On Jul 14, 9:44 am, Roy Schestowitz <newsgro...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
> Linux based virtualization – the way to save money and go green
> http://www.itwire.com/content/view/19418/1143/
Server virtualization has been around since the 1960s, and many
companies have known it as VM/CMS. Even when the production server/
mainframes were running in "Native" mode, most companies preferred to
use VM to help manage development environments, test environments, and
staging invironments, so that by the time an application went into
production, administrators could be pretty sure that a new
application, bug fix, or upgrade would work well and not create new
problems in the production environment.
When IBM ported it's AIX operating system to the ES/9000 mainframe,
they decided to use VM rather than try to create drivers for "bare
metal".
The critical element is that the underlying "Core" system had to be
designed to optimize memory management, I/O bandwidth, and still
maintain security, performance, reliability, availability,
serviceability. There was also a desire to support load balancing,
resource optimization, and disaster recovery.
> Sun seems to still rely on Xen (despite VirtualBox' takeover):
>
> Sun xVM hypervisor opens TACC supercomputer to developers
> http://searchservervirtualization.techtarget.com/news/article/0,28914...
One of the nice things about OSS projects is that when they are
abandoned by their original sponsors, they take on a life of their
own.
Most of you don't remember WAIS. It was a "search engine" that could
search other servers as well as it's own repository. The original
WAIS server was released under a GNU type license, but the original
authors eventually created customized and commercialized versions
which were licensed to companies like Dow Jones. Eventually, WAIS Inc
was purchased by AOL for 10 million dollars, which might have led most
people to think that the OSS search engines were dead.
The problem was that the OSS version was still out there, and quickly
evolved into better and better search engine technology, including
features like Digg, WebCrawlers, and commercial variants such as
Verity. Various spin-offs of WAIS and it's related standards such as
Z.39.50 lead to search engines for companies like Yahoo, Lycos,
InfoSeek, and of course Google.
Ironically, Google was actually based on the original concepts of
Brewster Kahle when he was still working at Thinking Machines Inc.
The original concept was that the engines would index millions of
pages across hundreds or even thousands of low-cost servers, and the
machines would be searched in parallel. Google scaled it to Billions
of documents on thousands of machines.
What made Google more successful than the others was that they made
sure that the only advertizing content being shown with a search was
content that was directly related to the search criteria. For
example, if you wanted to search for information about HDTV, you would
also get links to stores who were able to sell you an HDTV system, but
you wouldn't get links to beer commercials, 4x4 trucks, and other
searches that might force an advertiser to pay for the display of the
link, even though it was rarely followed. The problem is that all of
those unrelated links reduced the space available to the relevant
information.
Google's approach led to more links being FOLLOWED, which meant that
Google was the referer, and the result was also much higher number of
actual sales per million hits.
> With Microsoft's virtual control of Xen (it's now owned by its Partner of the
> Year), one has to wonder...
>
> Citrix/Microsoft seems to have turned XenSource into assholes.
> http://www.internetnews.com/software/article.php/3758606/Citrix+Virtu...
One of the big problems with the Citrix/Microsoft deal is that Citrix
has pretty much stopped supporting Linux as they primary "Host" OS,
and seems committed to making sure that only Microsoft can be used as
the host desktop OS.
Citrix seems to have completely abandoned the idea of actual
virtualization of desktop systems, which is a key element of the
success of companies like VMWare. The problem is that you have to be
network connected to the server to have access to the Citrix Virtual
Server/Virtual desktop.
Essentially, Citrix is ignoring the very drivers and motivators behind
desktop and server virtualization, and trying to fit Xen into their
old business model.
It's a bit like when Citrix tried to use ICA and GoToMyPC as a means
to kill off VNC and Linux X11 virtual desktops and graphic displays to
desktop. The strategy "sorta worked" because people did use the
service, but they also had problems with security, connectivity, and
corporate compliance.
Many corporate customers have gone with more secure solutions that
combine ssl, ipsec, LDAP, and e-meetings, which include IRC and VNC
components. The point is that there are better competitors who can
provide better products at lower cost.
> Recent:
> KVM and Xen cofounders engage in war of words
> http://blogs.zdnet.com/virtualization/?p=415
Many people feel that Citrix has illegally abused the Xen OSS licensed
software. Thousands of people contributed software, bug fixes,
enhancements, testing, and risk management to assure the success of
XEN, but they had their own issues. Novell wanted Xen to make Linux
the primary OS, with Windows running as a virtual client. Red Hat
held back because there was so much mischief around Xen and it's
licenses, especially around Microsoft.
The irony is that Citrix is trying to "kill off" Xen.org and force Xen
customers to use their commercial hypervisor, adopt their patents, and
submit to their license terms. Ultimately, they are trying to kill
off all of the other XEN developers, forcing them either out of the
market, or into their control.
All of this seems to have the hands of Microsoft guiding it.
Remember, Citrix got a huge boost back in 1997 when corporations
started using VNC on Windows 95 to access Windows NT 4.0 desktops.
Later, Microsoft expressly forbid the use of any PC running anything
other than Windows XP to access a remote XP desktop. Furthermore, the
license actually mandates that you use Microsoft's application (kinda
messed with Citrix there).
> Citrix opens Xen for business, still Linux shy
> ,----[ Quote ]
> | Xen may have become the de facto virtualization platform for Linux, but,
> | ironically, don't expect to see Citrix applications running natively on Linux
> | any time soon.
Of course. Microsoft didn't put $millions into the deal to have Linux
running as the primary OS for XEN. Microsoft wants to control the
desktop completely, and as much of the server as they can possibly do.
The irony is that many corporate customers are out to REDUCE
Microsoft's control of servers and desktops. They want Linux as the
primary OS with Windows as the client, and even that is only for the
handful of applications that can't be supported on Linux.
> | "It's market driven and we never got the uptake on Linux," Willis said. "Our
> | focus for XenApp (formerly Presentation Server) is as a Windows application
> | which we recommend customers run on bare metal for performance reasons."
Which means they didn't find anyone willing to fork over the $millions
that Microsoft was offering to put Linux on the desktop as the primary
Operating system. The irony is that Windows performs better when
Linux is the primary OS, because Disk, I/O, Network, and memory are
more efficiently managed, while Windows tends to suffer from memory
churn, garbage collection pauses, disk drive delays, inefficient disk
accesses, poor disk caching, and other problems which tend to cause
huge pauses, hangs, and waiting.
Remember when Microsoft bragged about how XP would give you a
"Desktop" very quickly rather than having to wait for everything to be
ready? We have learned that this meant that you would see a static
desktop, but you wouldn't actually be able to DO ANYTHING until the
rest of the start-up was completed. Meanwhile, Linux boots up and
takes about 60 seconds (longer that that "first desktop, but still
pretty good) to come up with a fully functional desktop capable of
running any application you want to launch.
> | Willis said Citrix has partnered with Microsoft to develop Linux extensions
> | for its Hyper-V platform.
> `----
That just seems like putting the fox in charge of the hen house. :-D
> http://www.computerworld.com.au/index.php/id;311906363
> Ubuntu picks KVM over Xen for virtualization
> ,----[ Quote ]
> | KVM will be built into Ubuntu's next version, called Hardy Heron and due in
> | April. "For the Hardy Heron release, we've really picked up the
> | virtualization ball. Virtualization is making its way into data centers and
> | onto developer workstations everywhere. Even 'regular' users are using it to
> | run Ubuntu on Mac OS X all the time," Hansen said. "Virtualization has been
> | on our agenda for a long time, but it became a top priority at UDS (Ubuntu
> | Developer Summit) in November. We could see that demand for it was growing."
> `----
>
> http://www.news.com/8301-13580_3-9867657-39.html?part=rss&subj=news&t...
This is a very real trend, and one of the challenges for any
virtualization vendor is trying to keep up with the work being done by
VMWare. VMWare was very smart. They provided "free" applications
like VMWare Player, and VMWare Server, which allows people to use
VMWare "Appliances" generated with VMWare Workstation or ESX. In
addition, they have VMWare Converter, which can be used to save any
existing Windows environment (desktop or server), with or without the
converter footprint, and use that Windows environment as an
"Appliance".
The result is that a Linux user can purchase a PC with Windows XP or
Vista installed, an external USB drive, and generate a Windows VMWare
"appliance" on the USB drive. Then they can install Linux and copy
the appliance back to their PC Linux drive. Then, the user can take
"snapshots" of the Appliance, allowing user with a corrupted Windows
Appliance to fall back to an earlier snapshot.
All that free software seems to make no sense, until you start to see
that if you have VMWare Workstation, you can change the sizes of
memory, hard drive, and peripherals. The net result is that lots of
people end up buying workstation.
As people start to become with VMWare Workstation, they begin to
realize that ESX is a really practical server solution, and then they
see that upgrading to Virtual Center gives them disaster recovery,
load balancing, fail-over, and reliable back-up/recovery that are much
easier to manage than having to create new images from scratch on
"Bare metal" (as Citrix reccomends), which means that the system is
easier to manage and deploy.
By offering some free applications, and getting VMWare on the desktop,
the company makes corporate decision makers MUCH more receptive to the
VMWare solutions. Suddenly, a VMWare player user is saying "Yes, we
can run on VMWare" because he's using it. Before long, you have
VMware Virtual Center running on blade servers with a few hundred
processor cores, and balancing the load optimally. A free application
leads to several million dollars in Virtual Center sales.
Then we go back to Citrix.
> Related:
> Citrix strays far from XenSource’s original open source mission
> ,----[ Quote ]
> | “Citrix is not a virtualization company,” said Phil Montgomery, Senior
> | Director of Citrix’s Virtualization and Management Division. “We’re not
> | trying to be another VMware. Citrix is an application delivery software
> | company.”
Put another way, Citrix WON'T be offering something like "Converter"
to put Windows into a VM image that can be started under a Linux
system running Xen.
Microsoft hasn't been particularly worried about the success of it's
partners lately, and they seem quite willing to have Citrix lobotomize
Xen, go bankrupt, and then claim that virtualization was a failure,
just to try and provide "VaporWare" that is "Just like VMWare".
Meanwhile, Microsoft has it's own virtualization solutions, which it
will probably start shipping as "Shovel-ware" if they can't stop
VMWare any other way.
I'm sure that Microsoft will call this an "Operating System
Enhancement" rather than a strategic function being provided by a
competitive market, which Microsoft will try to strangle using it's
monopoly power.
> http://blogs.zdnet.com/open-source/?p=1984
> Citrix strips XenSource of virtualization, open source...everything
>
> ,----[ Quote ]
> | Citrix either got completely snowed in the acquisition or, much more likely,
> | it's getting pressure from its bosom-buddy, Microsoft. What it's not getting
> | is much value for its $500 million.
> `----
It's becoming more and more obvious that Microsoft is using Citrix as
a "sock puppet" to throw off the DOJ, EU, and other antitrust
regulators, in an attempt to do what it did to Netscape.
Remember, Microsoft was able to convince the NSF to rewrite the
licenses unilaterally, so that they could pirate Mosaic code, written
and managed by many employees who had joined Netscape, in an attempt
to "Cut off Netscape's Air Supply". The result was Internet Explorer
and Outlook, complete with an 8-lane-highway for viruses, worms, and
other malware.
[snip other great references]
It's pretty clear that Ballmer is more than willing to tell Citrix and
corporate customers to "Bend over and crack a smile, it won't hurt a
bit, you'll even like it".
|
|
