I also wonder if the virtualization platforms are a dead end race. Looking at the newer 64-bit-for-Windows systems, many of the vendors are building partitioning into the hardware platform - where speed ceases to be an issue. However, that still has the minimum 1 CPU per partition limitation, at this point.
I wonder if it would be possible to build a hardware level abstraction layer that does what the software virtualization platforms do now. I wonder if that kind of technology is somewhere in the pipeline.... -------------------------------------------------------------- Roger D. Seielstad - MTS MCSE MS-MVP Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis Inc. > -----Original Message----- > From: joe [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2004 8:20 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] DC's on VMWare > > > I am not saying VMWare isn't very cool. I enjoy it immensely. Just > indicating the limitations for Windows support. I think > anyone who would > consider using a product in a production environment in a way > that isn't in > the end completely supported by the people with the source > code are slightly > insane. However my view of production may be slightly > different and more > critical than others. > > I would like to see MS actually add VMWare to the HCL > certification process > and lists. I think that would be a good way to tackle it and > probably the > right way, they certify specific versions and don't even have > to worry about > underlying hardware, VMWare has to worry about that. However, > realistically, > I don't see it happening. If they hadn't gotten into the > virtualization > business I don't think they would have had much choice for > much longer, but > they did and some of us just said, duh, about time. > > Yes I would like to a very stripped down OS with the guests > running on it > like ESX. They may be thinking about that but more likely > right now they are > thinking about how closely they can tie it to the guts of a full blown > Windows OS and make it integral to the core for speed and to > get away from > it actually being a separate product. Then after that they > may look at how > to strip the host (or someone else - maybe you - will figure > it out for > them). > > > joe > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > Roger Seielstad > Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2004 7:54 AM > To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' > Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] DC's on VMWare > > The big thing that VMWare has going for it, and in my option > it's a big > thing, is the way they've built ESX server. > > The problem with using Virtual Server (or GSX Server from > VMWare) is that > you're still running a full blown OS underneath the virtual > machines. This > really causes a problem in which a single OS patch which > requires a reboot > means that all your VM servers also need to be rebooted - > even if they're > not Windows. > > ESX server uses a highly stripped down version of the Linux > kernel[1], and > few ancillary services. This architecture should result in > significantly > fewer issues in which the virtualization platform > necessitates downtime. I > lump the virtualization engine more in the hardware than > software side of > things - hardware should not require significant maintenance except in > break/fix scenarios. > > Now, maybe I need to see how hard it is to get Virutal Server > (or the PC > equivilent of it) running in WinPE. Maybe that's the fix to all these > problems. Of course, there are all those pesky licensing > issues to deal with > then..... > > Roger > -------------------------------------------------------------- > Roger D. Seielstad - MTS MCSE MS-MVP > Sr. Systems Administrator > Inovis Inc. > > [1] My thoughts on Linux in general are relatively well > known[2] [2] I've > been quoted as saying "BSD Skunks the Penguin" on more than > one occasion > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: joe [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2004 7:51 PM > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] DC's on VMWare > > > > > > Well right off the bat... MS doesn't support Windows on > VMWARE; it is > > best effort unless Microsoft can determine that the issue can be > > reproduced on physical hardware. VMWARE claims this is because of > > competitive reasons but MS never supported it even before > they bought > > the Connectix product. > > > > >From what I have heard, our dev guys have actually hit > > things that they > > couldn't reproduce. > > > > Personally I would run Windows on VMWARE all day in a lab (we > > do) or at home > > (I did). I wouldn't even start to consider it for production (never > > ever ever). If you want to look at virtualization software > for running > > Windows, get into the Virtual Server preview program that MS has as > > obviously the Windows products will be fully supported on that > > software. > > > > IBM and HP both claim full support for Windows on VMWARE. > > However you have > > to keep in mind, what can they really do? If there is a > problem with > > VMWARE they can send that info back to the vendor. If they find a > > problem in Windows they can send that back to MS. They have > no power > > to really fix anything. I have had a conversation with one > of the guys > > at IBM concerning the support model and in the end he said, > there is > > no SLA for software support from anyone - no guarantees... > Great! He > > mentioned that all of their VMWARE contracts are one offs > negotiated > > specifically with the customer at hand. But again, in the end, all > > they can do is pat your hand and say, we understand, yes that does > > suck that it doesn't work, but don't worry we sent someone > a note - if > > we could fix it ourselves we would, but we can't. > > > > I actually stopped using the VMWARE products at home about 3 months > > ago and switched to the MS products as I figured I might as > well get > > used to it. > > > > > > Here are some links worth reading: > > > > > > http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;273508 > > http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=%2Fservicedesks > > %2Fbin%2Fkbsea > > rch.asp%3FArticle%3D320220 > > http://www.computerworld.com/hardwaretopics/hardware/server/st > > ory/0,10801,87 > > 185,00.html > > > > > > joe > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > Mike Baudino > > Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2004 3:12 PM > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: [ActiveDir] DC's on VMWare > > > > > > > > > > > > All, > > > > Server consolidation has us heading towards putting > production Windows > > Server 2003 domain controllers on VMWare VMs using ESX. We > > have not yet > > deployed AD widely (some business units have it and some > > don't) but are > > working on a new design that will handle all business units. > > Our lab is a > > combination of physical servers on workstation-class hardware > > and VMs on > > VMWare Workstation4 and on ESX. > > > > However, our direction for production DC's is VMs on ESX > > unless we find that > > it doesn't work properly or well enough. We're going to be > > testing this in > > the lab. I've seen recent emails about using VMs to spin off labs. > > But does anyone have experience running production DC's on > > VMs or any known > > "gotcha's" that they're willing to share? > > > > > > Thanks, > > Mike Baudino > > > > > > > > ******************* PLEASE NOTE ******************* This > > E-Mail/telefax > > message and any documents accompanying this transmission may contain > > privileged and/or confidential information and is intended > > solely for the > > addressee(s) named above. If you are not the intended > > addressee/recipient, > > you are hereby notified that any use of, disclosure, copying, > > distribution, > > or reliance on the contents of this E-Mail/telefax > > information is strictly > > prohibited and may result in legal action against you. Please > > reply to the > > sender advising of the error in transmission and immediately > > delete/destroy > > the message and any accompanying documents. Thank you. > > > > List info : http://www.activedir.org/mail_list.htm > > List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/list_faq.htm > > List archive: > > http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%> 40mail.activedir.org/ > > > > > > List info : > > http://www.activedir.org/mail_list.htm > > List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/list_faq.htm > > List archive: > > http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%> 40mail.activedir.org/ > > > List info : http://www.activedir.org/mail_list.htm > List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/list_faq.htm > List archive: > http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%> 40mail.activedir.org/ > > > List info : > http://www.activedir.org/mail_list.htm > List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/list_faq.htm > List archive: > http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%> 40mail.activedir.org/ > List info : http://www.activedir.org/mail_list.htm List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/list_faq.htm List archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/
