Unfortunately, a closed source app, VMWare, beat the OSS cummunity to the punch, and can do what OSS currently cannot.