Microsoft To Support CentOS Linux In Hyper-V 291
jbrodkin writes "Long the enemy of Linux users, Microsoft is apparently seeing dollar signs in the Linux-dominated Web server market. Microsoft's virtualization software, Hyper-V, will immediately add support for CentOS Linux, a community version of Red Hat that even Microsoft notes is a 'popular Linux distribution for hosters.' 'This enables our Hosting partners to consolidate their mixed Windows + Linux infrastructure on Windows Server Hyper-V,' Microsoft said. In addition to Web hosting, this targets another area where Microsoft is stuck in second place: the virtualization market dominated by VMware."
Second place? (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I doubt they have, which is why they're now going to try to hook folks by supporting more distros. I'll wager it will be a cold day in hell before they'll officially support Debian and its derivatives though.
Re: (Score:2)
Fact-free bullshit.
I too would post as AC if I were peddling nonsense like that
Re: (Score:3)
It's behind VMWare, but it's a different domain. You get Hyper-V "free" with Win2k8. It's very useful in moderate VM deployments, and even in some large scale scenarios. But yeah, VMWare has a much broader solution to higher end needs.
Xen/KVM/etc...? Umm, no. Those are small time. In a crowd of Unix people in little piddly environments running shit on 20 servers you may find people using some of these, but large scale uses are few and far between.
In the scientific and research communities, Xen/KVM deployments are fairly present. Right now, Nimbus running on future grid runs VMs on 4 different clusters with a total of about 800 cores available. Future grid itself has about 5000 cores available and provides a variety of IaaS and VM/cloud services. There's a few other places running moderately large installs using linux based virtualization solutions. It might not quite reach the scale of Amazon/Google/etc. but they're definitely up there in terms
Re: (Score:2)
You can get ESX free as well, and there are plenty of tools to help manage it. Both VMware and Hyper-V charge for features as you move up the stack. Maybe VMware is more expensive for the advanced features (which may be because they support doing things Hyper-V can't yet), but...
Well, look at this: http://virtacore.com/vcloud_pricing.cfm [virtacore.com]
That's running on VMware ESXi+vCenter+vCloud Director, and when you consider the bundled disk and network, it's cheaper than Amazon by a lot. (ie, $345/mo for their equivale
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, when we priced out VMWare a few years ago it was so expensive that it dwarfed the price of the actual server. Which makes it a no-go for small/medium businesses if you want the useful features like moving VMs between serve
duh (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Microsoft doesn't care about linux, it cares about market domination while making money.
Almost. Microsoft doesn't care about Linux. It cares about making money. Market domination is just a consequence of that goal.
Re: (Score:2)
All of the products it operates as loss leaders prove you wrong...
Re: (Score:2)
Loss leaders usually generate more money in other areas. Market domination is a means to achieve the goal of making money.
As seen in another Slashdot sig... (Score:5, Insightful)
Running Linux in a VM on Windows is like strapping yourself to the outside of a car with a seatbelt.
Re:As seen in another Slashdot sig... (Score:4, Interesting)
Not really,
Linux key strength over windows isn't stability or security. It is the fact that it is hugely customizable and great for making pre-packaged virtual machines that do one or two things and does them well. For the most part the office could be nearly all Microsoft and its administration staff are windows administrators and they treat that random Linux VM as just as an other application. Vs. the inverse of having to deal with a Linux system and each windows VM as its own OS that needs administration. Because Windows isn't customizable to an appliance as well as Linux can be.
Convertible (Score:2)
Running Linux in a VM on Windows is like strapping yourself to the outside of a car with a seatbelt.
In other words, it's like driving a convertible with the top down.
But seriously, if you want to run Linux on some hardware configurations, you have to do it in a virtual machine because the hardware maker doesn't want to share specs with the developers of Linux or userspace subsystems.
Re: (Score:3)
Can you describe one of these magical hardware configurations where a Windows VM host can run, but Linux can't?
Re: (Score:2)
I imagine you could put together a machine that wouldn't run Linux, but I think you would have to put some effort into it, particularly for server-grade hardware, where you're not dealing the Super3DXXX video card that has a hacked-up binary blob kernel module that barely runs X. On server-grade hardware, you're dealing with a far smaller pool of hardware and I have yet to come across any of the server offerings from big guys like Dell and HP that doesn't run Linux out of the box. Hell, pretty much all of
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Can you describe one of these magical hardware configurations where a Windows VM host can run, but Linux can't?
The acerpower 2000 mini-systems have this issue. Linux (RHEL 4/5, SL 4/5/6) all install but don't recognize the network card. Windows vista and 7 can use the network card. A modern system without a network connection is pretty much functionally useless nowadays.
They're a business (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
That may be true, but how many shops do you know of that actually use HyperV? VMware dominates, Xen a ways behind, and Linux KVM and VirtualBox back aways. I don't think anyone actually runs VMs under Windows, it's rather the other way around.
Re:They're a business (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't think anyone actually runs VMs under Windows
Are you kidding?
Re: (Score:2)
I meant in the corporate/bare metal world. Yes, lots of folks run XP under Windows 7 and run VirtualBox, but that ain't the same thing.
Re: (Score:2)
Any company that already has a significant Windows server deployment on the intranet (of which there are plenty) will at least consider Hyper-V. If its features satisfy their requirements, then why not use it? It's one less vendor to deal with.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You mean it is "free" if you buy the Windows OS. VMware is "Free" if you don't need infrastructure capable. Just run VMWare Player in Windows or Linux or whatever. Windows is great for VARs though. Sell Windows Solutions Cheap, and then rake in the dough through support. I'd sell Hyper-V all day long if I was a VAR. But I'm a user, and the low overhead of VMWare makes it easy choice.
I'd also like to see the performance comparison between the two.
Re: (Score:2)
Free, as in Buy one, Get one Free.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, maybe, but the technology still seems far enough behind the other players that I don't see the advantage. For any outfit with the cash and expertise to be rolling out VMs in a big way, nothing compares to VMWare. The other players are far behind in usability and scalability, and Microsoft is well behind even those guys.
Re: (Score:2)
Depends on your company and sector. If you've got tech-savvy executives, you might deploy VMware. You might also deploy Openstack (developed by Rackspace, Dell, and NASA for their Nebula cloud computing initiative) or Xen (that little hypervisor that drives Amazon's AWS EC2 instances).
Re: (Score:2)
That may be true, but how many shops do you know of that actually use HyperV? VMware dominates, Xen a ways behind, and Linux KVM and VirtualBox back aways. I don't think anyone actually runs VMs under Windows, it's rather the other way around.
Microsoft has been making some inroads with Hyper-V with mid-size businesses that are already 100% Windows environments - especially ones that haven't quite started down the virtualization path. Their licensing is attractive to these smaller companies, compared to VMware (at least the higher-end vSphere offerings). And it's Microsoft, which they're already comfortable with.
VMware destroys Hyper-V in just about every possible way at the enterprise level, but mid-size companies often don't need all the b
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Do you work in IT? Hyper-V is all over the place Microsoft has about 25% marketshare in the server virtualization market. It isn't as technically good as VMWare but it is significantly cheaper. I know of many shops that run it, so e actually run both VMWare and Hyper-V. I know of no place that runs Xen other than web hosts.
Re: (Score:2)
Could you provide some evidence of 25% market penetration. Color me skeptical.
Re: (Score:2)
Where I work now, we all use VMs running under Windows, and one of my jobs at the last place I worked was to create a VM with all the required software for the devs. One of the greatest things about virtualization is that you can give all your devs the same setup just by copying a VM to their physical machine. I also use virtualization under Windows at home for development purposes, where fucking up a VM is a lot easier
Re: (Score:2)
I've grown to like Virtualbox, but a large part of that is that I have it available on Windows, Linux and FreeBSD. It's been ages since VMWare has been available in a current version for FreeBSD. Especially considering that I'm just wanting to run a few financial apps and don't need all the extra tools for enterprise work.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The issue wasn't that MS wanted $15-30 or so for the license, the issue was that the specs required to run any flavor of Windows made the netbooks a lot more expensive and pushed them into the realm of sub notebooks. Just look at pretty much any netbook which has both a Linux and a Windows flavor and you'll see what I mean.
The main reason for netbooks was that they were cheap, ultra mobile and focused on the net, rather than more general purpose tasks.
Re: (Score:2)
the issue was that the specs required to run any flavor of Windows made the netbooks a lot more expensive
Windows XP ran fine on the early netbooks, which had a Celeron 900 or Atom CPU and half a GB of RAM, as long as the SSD was replaced with an HDD so that the OS would fit. It's just that Microsoft wanted to stop selling Windows XP in favor of Windows Vista and didn't have anything to replace it with until Moore's law made Windows 6.x-compatible parts cheap enough for budget subnotebooks.
Just look at pretty much any netbook which has both a Linux and a Windows flavor and you'll see what I mean.
Do the major companies still make Linux netbooks anymore? I haven't seen them in Best Buy or Staples for several months.
Can MS sell Unix-like systems? (Score:2)
I thought there was a court case (antitrust?) where it was ruled that for competition reasons, Microsoft couldn't sell Unix systems - and this was always presumed to include GNU/Linux.
Is this gone with recent the end of the "oversight period" put in place in 2002?
Re: (Score:2)
Microsoft couldn't sell Unix systems - and this was always presumed to include GNU/Linux.
How? GNU's Not UNIX, and Linux Is Not UNIX either.
Worst of both worlds? (Score:5, Funny)
So all the stability and security of Microsoft running on the bare metal; combined with the user-friendliness and ease of use of Linux. :)
Hyper-V isn't second. It doesn't even place (Score:5, Informative)
KVM and Xen are both fully featured enterprise class hypervisors with the ability to live migrate. Hyper-V only *just* got live migration and only when you're using clustering (translation: large wads of cash are required). VMWare is undoubtedly the leader, but KVM and Xen are defaintely fighting for 2nd.
Re: (Score:2)
VMWare is undoubtedly the leader, but KVM and Xen are defaintely fighting for 2nd.
In terms of number of servers deployed? Do you have any numbers to back that claim?
(note that feature richness does not correlate directly to market share)
Re:Hyper-V isn't second. It doesn't even place (Score:4, Insightful)
If I'm just testing things, VMWare is free, and so is VirtualBox. Why would I want to pay for a very expensive Microsoft OS when there are free alternatives. Heck, I could just install any of the modern Linux distros and get KVM, which has very much matured in the last year or two.
Re: (Score:2)
Where did I say I was talking about production servers? For testing purposes, the freebie ESX is useful enough to get a handle on VMWare.
And HyperV is not enterprise suitable, any more than KVM is enterprise suitable. They're interesting products, but if you're putting together an enterprise VM farm, I can almost guarantee you're going to be going to VMWare.
Re: (Score:2)
why isn't Hyper-V enterprise ready. They have white papers on major ERP products running on it, Oracle and SQL Server installations can even perform on it. It has failover capabilities. It isn't as advanced as VMWare but the cost savings in software licensing is significant.
Re: (Score:3)
Logical fallacy much?
I didn't say Microsoft didn't have Enterprise-ready products, but Hyper-V is so far behind feature wise that about the only people its going to attract is smaller businesses that already have Server 2008 on a decent bit of hardware and have some spare capacity and maybe want to run a Linux guest for some special functionality. But big time, VMWare beats Hyper-V in every possible way.
Re: (Score:2)
How does VMWare fare in price-performance? Rhetorical question - it fares poorly. Therefore it's certainly not every possible way.
There are deployments that absolutely require some of VMWare's high end features. I wonder, however, how many people are paying the exorbitant amount of money required for VMWare when Hyper-V would be perfectly adequate simply because people like you, who don't know any better and have an anti-MS bias, tell them only VMWare will work.
I shall call it the VMWare tax.
Re: (Score:2)
If I am dealing with simpler setups, then I'd probably install Debian or CentOS and use KVM. All modern variants of Windows run pretty well in it (I'm running Server 2003 and Exchange in a couple of VMs on a KVM-based host, and it's rock solid).
Hyper-V really is stuck in the middle, and seems almost irrelevant.
Re: (Score:2)
If Hyper-V would work in your situtaion, KVM or XEN would be better and save you money.
Re: (Score:2)
"Hyper-V works fine, and saves you a lot of cash"
When using Hyper-V, you have to pay for the Host OS, as opposed to a KVM or Xen enabled Linux host which is free. How precisely does that "save you a lot of cash"? Hell, you may as well install the free version of VMWare on top of your Windows box. At least you'll get some of the features missing in Hyper-V.
Re: (Score:2)
This is what I don't get. Every time the Redmondroids use the words "cheap" and "easy", I just shake my head. Server 2008 is what, about $800 bucks for the DVD and five CALs? ESXi, KVM and Xen are free. I'm having a hard time figuring out where you save money with Hyper-V. I guess if you've already got a few Server 2008 machines hanging around with spare CPU and RAM capacity, it doesn't cost you any more, but from the ground up, I see absolutely no point to using Hyper-V. Beyond that, Windows is the o
Re: (Score:2)
Every time the Redmondroids...
This isn't about "us" vs. "them". You're sounding like an antiredmondroid.
Re: (Score:3)
Gah, why is everyone saying this... Google Hyper-V Server and learn something, it's free and can do Live Migration (which VMware doesn't give you for free).
Of course if you do pay for a host OS like Enterprise or Datacenter then you get some (or unlimited) free VM licenses too
Wow Support a Distro that may be dead (Score:4, Interesting)
User are leaving Centos left and right, security patches are months behind schedule, Centos 6 is over 6 months behind RH enterprise 6, the devs are a closed group and will not accept help, and do there best to allienate the user base.
Re: (Score:2)
Here's to that... I've been reading more and more about Scientific Linux as a replacement for CentOS.
What about para-virtualization? (Score:4, Interesting)
OpenVZ (Virtuozzo) and Linux-VServer used to be the big names in virtualization. Now Linux has LXC in the mainline kernel. Virtualization with Xen and KVM are nice. But when you want to run Linux in virtualized guests you get a much better performance with para virtualization.
Xen and KVM are useful is you want to run Windows as a guest. But for Linux guests I really recommend the above.
But why would you buy a commercial Hyper-V? VMware is there. VirtualBox has excellent support for Windows hosts and is free. I don't see how Microsoft could make any headway with all the excellent products with every ninche (commercial, open source, free, expensive) already taken.
Re: (Score:2)
OpenVZ (Virtuozzo) and Linux-VServer used to be the big names in virtualization. Now Linux has LXC in the mainline kernel. Virtualization with Xen and KVM are nice. But when you want to run Linux in virtualized guests you get a much better performance with para virtualization.
You messed up your terminology. Xen is paravirtualization [wikipedia.org] by default. OpenVZ and VServer are OS-level virtualization [wikipedia.org].
Why would you even do it? (Score:5, Insightful)
Honestly I cannot understand why you would virtualize anything but commercial software. It is a pain to manage without virtualization, it suffers from legacy problems due to all of the very big risks you take when you buy the license. You really have no benefits at all I can think of running commercial software.
Thanks to KVM, the commercial software I do have to buy, I can virtualize it, freeze the hardware requirements in time so it will always work forever and ever. Never need to reinstall it and it isn't if, but when the company goes tits up I am protected. I can dump the software on my terms.
I can even make a copy of it in case the hardware virtualizing the commercial software breaks.
Deploy it to a disaster recovery site and I don't have to have a huge checklist to go through to make sure it is configured right during recovery.
No stupid specific backup agents for commercial software's little proprietary databases they all like to create to make things even more expensive to use.
I left with the opinion that Hyper-V is a solution in search of a problem.
I would be using Cent OS with KVM to virtualize Microsoft's OS, where it is safely under the flipper of my penguin, where it can't make my life hell.
-Hack
Re: (Score:2)
You've successfully argued that you should always virtualize commercial software, but claiming that you would not virtualize other software is another matter. Some of your points, e.g. DR, apply equally to all kinds of software.
isn't that backwards? (Score:3)
Shouldn't we be hosting Windows on CentOS instead of the other way around? I mean, usually you go with Linux for robustness or price, and you host Windows because of a requirement (IIS, Exchange, politics) that can't easily be met natively on Linux. Hosting an operating system with uptimes measured in hundreds of days on an OS that has to be rebooted every 45 days doesn't seem wise to me.
Re: (Score:3)
Windows shops that run 95% Windows but have acquired some application that runs on Linux would do this. they are already configured for Windows Virtualization technologies and have no reason to run Linux on bare metal given the advantages of virtulization.
Linux does not belong in VM. (Score:2)
...And I will say that again -- Linux in a production environment does not belong in VM in the first place. VMs are a solution to uniquely Windows problems (lack of package management, broken backup procedures, inflexible storage, abysmal security), and it does not significantly exacerbate uniquely Windows deficiencies (bad scheduler, bad virtual memory, bad filesystem and storage management). While VMs are useful for development,
"VMWare jockeys" (or whatever they should be called with this crap) should nev
Re:does anybody really use hyper-V? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"not trolling"
"Reboot host and have to shutdown all your VMs at least once a month?!!"
Not trolling you say? What's the last version of Windows you used? 98?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Well that is the answer to his question. Windows is actually quite stable now, on par with Linux. Especially if you set it up correctly so the Hyper-V system is the only thing running on the Master and use the other Virtual OS's as the systems that can bomb.
Re:does anybody really use hyper-V? (Score:5, Informative)
Well that is the answer to his question. Windows is actually quite stable now, on par with Linux.
Well, believe what you wish, I suppose. Over this last weekend, I set up my wife's laptop with Windows 7/64. The number of reboots I had to go through after the O/S install in order to get everything updated was no less than 10 or so, over a few hours. Mind you, this wasn't when setting up drivers, this was *after* I'd loaded the O/S and the drivers. This was just to apply security updates.
I have quite a number of Linux/RedHat/CentOS servers that I maintain, and when I build a new server, I have to reboot exactly one time after loading the O/S to apply updates. Literally, I type a single line as:
yum -y update && shutdown -r now;
That's it. That's the entire sum of the update process, after which I have a fully working, fully updated server with all updates updated.
Re: (Score:2)
I think the GP is about regular use, not install.
ANYBODY WHO KNOWS MICROSOFT (Score:5, Insightful)
Understands this is not a concession or olive branch.
It is a way to damage the RedHat business model. Trust me - Redmond will get to the point they offer Premiere support for CentOS on HyperV, starving RedHat of oxygen.
Even if it made them no money at all, Redmond has people who'd love this outcome, and set MBOs for this.
Re: (Score:3)
Windows: Stable on the right hardware (Score:3)
My new home computer runs Windows 7 quite well, it hasn't blue screened or locked up once since I bought it a year ago. My coworker's Window's box locks up at least once a week. Just because Windows runs fine on your computer does not mean it will run well on everyone's.
Re: (Score:2)
Unstable Windows installations *these days* are almost always the fault of 3rd party software. I've had unstable Linux installs because of third party software. We're talking about virtualization, which does not require a great deal of third party software to mess things up.
Re: (Score:2)
Or hardware. Odds are pretty high that if you're experiencing frequent lockups that there's bad hardware or maybe bad drivers. And for infrequent lockups, I always start by looking closely at RAM / CPU. Maybe the system is OC'd too
Re: (Score:2)
So how many times has it automatically restarted to apply system patches?
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
What he meant is that your Hyper-V server shouldn't be serving anything else (which you could, in theory, do - say, configure a web server role on it as well). Doesn't mean that guest OSes can't be Windows.
Re: (Score:2)
There is one use where Windows Server 2008 R2 + Hyper-V is the only game in town:
Encrypting a remote server, while still letting it boot, using BitLocker with a TPM.
Why is this important? A couple years ago, I did a gig for a some research project that had a remote server that went unmanned for months at a time. It had a Net connection via satellite. This server had a couple Linux VMs (unsupported [1] but worked perfectly.)
Bitlocker is the only game in town for not just providing hard disk encryption, bu
Re: (Score:2)
If no one enters a password or key how is it getting that information on boot? If you are using the key out of the TPM that seems like a recipe for failure when the hardware dies.
Re: (Score:3)
BitLocker has four ways to recover the key:
1: It offers to save both a printed copy of the key and a key file.
2: It can save it in Active Directory.
3: It can use the Data Recovery Agent specified in a policy.
4: You can specify what 128 or 256 key pleases you. All zeroes? Step right up.
I really wish some other OS had the ability to use the TPM for hard disk encryption functionality. TrouSerS tries, but we need an actual initiative for other operating systems. It wouldn't be that hard to accomplish --
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know, I still get a lot of messages in the morning that state something to the affect that "Windows was restarted after updating files" on desktop systems. May not need to be rebooted as in the past for memory leaks, etc., it still needs rebooted much more than a linux. Of course, one could turn off the automatic updates on a server. Regardless, Win7 stability is a major improvement over previous versions of Windows, with the possible exception of Windows 2000.
Re: (Score:3)
You don't need to patch IE, you don't need to patch Office, you don't really need to patch very much at all if all you're running is the virtualization software (which one would be doing if uptime of the guests is important).
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The facts are Hyper-V is behind in features and performance than others. For example, only since 2008 R2 SP1 a few months ago do they support shared memory. Before that, if you had 10 hosts and wanted to grant each 4 GB of RAM, you needed 40 GB in your host. If you didn't have enough RAM, you couldn't boot up your guests - lack of memory. That's a serious drawback,
Re: (Score:2)
While it's not nearly as widely used as VMware or other virtualization platforms, your argument is weak. Windows 2008 R2 hardly needs a reboot.
So long as you don't believe in installing security fixes. I can't imagine trying to run VMs on an OS that expects me to reboot to install another security fix every few days.
Re: (Score:2)
What security fixes have there been in windows 2008 R2 base server in the past 2 years?
I can't think of a single one, but I'm sure there has been at least 1-2.
Remember, with 2008 R2 MS went down the ubuntu/redhat/bsd-ish route by allowing you to install a VERY basic server with almost nothing on it, then add packages one by one. A hyper-V cluster member will not have a full IE, full IIS, Office, Flash, etc. Nor will it likely have any file shares open.
Microsoft's tactics around server vs desktop OSs are v
Re: (Score:2)
Running insecure servers is fine until it isn't. Especially now with companies issuing mobile devices that employees take home to infect with all variety of trojans etc., you basically have to treat the internal network as the internet. Unless you're looking forward to cleaning up the enormous clusterfuck that results when some crime syndicate compromises one of your domain controllers, best to keep things patched.
Re: (Score:2)
Have they fixed the Virtual Server Linux clock skew bug in Hyper-V?
Re: (Score:2)
Translation: if you're a Windows shop and want to run Windows stuff, then Hyper-V is a Windows product, and therefore will suit your needs. If you need performance, features, compatibility, or a rich ecosystem of partner products, then look elsewhere? Got it.
Re: (Score:2)
> Let's talk price, shall we?
Hyper-V is essentially free if you're already invested in the Microsoft platform.
With an Enterprise license, you are allowed up to 4 instances on the same box. If an instance is used only to support virtualization, it doesn't count toward this limit. Note that with 4 instances, Enterprise is the same cost per instance as Standard so the price will be equivalent assuming reasonable VM density.
In addition, since failover clusters and enterprise certificate servers require Enter
Re: (Score:2)
With the 2008 R2 service pack, this is no longer the case, as VMs can now be live-migrated. It is not as smooth as VMotion, however, so Hyper-V is still technically inferior.
There is a notable cost advantage when Enterprise or Datacenter versions of Windows are used on appropriate hardware, but I don't know if that will last if/when Microsoft reaches feature parity.
Re: (Score:2)
Because CentOS is based on Red Hat, and Hyper-V already supports that.
MS going after commercial users not hobbyists (Score:2)
Why CentOS? Why not a more popular distro not to disparage Cent.....
MS is going after commercial users of Linux not hobbyists. CentOS *is* Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) without the Red Hat branding, CentOS is built from the RHEL source code. While CentOS is not as popular as a desktop it is interesting to anyone using or thinking about using RHEL. If you know you are going to ultimately deploy on RHEL then developing on CentOS would make more sense than other Linux distributions.
Re: (Score:2)
Ah hell, now that I've finally figured out bridging, I can get a Debian or Fedora KVM server up and running in about the install time +15 minutes (okay, more if I haven't refreshed my install ISOs recently).
The big thing KVM is missing is proper migration tools.
Re: (Score:2)
Define proper migration tools. You can do it on the command line, in virt-manager, using virsh. What more are you looking for?
Re: (Score:3)
After banging my head against the Hyper-V headache for two days
I use hyper-v for testing my apps on multiple OS versions. It takes me less than 1 minute to configure a VM. This excludes any time spent copying VHDs across the network, if any. You took 2 days and you still haven't figured it out?
Do you ever accuse Microsoft of FUDing? Will you excuse me for pointing out the irony?
Re: (Score:2)
Ooooo, you test apps with it. Super impressive. I'm trying to figure how to make enough room in my office to bow down to your technical prowess.
If you don't like being called out, don't FUD.
Re: (Score:2)
Since when is speaking the truth FUD? Look over my posting history for the last few years. I have supported Microsoft on numerous occasions when the situation warranted it. When I first started posting here, people accused me of being a Microsoft astro-turfer. However when it comes to Hyper-V, the product sucks. Is it better than Virtual Server 2005? It sure is! There you go. How's this? Microsoft Hyper-V is the best Microsoft virtualization product to date. Happy now?
The Microsoft fanboys are ou
Re: (Score:2)
Valid point and fair enough. It has been about a year since I worked with it, but there were fundamental flaws with the program. The deal breaker for me was when the Hyper-V MMC would not create a virtual machine. I don't remember what the exact error was, but it was a problem with the MMC. The only way I could create a virtual machine was to use SCVMM. It worked fine through SCVMM, but that tool costs money and absolutely ruins the selling point of a "free with the OS" virtualization solution. I deci
Re: (Score:2)
"support" is probably in the form of first-class integration software and drivers, possibly for improved I/O performance, time synchronization, shutdown, disk shadow support, etc.