Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > NZ Computing > The Stupidity Of Virtualization

Reply
Thread Tools

The Stupidity Of Virtualization

 
 
Lawrence D'Oliveiro
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-23-2009
Every virtual machine has to run a full copy of an OS, duplicating services
and needlessly consuming resources. So how about “bare-metal
virtualization”, where each guest is running the thinnest of OS layers, just
enough to intermediate service requests and responses with the host OS?

<http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/11/23/repetitive_os_bloat/>

Except—isn’t this going full circle? Aren’t you just reinventing a single OS
with memory protection for individual processes?
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
thingy
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-26-2009
On Nov 24, 12:23*pm, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <l...@geek-
central.gen.new_zealand> wrote:
> Every virtual machine has to run a full copy of an OS, duplicating services
> and needlessly consuming resources. So how about bare-metal
> virtualization, where each guest is running the thinnest of OS layers, just
> enough to intermediate service requests and responses with the host OS?
>
> <http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/11/23/repetitive_os_bloat/>
>
> Exceptisnt this going full circle? Arent you just reinventing a single OS
> with memory protection for individual processes?


LOL....

If you didnt have virtualisation, you would have a full OS
anyway....but its a q of advancing generations, ie improving
technology

Generation 1
We used to buy 30~50 servers per year at $8~10k each, now we buy 2~3
$20k servers per year and a SAN disk tray...that's over $500,000 v <
$100,000....Per server we now spend < $1500...

Generation 2 is now common ....we already thin provision the disk...so
give the OS and data say 100g, it uses 20gig to start with, grows with
time add disks in time....

Generation 2a or 3....Common parts of the OS are not
replicated....just delta files....40 machines can share a 10g common
disk and then have delta files of various sizes.

Generation 4 This will move into the OS and applications....so load
one Windows/Linux OS and one firefox into memory and say 40 machines
share the common code.

We can even look at thin provisioning via a thin client...where
firefox isnt even in the OS image,its external...

Whats stopping such great tech at the moment is the cost, Vmware's
view cost is obscene...the saving we'd make on say a wyse terminal is
lost in VMware's licence fees. Ditto HP's thin OS idea...I bet...its
simply priced so the vendor takes the lion's share of the savings....

Interesting things to look at is Red Hat's virtual desktop tech,
considerably cheaper, not as "powerful" as VMare but a fraction of the
cost, ie good enough and cheap aka Windows 1.0 ~ win98 territory....so
this could be a game changer...in time this will filter through to
totally free....OSS.

regards














 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Enkidu
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-26-2009
thingy wrote:
> On Nov 24, 12:23 pm, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <l...@geek-
> central.gen.new_zealand> wrote:
>> Every virtual machine has to run a full copy of an OS, duplicating
>> services and needlessly consuming resources. So how about
>> bare-metal virtualization, where each guest is running the
>> thinnest of OS layers, just enough to intermediate service requests
>> and responses with the host OS?
>>
>> <http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/11/23/repetitive_os_bloat/>
>>
>> Exceptisnt this going full circle? Arent you just reinventing a
>> single OS with memory protection for individual processes?

>
> LOL....
>
> If you didnt have virtualisation, you would have a full OS
> anyway....but its a q of advancing generations, ie improving
> technology
>
> Generation 1 We used to buy 30~50 servers per year at $8~10k each,
> now we buy 2~3 $20k servers per year and a SAN disk tray...that's
> over $500,000 v < $100,000....Per server we now spend < $1500...
>
> Generation 2 is now common ....we already thin provision the
> disk...so give the OS and data say 100g, it uses 20gig to start with,
> grows with time add disks in time....
>
> Generation 2a or 3....Common parts of the OS are not
> replicated....just delta files....40 machines can share a 10g common
> disk and then have delta files of various sizes.
>

I don't think that that is going to be that easy, otherwise it would
have been done already in the thin client scenarios.
>
> Generation 4 This will move into the OS and applications....so load
> one Windows/Linux OS and one firefox into memory and say 40 machines
> share the common code.
>

There need be only one copy for the whole organisation, pulled down over
the network. However we will still be paying per instance with an
instance defined by Microsoft as a machine that *might* at some time
load the OS or use the OS through a thin client!
>
> We can even look at thin provisioning via a thin client...where
> firefox isn't even in the OS image,its external...
>

That's fine but when an app such as Firefox is loaded a certain amount
of customisation goes on. As time passes the user tweaks Firefox to suit
themselves. This has to be stored somewhere and currently locally make
sense though it may not always be that way. It might be quicker to put
firefox in a chip in the monitor and just download the customisations,
but if you add up all the customisations for all the apps a user might
use in a day, the customisations (presumably loaded over the network)
might get to be quite big. People already have user profiles measured in
GB in some cases! Besides the chip in the monitor would have to be
pretty large and customisable. I'm not sure if this scenario is feasible
though it is plausible.
>
> Whats stopping such great tech at the moment is the cost, Vmware's
> view cost is obscene...the saving we'd make on say a wyse terminal is
> lost in VMware's licence fees. Ditto HP's thin OS idea...I bet...its
> simply priced so the vendor takes the lion's share of the
> savings....
>
> Interesting things to look at is Red Hat's virtual desktop tech,
> considerably cheaper, not as "powerful" as VMare but a fraction of
> the cost, ie good enough and cheap aka Windows 1.0 ~ win98
> territory....so this could be a game changer...in time this will
> filter through to totally free....OSS.
>

Except that they can't make up their minds. First it was Xen now it's
KVM. What will it be next week? And what will we have to do to convert?
Sigh!

Cheers,

Cliff

--

The Internet is interesting in that although the nicknames may change,
the same old personalities show through.
 
Reply With Quote
 
bAZZ
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-26-2009
In article <4b0ee397$(E-Mail Removed)>, http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed)
says...
>


>""GB in some cases! Besides the chip in the monitor would have to be
>pretty large and customisable. I'm not sure if this scenario is
>feasible though it is plausible.""


Hmmm, may not be that far off Cliff. I read earlier this week about a
new TV from Sony, I think, that had not only a very smart chip in it but
a large GB harddrive. Can't remember where I read it but was 52" and
used the additions to enable user to record up to 8 simultaneous HiDef
channels at once and record up to 90 0dd hours. Cost was about 15000 us
I think but economies of scale may well slash it if it takes off.

Obviously a monitor would be much cheaper and it wouldn't be too hard to
incorp a small chip/hdd (solid state?)and peripherals into monitor
making them in essence your thin client.

As an aside NZPC world have free copy VMware on dvd this month so am
going to install and give the ubuntu image that came with it a whirl
over the weekend. Have also downloaded the google chrome OS image to
have a play with.

Imagine that on monitor chip with free OSS stuff would eally lower costs
do you think for small/medium business ?

bAZZ
 
Reply With Quote
 
peterwn
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-27-2009
On Nov 24, 12:23*pm, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <l...@geek-
>
> <http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/11/23/repetitive_os_bloat/>
>
> Exceptisnt this going full circle? Arent you just reinventing a single OS
> with memory protection for individual processes?


Assuming the operating system or systems are split into 'static' code
plus 'variables' areas, it would seem feasible that one copy of the OS
or OS's can be stored in an area read-only accessible by all virtual
machines. There is no fundamental reason why applications such as
Apache cannot be similarly stored.

Rearrangement of GNU/Linux to facilitate this would seem quite
possible, but any re-arrangement of Windows may require Microsoft's
cooperation, but then AFAIK Microsoft does not like virtual instances
of Windows running on a physival machine running something other than
Windows.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Enkidu
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-27-2009
Allistar wrote:
>
> Sounds like a compelling reason to use a freer alternative.
>

I'd not dispute that.

Cheers,

Cliff

--

The Internet is interesting in that although the nicknames may change,
the same old personalities show through.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Enkidu
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-27-2009
bAZZ wrote:
>
> As an aside NZPC world have free copy VMware on dvd this month...
>

Which VMWare? If it is VMWare Server 2.0 that was a major disappointment
as compared to VMWare Server 1.0. If it is VMWare Player you can't make
new VMs - you have to load an appliance.

Cheers,

Cliff

--

The Internet is interesting in that although the nicknames may change,
the same old personalities show through.
 
Reply With Quote
 
thingy
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-27-2009
On Nov 27, 9:22*am, Enkidu <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> thingy wrote:
> > On Nov 24, 12:23 pm, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <l...@geek-
> > central.gen.new_zealand> wrote:
> >> Every virtual machine has to run a full copy of an OS, duplicating
> >> services and needlessly consuming resources. So how about
> >> bare-metal virtualization, where each guest is running the
> >> thinnest of OS layers, just enough to intermediate service requests
> >> and responses with the host OS?

>
> >> <http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/11/23/repetitive_os_bloat/>

>
> >> Exceptisnt this going full circle? Arent you just reinventing a
> >> single OS with memory protection for individual processes?

>
> > LOL....

>
> > If you didnt have virtualisation, you would have a full OS
> > anyway....but its a q of advancing generations, ie improving
> > technology

>
> > Generation 1 We used to buy 30~50 servers per year at $8~10k each,
> > now we buy 2~3 $20k servers per year and a SAN disk tray...that's
> > over $500,000 v < $100,000....Per server we now spend < $1500...

>
> > Generation 2 is now common ....we already thin provision the
> > disk...so give the OS and data say 100g, it uses 20gig to start with,
> > grows with time add disks in time....

>
> > Generation 2a or 3....Common parts of the OS are not
> > replicated....just delta files....40 machines can share a 10g common
> > disk and then have delta files of various sizes.

>
> I don't think that that is going to be that easy, otherwise it would
> have been done already in the thin client scenarios.
>
> > Generation 4 This will move into the OS and applications....so load
> > one Windows/Linux OS and one firefox into memory and say 40 machines
> > share the common code.

>
> There need be only one copy for the whole organisation, pulled down over
> the network. However we will still be paying per instance with an
> instance defined by Microsoft as a machine that *might* at some time
> load the OS or use the OS through a thin client!
>
> > We can even look at thin provisioning via a thin client...where
> > firefox isn't even in the OS image,its external...

>
> That's fine but when an app such as Firefox is loaded a certain amount
> of customisation goes on. As time passes the user tweaks Firefox to suit
> themselves. This has to be stored somewhere and currently locally make
> sense though it may not always be that way.


Nope...better to centralise...

It might be quicker to put
> firefox in a chip in the monitor and just download the customisations,


Take a look on you tube with a wyse terminal and 4 desktops and
VMware's view.

> but if you add up all the customisations for all the apps a user might
> use in a day, the customisations (presumably loaded over the network)
> might get to be quite big. People already have user profiles measured in
> GB in some cases! Besides the chip in the monitor would have to be
> pretty large and customisable. I'm not sure if this scenario is feasible
> though it is plausible.
> *>> Whats stopping such great tech at the moment is the cost, Vmware's
> > view cost is obscene...the saving we'd make on say a wyse terminal is
> > *lost in VMware's licence fees. Ditto HP's thin OS idea...I bet...its
> > *simply priced so the vendor takes the lion's share of the
> > savings....

>
> > Interesting things to look at is Red Hat's virtual desktop tech,
> > considerably cheaper, not as "powerful" as VMare but a fraction of
> > the cost, ie good enough and cheap aka Windows 1.0 ~ win98
> > territory....so this could be a game changer...in time this will
> > filter through to totally free....OSS.

>
> Except that they can't make up their minds. First it was Xen now it's
> KVM. What will it be next week? And what will we have to do to convert?
> Sigh!
>
> Cheers,
>
> Cliff


I think they are using both....

Going on a course in 2 weeks to look at it.

regards






 
Reply With Quote
 
Lawrence D'Oliveiro
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-27-2009
In message <b2cc8893-9b9c-4384-
(E-Mail Removed)>, thingy wrote:

> We used to buy 30~50 servers per year at $8~10k each, now we buy 2~3
> $20k servers per year and a SAN disk tray...that's over $500,000 v <
> $100,000....Per server we now spend < $1500...


But then why do you need so many servers anyway? This seems to be a
characteristic of the Windows mentality, where if you run multiple
(proprietary) apps on one server, then if something goes wrong, the vendors
will all point the finger at each other. That’s why you end up separating
the apps onto different boxes.

Whereas Linux servers regularly run multiple Free Software apps providing
completely different services at the same time, and everybody knows how to
coexist.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Lawrence D'Oliveiro
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-27-2009
In message
<(E-Mail Removed)>, peterwn
wrote:

> On Nov 24, 12:23 pm, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <l...@geek-
>>
>> <http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/11/23/repetitive_os_bloat/>
>>
>> Except—isn’t this going full circle? Aren’t you just reinventing a single
>> OS with memory protection for individual processes?

>
> Assuming the operating system or systems are split into 'static' code
> plus 'variables' areas, it would seem feasible that one copy of the OS
> or OS's can be stored in an area read-only accessible by all virtual
> machines.


You mean, the way operating systems already divide their ministrations among
currently-running processes?
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Why Virtualization? Lawrence D'Oliveiro NZ Computing 19 08-30-2007 12:23 AM
Re: [News] Micoshaft corporation's vista EULA is crap at virtualization 7 Computer Support 6 11-03-2006 08:15 PM
Virtualization Lawrence D'Oliveiro NZ Computing 1 10-12-2006 07:40 AM
Opsware Offers Virtualization View Knowing About VOIP 0 09-18-2006 05:35 AM
x64 and Vanderpool virtualization. Mark Gillespie Windows 64bit 3 07-18-2006 08:04 PM



Advertisments