Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2011 12:26:49 -0600 From: Adam Vande More <amvandemore@gmail.com> To: Ted Mittelstaedt <tedm@mittelstaedt.us> Cc: freebsd-emulation@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Testing Luvalley with FreeBSD as dom0 Message-ID: <AANLkTimniTeqLWsQtaOWaZkJnoYuW5f5k8Bc1B83Epp4@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <4D2AD1D4.4080003@mittelstaedt.us> References: <20100418191752.GA72730@triton8.kn-bremen.de> <w2r3b0605b31004181554tb90de59u6df8ebd5b1206caa@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTi=nhk%2BeCG6kbe4LfeaTQWkKaVcr%2BRx2LrKparDO@mail.gmail.com> <20110107194516.GA28544@triton8.kn-bremen.de> <AANLkTikvP8SezKEZYSUimaj3u8fkk2Vw6-aY09KV=RF3@mail.gmail.com> <20110107213643.GA32645@triton8.kn-bremen.de> <AANLkTi=2Nn8xeKudxb2uSR=aLx0GW43gVPCdL-=hjP7z@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTikbuWJbtPYaLW=8BEH4f5oiumzEN6rgwOB5tC=R@mail.gmail.com> <20110109110022.GA10789@triton8.kn-bremen.de> <AANLkTik9Ckh2UAaed=YYbBFCP6yyd6kOmSXdEYmZPiEd@mail.gmail.com> <4D2A55F4.6010704@mittelstaedt.us> <AANLkTim0cfNkEEq7daR=iCD1kaKTpqBdMXavLZoJP3ri@mail.gmail.com> <4D2A9504.7070109@mittelstaedt.us> <AANLkTin6P7X6_VJevnj=KDttqNn%2BW=bR_Dp1O6iCr%2B%2Bs@mail.gmail.com> <4D2AB270.2070109@mittelstaedt.us> <AANLkTi=qiug8efdySqb4jz9%2BnwxabdOUGt_8VavP1Tot@mail.gmail.com> <4D2AD1D4.4080003@mittelstaedt.us>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 3:31 AM, Ted Mittelstaedt <tedm@mittelstaedt.us>wrote: > On 1/10/2011 12:15 AM, Adam Vande More wrote: > >> On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 1:17 AM, Ted Mittelstaedt <tedm@mittelstaedt.us >> <mailto:tedm@mittelstaedt.us>> wrote: >> >> Someone just gave you bad data, Adam. >> >> >> No that is incorrect. I got my data from MS when I tried to check it >> out. >> > > The second you say "got my data from MS" you know it's bad data. ;-) > > > Our confusion I think is because we are talking about different > >> products. I wasn't aware of the stand-alone free version of hyper-v >> server, thanks for the pointer. The Server 2008 Standard Edition >> version of Windows comes with a license to run a single VM. >> >> > Check out the link I put in the last post. Hyper-v on the standalone > product is the same thing as hyper-v included with Server 2008 R2, it > is just bundled and positioned differently. Yes you are correct about > the included license to run a single VM with 2008 R2 Server but that > is because the only people who buy 2008 Server R2 so they can run > Hyper-V are people who are running 20-50 guest instances of Windows 7 > or something like that. And they do this because it's cheaper to > license multiple windows guest OS's under 2008 R2 Hyper-V than to > buy 50 individual licenses and run them under the standalone hyper-v > product. (or under virtualbox or xen or esx, etc.) > > > If you can follow the maze and find offical documentation of this, >> you've got farther than me, but here's a third party link indicating the >> situation. >> >> http://www.netometer.com/video/tutorials/microsoft-hyper-v-server-2008/ >> >> > That just covers installing the free downloadable hyper-v it only does > a bit of handwaving in the first paragraph about the licensing. And the > fact it's a video ought to immediately scream "incompetent" > > If the author really wanted to show the situation he would install > the actual server 2008 R2, turn on the hyper-v in it, and then > install the free hyper-v on another system and demonstrate both of them > side to side. But of course he doesn't because he's just a guy with a > webcam and some spare time and doesn't have $2500 to fork over > to buy the real server 2008 product. > > By the way you really run a risk mentioning "product" and "microsoft" > in the same paragraph. Microsoft figured out with software what General > Motors figured out with the A-body, you can make a single vehicle and > badge it differently, then tell people you got a "dozen different products, > you got chevrolet, buick, olds, etc." when in reality it's > the same car, different nameplates. Microsoft does this, they take > a single product and bundle it a dozen different ways, then claim > they have different products. > > For example, Small Business Server is just regular Server + exchange > and a fancy gui. Free Hyper-V is just hyper-v with server 2008 > included, and Server 2008 is just server 2008 with hyper-v included. > Same product, different gui and prices to fool the public. > > > It is a sure thing. Seriously. The emulated machine virtualization >> isn't really commercially that interesting. Seriously! Oracle >> makes plenty of money selling support and commercial versions of >> VirtualBox that have the extra go-fast storage code in them such >> as the one included with Oracle VDI. >> >> >> Are you talking about the guest additions or whatever Oracle calls them >> now? >> > > No > > > That doesn't necessarily speed up the VM, it just allows things > >> like clock synchronization, SMB shares, VRPD, page fusion, and USB >> passthrough. As far as I know, while they are released under PUEL >> license you can't even buy them so it's hard to see how Oracle is raking >> in the money there. I see there is a blurb on their site about >> contacting Oracle for enterprise rollouts. I think as soon as they >> figure out how they can bill they will. >> > > I am talking about Oracle-VDI which is a commercial product oracle sells > it is kind of a front end to hypervisors, and it includes virtualbox > with basically a bunch of software that allows guests to bypass the > emulation when accessing the storage system (SANs probably) Yes, they > bill for this. > > Oracle is interested in large enterprise customers like big corps and > government. So is Microsoft. The software that those two sell to > those organizations is an entirely different universe. > > This is not to say that you cannot organize a server farm on FreeBSD > to run the likes of FaceBook or Hotmail, you can. And in fact FreeBSD > once was used for Hotmail. However, to do this you have to know what > you are doing. And Oracle and Microsoft don't want to sell to customers > who know what they are doing. They want to sell to customers who don't > know diddly shit about IT infrastructure and aren't interested in learning, > because they are already too busy running whatever thing it is > that generates money for them. They want customers that say 'here is > what I need, if you can do it then slap a bill down in front of me > and I'll write you a check and in 3 months it better work the way > I said I want it to work or my lawyers are gonna eat you for breakfast' > > You see, you didn't even go about it with Microsoft the correct way, > at least, not from their point of view. What you should have done > when you were checking out Hyper-v is call them and have them > refer you to the nearest Microsoft Certified Partner in your city > who you could have called and then $150 later in consulting fees > you would have the same information that I just gave you here for > free. ;-) > > > At one point, Virtualbox was >> going to setup a "cloud" service that you could roll out images too and >> I think that's now defuct so another lost revenue stream. That actually >> would have been really nice, I would have used that one. >> >> > Well, you see hyper-v killed that. The reason why is that only the > "retail" Windows images have active WPA in them and will call for > activation if they boot up. if your hypervisor is VirtualBox why > then that's exactly what you want - because that's the only way > you can license Windows under VirtualBox, is on a per-guest > basis. > > But under Hyper-V licensing you want all those images to have the > site license product key embedded in them so they can be licensed > under the special hyper-v guest OS license on Server 2008 Hyper-v > that makes them cheaper. You can't upload and distribute those types of > images because of the serial number already being in them. So it's no > wonder that such a service never got anywhere. > > But for the other operating systems there's plenty of people > who distribute virtual images. Even illegal ones. For example > there's an image of MacOS X floating around that has been modded > to boot up MacOS under virtualization. It's just the thing to > piss-off your neighborhood Macaphobe when you flip the lid open > on your $500 HP laptop and show him the same screen and OS he > gets when he fires up his $2500 powerbook. ;-) > > Ted > > > > VirtualBox's main claim to fame is under FreeBSD it is stable. I've >> had >> both Windows XP and FreeBSD guests running for months with no crash. >> That makes it greatly suitable for production work. >> >> >> Agreed, it's been rock solid for me even under periods of heavy use. >> >> -- >> Adam Vande More >> > > -- Adam Vande More
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?AANLkTimniTeqLWsQtaOWaZkJnoYuW5f5k8Bc1B83Epp4>