Xen users - Feb 2008 - VMWare vs. Xen, is the conflict by VMware deliberate?

I''ve been trying to virtualize SCO OpenServer 5.0.6 for various
reasons,
and found that the Xensource 4.x doesn''t support it, nor does the open 
source Xen 3.x in any of the environments I''ve tried. It works on 
VMware, but for various reasons I prefer to use Xen on my Dom0. (I like 
open source, and the base OS for the commercial reasons is much, much 
more recent, and I suspect the Xen Dom0 performance for managing backup 
systems is superior.)

So, I tried running VMWare Workstation on top of a Xen enabled Dom0. And 
VMWare promptly started up with a "You''re running a Xen
Hypervisor! Bad
sys-geek, no biscuit! We''re taking our start-up tool and going home, 
p-b-b-b-b-b-b-t-h!"

Is this a well-founded refusal to start on their part, perhaps due to 
kernel behavior conflicts? Or is this an anti-competitive move, to avoid 
being able to run VMware Workstation on Xen Dom0''s and force people to 
select VMWare only? I''ve not taken apart the kernel modules well enough
to tell, but I hate to have to dedicate entire servers to VMware: it can 
absorb the resources I''d otherwise use to provide Xen.



_______________________________________________
Xen-users mailing list
Xen-users@lists.xensource.com
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users

Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
> So, I tried running VMWare Workstation on top of a Xen enabled Dom0. And 
> VMWare promptly started up with a "You''re running a Xen
Hypervisor! Bad
> sys-geek, no biscuit! We''re taking our start-up tool and going
home,
> p-b-b-b-b-b-b-t-h!"
> 
> Is this a well-founded refusal to start on their part, perhaps due to 
> kernel behavior conflicts? Or is this an anti-competitive move, to avoid 
> being able to run VMware Workstation on Xen Dom0''s and force
people to
> select VMWare only? 
No idea. But, I''m curious. What makes VMWare think that
anyone''s going
to take them seriously after seeing error messages like that one? Do 
they actually review their code before selling it to anybody?

Evan

_______________________________________________
Xen-users mailing list
Xen-users@lists.xensource.com
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users

Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
> I''ve been trying to virtualize SCO OpenServer 5.0.6 for various 
> reasons, and found that the Xensource 4.x doesn''t support it, nor
does
> the open source Xen 3.x in any of the environments I''ve tried. It 
> works on VMware, but for various reasons I prefer to use Xen on my 
> Dom0. (I like open source, and the base OS for the commercial reasons 
> is much, much more recent, and I suspect the Xen Dom0 performance for 
> managing backup systems is superior.)
>
> So, I tried running VMWare Workstation on top of a Xen enabled Dom0. 
> And VMWare promptly started up with a "You''re running a Xen 
> Hypervisor! Bad sys-geek, no biscuit! We''re taking our start-up
tool
> and going home, p-b-b-b-b-b-b-t-h!"
>
> Is this a well-founded refusal to start on their part, perhaps due to 
> kernel behavior conflicts? Or is this an anti-competitive move,
VMware requires that your host kernel be run in ring 0 (to do cpu 
scheduling, memory management and provide timer interrupts) where as in 
xen architecture hypervisor has taken ring 0 and deprivileged the guest 
kernel (dom0 kernel) to other rings. So running VMware on dom0 doesn''t 
allow it to virtualize cpu, memory. My 2 cents

--Sadique
> to avoid being able to run VMware Workstation on Xen Dom0''s and
force
> people to select VMWare only? I''ve not taken apart the kernel
modules
> well enough to tell, but I hate to have to dedicate entire servers to 
> VMware: it can absorb the resources I''d otherwise use to provide
Xen.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Xen-users mailing list
> Xen-users@lists.xensource.com
> http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users
>

_______________________________________________
Xen-users mailing list
Xen-users@lists.xensource.com
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512

Nico Kadel-Garcia schreef:
> Evan Lavelle wrote:
>> Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
>>
>>> So, I tried running VMWare Workstation on top of a Xen enabled
Dom0.
>>> And VMWare promptly started up with a "You''re running
a Xen
>>> Hypervisor! Bad sys-geek, no biscuit! We''re taking our
start-up tool
>>> and going home, p-b-b-b-b-b-b-t-h!"
>>>
>>> Is this a well-founded refusal to start on their part, perhaps due
to
>>> kernel behavior conflicts? Or is this an anti-competitive move, to
>>> avoid being able to run VMware Workstation on Xen Dom0''s
and force
>>> people to select VMWare only? 
>>
>> No idea. But, I''m curious. What makes VMWare think that
anyone''s going
>> to take them seriously after seeing error messages like that one? Do
>> they actually review their code before selling it to anybody?
>>
>> Evan
> 
> Well, the "bad sys-geek, no biscuit" and
"p-b-b-b-b-t-h" were me
> elaborating on it, I''ll admit. I''m sorry, my colorful
sense of humor
> seems to hve confused you: I''ll try to restrain myself on this
list.
> 
> The bit about refusing to run with a Xen hypervisor in place was very
> clear, however. It might be justified, but the refusal to even try to
> start up seemed excessively harsh. I''m happy to accept a warning
that
> what I''m about to attempt with my software is a bad idea, but I
want a
> reference to exactly what the problem is or at least the ability to try
> it, anyway, after insisting on the warning.

Are you able to run VMWare in Qemu and/or if your host runs under HVM?


Stefan
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.7 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFHuakPYH1+F2Rqwn0RCvJFAJ0UlAS5ftwYPjmqFoJep2FqK+axFQCfZKnc
A9+yS7/Uj9VRDTNjNiwCn6U=uwZq
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

_______________________________________________
Xen-users mailing list
Xen-users@lists.xensource.com
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users

Evan Lavelle wrote:
> Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
>
>> So, I tried running VMWare Workstation on top of a Xen enabled Dom0. 
>> And VMWare promptly started up with a "You''re running a
Xen
>> Hypervisor! Bad sys-geek, no biscuit! We''re taking our
start-up tool
>> and going home, p-b-b-b-b-b-b-t-h!"
>>
>> Is this a well-founded refusal to start on their part, perhaps due to 
>> kernel behavior conflicts? Or is this an anti-competitive move, to 
>> avoid being able to run VMware Workstation on Xen Dom0''s and
force
>> people to select VMWare only? 
>
> No idea. But, I''m curious. What makes VMWare think that
anyone''s going
> to take them seriously after seeing error messages like that one? Do 
> they actually review their code before selling it to anybody?
>
> Evan
Well, the "bad sys-geek, no biscuit" and "p-b-b-b-b-t-h"
were me
elaborating on it, I''ll admit. I''m sorry, my colorful sense of
humor
seems to hve confused you: I''ll try to restrain myself on this list.

The bit about refusing to run with a Xen hypervisor in place was very 
clear, however. It might be justified, but the refusal to even try to 
start up seemed excessively harsh. I''m happy to accept a warning that 
what I''m about to attempt with my software is a bad idea, but I want a 
reference to exactly what the problem is or at least the ability to try 
it, anyway, after insisting on the warning.

_______________________________________________
Xen-users mailing list
Xen-users@lists.xensource.com
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users

Sadique Puthen wrote:
> Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
>> I''ve been trying to virtualize SCO OpenServer 5.0.6 for
various
>> reasons, and found that the Xensource 4.x doesn''t support it,
nor
>> does the open source Xen 3.x in any of the environments I''ve
tried.
>> It works on VMware, but for various reasons I prefer to use Xen on my 
>> Dom0. (I like open source, and the base OS for the commercial reasons 
>> is much, much more recent, and I suspect the Xen Dom0 performance for 
>> managing backup systems is superior.)
>>
>> So, I tried running VMWare Workstation on top of a Xen enabled Dom0. 
>> And VMWare promptly started up with a "You''re running a
Xen
>> Hypervisor! Bad sys-geek, no biscuit! We''re taking our
start-up tool
>> and going home, p-b-b-b-b-b-b-t-h!"
>>
>> Is this a well-founded refusal to start on their part, perhaps due to 
>> kernel behavior conflicts? Or is this an anti-competitive move,
>
> VMware requires that your host kernel be run in ring 0 (to do cpu 
> scheduling, memory management and provide timer interrupts) where as 
> in xen architecture hypervisor has taken ring 0 and deprivileged the 
> guest kernel (dom0 kernel) to other rings. So running VMware on dom0 
> doesn''t allow it to virtualize cpu, memory. My 2 cents
>
> --Sadique
Ahh. Thank you! That was clear.

Hmm. Does a Xen DomU look to the unsespecting local environment like a 
ring 0 kernel, especially in full virtualization rather than 
para-virtualization? It would be contorted, but would allow me to keep 
my Dom0 as a Xen host, at a serious but potentially acceptable 
performance loss.
>> to avoid being able to run VMware Workstation on Xen Dom0''s
and force
>> people to select VMWare only? I''ve not taken apart the kernel
modules
>> well enough to tell, but I hate to have to dedicate entire servers to 
>> VMware: it can absorb the resources I''d otherwise use to
provide Xen.
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Xen-users mailing list
>> Xen-users@lists.xensource.com
>> http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users
>>
>

_______________________________________________
Xen-users mailing list
Xen-users@lists.xensource.com
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users

On 2/18/08, Nico Kadel-Garcia <nkadel@gmail.com>
wrote:
> The bit about refusing to run with a Xen hypervisor in place was very
> clear, however. It might be justified, but the refusal to even try to
> start up seemed excessively harsh. I''m happy to accept a warning
that
> what I''m about to attempt with my software is a bad idea, but I
want a
> reference to exactly what the problem is or at least the ability to try
> it, anyway, after insisting on the warning.
in most cases, "check; but try anyway" would be a serious bug IMO.

if you''re trying to run VMWare on PV, ''trying'' would
definitely fail,
and quite possibly crash the whole system.  that''s because PV
doesn''t
emulate hardware, not even close.

if it''s refusing to run on HVM... well, it _should_ run, possibly with
some limitations, and big overhead... but run.  then i would say it''s
not nice on VMWare''s part

-- 
Javier

_______________________________________________
Xen-users mailing list
Xen-users@lists.xensource.com
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512

Nico Kadel-Garcia schreef:
>> Are you able to run VMWare in Qemu and/or if your host runs under HVM?
>>   
> I''ve not touched Qemu. The host does have an Intel CPU with HVM
> capability, so in theory I might be able to run a fully virtualized Xen
> guest with VMware running inside it. It does seem a bit contorted to do
> so.....
Then you would be a Bad Ass Sys-Geek!


Stefan
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.7 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFHuar5YH1+F2Rqwn0RCvRyAJ0bE8hXZ4MWcZLHn1J/i8GAL07S5QCfaqWM
sokaJtbI7bJFo/5K/9DvacA=XnuC
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

_______________________________________________
Xen-users mailing list
Xen-users@lists.xensource.com
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users

On Mon, Feb 18, 2008 at 04:49:35PM +0100, Stefan de Konink
wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA512
> 
> Nico Kadel-Garcia schreef:
> > Evan Lavelle wrote:
> >> Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
> >>
> >>> So, I tried running VMWare Workstation on top of a Xen enabled
Dom0.
> >>> And VMWare promptly started up with a "You''re
running a Xen
> >>> Hypervisor! Bad sys-geek, no biscuit! We''re taking
our start-up tool
> >>> and going home, p-b-b-b-b-b-b-t-h!"
> >>>
> >>> Is this a well-founded refusal to start on their part, perhaps
due to
> >>> kernel behavior conflicts? Or is this an anti-competitive
move, to
> >>> avoid being able to run VMware Workstation on Xen
Dom0''s and force
> >>> people to select VMWare only? 
> >>
> >> No idea. But, I''m curious. What makes VMWare think that
anyone''s going
> >> to take them seriously after seeing error messages like that one?
Do
> >> they actually review their code before selling it to anybody?
> >>
> >> Evan
> > 
> > Well, the "bad sys-geek, no biscuit" and
"p-b-b-b-b-t-h" were me
> > elaborating on it, I''ll admit. I''m sorry, my
colorful sense of humor
> > seems to hve confused you: I''ll try to restrain myself on
this list.
> > 
> > The bit about refusing to run with a Xen hypervisor in place was very
> > clear, however. It might be justified, but the refusal to even try to
> > start up seemed excessively harsh. I''m happy to accept a
warning that
> > what I''m about to attempt with my software is a bad idea, but
I want a
> > reference to exactly what the problem is or at least the ability to
try
> > it, anyway, after insisting on the warning.
> 
> 
> Are you able to run VMWare in Qemu and/or if your host runs under HVM?
The vmmon module didn''t run under Xen. It complained about
couldn''t
start vm86 mode or some such, last time I tried (almost a year ago).

-- 
lfr
0/0


_______________________________________________
Xen-users mailing list
Xen-users@lists.xensource.com
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users

Stefan de Konink wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA512
>
> Nico Kadel-Garcia schreef:
>   
>> Evan Lavelle wrote:
>>     
>>> Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
>>>
>>>       
>>>> So, I tried running VMWare Workstation on top of a Xen enabled
Dom0.
>>>> And VMWare promptly started up with a "You''re
running a Xen
>>>> Hypervisor! Bad sys-geek, no biscuit! We''re taking our
start-up tool
>>>> and going home, p-b-b-b-b-b-b-t-h!"
>>>>
>>>> Is this a well-founded refusal to start on their part, perhaps
due to
>>>> kernel behavior conflicts? Or is this an anti-competitive move,
to
>>>> avoid being able to run VMware Workstation on Xen
Dom0''s and force
>>>> people to select VMWare only? 
>>>>         
>>> No idea. But, I''m curious. What makes VMWare think that
anyone''s going
>>> to take them seriously after seeing error messages like that one?
Do
>>> they actually review their code before selling it to anybody?
>>>
>>> Evan
>>>       
>> Well, the "bad sys-geek, no biscuit" and
"p-b-b-b-b-t-h" were me
>> elaborating on it, I''ll admit. I''m sorry, my colorful
sense of humor
>> seems to hve confused you: I''ll try to restrain myself on this
list.
>>
>> The bit about refusing to run with a Xen hypervisor in place was very
>> clear, however. It might be justified, but the refusal to even try to
>> start up seemed excessively harsh. I''m happy to accept a
warning that
>> what I''m about to attempt with my software is a bad idea, but
I want a
>> reference to exactly what the problem is or at least the ability to try
>> it, anyway, after insisting on the warning.
>>     
>
>
> Are you able to run VMWare in Qemu and/or if your host runs under HVM?
>   
I''ve not touched Qemu. The host does have an Intel CPU with HVM 
capability, so in theory I might be able to run a fully virtualized Xen 
guest with VMware running inside it. It does seem a bit contorted to do 
so.....

_______________________________________________
Xen-users mailing list
Xen-users@lists.xensource.com
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users

Javier Guerra wrote:
> On 2/18/08, Nico Kadel-Garcia <nkadel@gmail.com> wrote:
>   
>> The bit about refusing to run with a Xen hypervisor in place was very
>> clear, however. It might be justified, but the refusal to even try to
>> start up seemed excessively harsh. I''m happy to accept a
warning that
>> what I''m about to attempt with my software is a bad idea, but
I want a
>> reference to exactly what the problem is or at least the ability to try
>> it, anyway, after insisting on the warning.
>>     
>
> in most cases, "check; but try anyway" would be a serious bug
IMO.
>
> if you''re trying to run VMWare on PV, ''trying''
would definitely fail,
> and quite possibly crash the whole system.  that''s because PV
doesn''t
> emulate hardware, not even close.
>
> if it''s refusing to run on HVM... well, it _should_ run, possibly
with
> some limitations, and big overhead... but run.  then i would say
it''s
> not nice on VMWare''s part
>
>   
Javier, I was trying to do this on Dom0, not inside a DomU. I''ll take a
shot at a fully Xen virtualized DomU runn VMWare inside it, as soon as I 
get a few cycles.

_______________________________________________
Xen-users mailing list
Xen-users@lists.xensource.com
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users

VMware supports hardware virtualization.

VMware supported VMX (Intel Silicon virtualization) before Xen did, it was
the first product to launch with commercial support for hardware
virtualization.

ALL VMware products, including their FREE products support CPU and memory
virtualization.  Running VMware on top of Xen is redundant.

On Mon, Feb 18, 2008 at 4:36 AM, Sadique Puthen <sputhenp@redhat.com>
wrote:
> Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
> > I''ve been trying to virtualize SCO OpenServer 5.0.6 for
various
> > reasons, and found that the Xensource 4.x doesn''t support it,
nor does
> > the open source Xen 3.x in any of the environments I''ve
tried. It
> > works on VMware, but for various reasons I prefer to use Xen on my
> > Dom0. (I like open source, and the base OS for the commercial reasons
> > is much, much more recent, and I suspect the Xen Dom0 performance for
> > managing backup systems is superior.)
> >
> > So, I tried running VMWare Workstation on top of a Xen enabled Dom0.
> > And VMWare promptly started up with a "You''re running a
Xen
> > Hypervisor! Bad sys-geek, no biscuit! We''re taking our
start-up tool
> > and going home, p-b-b-b-b-b-b-t-h!"
> >
> > Is this a well-founded refusal to start on their part, perhaps due to
> > kernel behavior conflicts? Or is this an anti-competitive move,
>
> VMware requires that your host kernel be run in ring 0 (to do cpu
> scheduling, memory management and provide timer interrupts) where as in
> xen architecture hypervisor has taken ring 0 and deprivileged the guest
> kernel (dom0 kernel) to other rings. So running VMware on dom0
doesn''t
> allow it to virtualize cpu, memory. My 2 cents
>
> --Sadique
>
> > to avoid being able to run VMware Workstation on Xen Dom0''s
and force
> > people to select VMWare only? I''ve not taken apart the kernel
modules
> > well enough to tell, but I hate to have to dedicate entire servers to
> > VMware: it can absorb the resources I''d otherwise use to
provide Xen.
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Xen-users mailing list
> > Xen-users@lists.xensource.com
> > http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users
> >
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Xen-users mailing list
> Xen-users@lists.xensource.com
> http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users
>

_______________________________________________
Xen-users mailing list
Xen-users@lists.xensource.com
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users

ALL VMware products, including their FREE products support CPU and memory
virtualization.  Running VMware on top of Xen is redundant.
 
In most cases you may be right - it may be redundant - but not in all cases. 
I''ve run into situations where I''d like to run VMware in my
dom0.  One case was where I have a 32-bit box with 2 CPUs and 8GB of RAM. 
Because it''s 32-bit, I can''t run HVM (Windows) on Xen so
I''d like to be able to use VMware in dom0 for my Windows VMs and then
use Xen for my Linux VMs.  VMware''s products, including their free
ones, may do CPU and memory virtualization, but most of them don''t do
paravirtualization, which has some great performance benefits for kernels that
support it.  In my case, I ended up settling for Qemu on Xen in my dom0 for
Windows and Linux PV domUs.  As an added benefit to using Qemu, I can swap the
disk images between Xen HVM on my 64-bit machines and Qemu on my 32-bit
machines.
 
-Nick

>>> On 2008/02/22 at 12:29, "Ndex Server"
<ndex.srvr@gmail.com> wrote:
VMware supports hardware virtualization.
 
VMware supported VMX (Intel Silicon virtualization) before Xen did, it was the
first product to launch with commercial support for hardware virtualization.
 


 
On Mon, Feb 18, 2008 at 4:36 AM, Sadique Puthen <sputhenp@redhat.com>
wrote:


Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
> I''ve been trying to virtualize SCO OpenServer 5.0.6 for various
> reasons, and found that the Xensource 4.x doesn''t support it, nor
does
> the open source Xen 3.x in any of the environments I''ve tried. It
> works on VMware, but for various reasons I prefer to use Xen on my
> Dom0. (I like open source, and the base OS for the commercial reasons
> is much, much more recent, and I suspect the Xen Dom0 performance for
> managing backup systems is superior.)
>
> So, I tried running VMWare Workstation on top of a Xen enabled Dom0.
> And VMWare promptly started up with a "You''re running a Xen
> Hypervisor! Bad sys-geek, no biscuit! We''re taking our start-up
tool
> and going home, p-b-b-b-b-b-b-t-h!"
>
> Is this a well-founded refusal to start on their part, perhaps due to
> kernel behavior conflicts? Or is this an anti-competitive move,
VMware requires that your host kernel be run in ring 0 (to do cpu
scheduling, memory management and provide timer interrupts) where as in
xen architecture hypervisor has taken ring 0 and deprivileged the guest
kernel (dom0 kernel) to other rings. So running VMware on dom0 doesn''t
allow it to virtualize cpu, memory. My 2 cents

--Sadique

> to avoid being able to run VMware Workstation on Xen Dom0''s and
force
> people to select VMWare only? I''ve not taken apart the kernel
modules
> well enough to tell, but I hate to have to dedicate entire servers to
> VMware: it can absorb the resources I''d otherwise use to provide
Xen.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Xen-users mailing list
> Xen-users@lists.xensource.com 
> http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users 
>

_______________________________________________
Xen-users mailing list
Xen-users@lists.xensource.com 
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users 




This e-mail may contain confidential and privileged material for the sole use of
the intended recipient.  If this email is not intended for you, or you are not
responsible for the delivery of this message to the intended recipient, please
note that this message may contain SEAKR Engineering (SEAKR)
Privileged/Proprietary Information.  In such a case, you are strictly prohibited
from downloading, photocopying, distributing or otherwise using this message,
its contents or attachments in any way.  If you have received this message in
error, please notify us immediately by replying to this e-mail and delete the
message from your mailbox.  Information contained in this message that does not
relate to the business of SEAKR is neither endorsed by nor attributable to
SEAKR.


_______________________________________________
Xen-users mailing list
Xen-users@lists.xensource.com
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users

VMware is a fully functional, full featured virtualization engine.  It
supports hardware and paravirtualization.

You don''t run Xen *and* VMware together, that''s the equivalent
of running
Solaris NIS+ inside Linux chroot.

VMware is a *closed* source commercial product which does provide a few open
source packages.  Xen is an open source project which (under their new
Citrix masters) also provides commercial products.

The reason to choose Xen over VMware are the same reason you''d choose
Linux
over Solaris.  Cost, support services and access to the open source.

What you''re suggesting is running nested hypervisors, there''s
NO performance
advantage, no security advantage, no virutalization advantage.

What you are trying to do is completely illogical -- the VMware hypervisor
and the Xen hypervisor cannot *both* own ring0.

Load a VMware Server instance on a Linux 32 bit host (on EM64T hardware)
with VMX enabled then load an EM64T Guest, sent debug = "TRUE" in the
guest
.vmx configuration file and read the vmware.log output file.

Full virtualization.

Then burn the box and invite everyone to the party.

Cheers,
ndex


On Tue, Feb 19, 2008 at 12:38 AM, Nico Kadel-Garcia <nkadel@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Javier Guerra wrote:
> > On 2/18/08, Nico Kadel-Garcia <nkadel@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> The bit about refusing to run with a Xen hypervisor in place was
very
> >> clear, however. It might be justified, but the refusal to even try
to
> >> start up seemed excessively harsh. I''m happy to accept a
warning that
> >> what I''m about to attempt with my software is a bad idea,
but I want a
> >> reference to exactly what the problem is or at least the ability
to try
> >> it, anyway, after insisting on the warning.
> >>
> >
> > in most cases, "check; but try anyway" would be a serious
bug IMO.
> >
> > if you''re trying to run VMWare on PV,
''trying'' would definitely fail,
> > and quite possibly crash the whole system.  that''s because PV
doesn''t
> > emulate hardware, not even close.
> >
> > if it''s refusing to run on HVM... well, it _should_ run,
possibly with
> > some limitations, and big overhead... but run.  then i would say
it''s
> > not nice on VMWare''s part
> >
> >
> Javier, I was trying to do this on Dom0, not inside a DomU. I''ll
take a
> shot at a fully Xen virtualized DomU runn VMWare inside it, as soon as I
> get a few cycles.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Xen-users mailing list
> Xen-users@lists.xensource.com
> http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users
>

_______________________________________________
Xen-users mailing list
Xen-users@lists.xensource.com
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users

It supports hardware and paravirtualization.
Only very recent versions of VMware support paravirtualization - this is a very
new feature and, to my knowledge, only works on ESX 3.5 right now. 
Paravirtualization requires modification of the guest kernel - MOST VMware
products do NOT require that the guest kernel be modified and do not run
correctly with a PV guest kernel - unless you know something about PV support in
VMware that I don''t.  If you have found Workstation, Player, or Server
to support (provide) PV kernels, I''d be very interested to hear how you
got that to work - I''ve not heard anything about that.
 
The reason to choose Xen over VMware are the same reason you''d choose
Linux over Solaris.  Cost, support services and access to the open source.
 
Maybe so, for the most part, but I choose Xen over VMware due to performance, as
well.  Since I don''t have ESX 3.5 running in my datacenter (yet), I can
only get PV support (O/Ss that are AWARE they are being virtualized) in Xen.
 
-Nick
>>> On 2008/02/22 at 12:42, "Ndex Server"
<ndex.srvr@gmail.com> wrote:
VMware is a fully functional, full featured virtualization engine.  It supports
hardware and paravirtualization.
 
You don''t run Xen *and* VMware together, that''s the equivalent
of running Solaris NIS+ inside Linux chroot.
 
VMware is a *closed* source commercial product which does provide a few open
source packages.  Xen is an open source project which (under their new Citrix
masters) also provides commercial products.
 
The reason to choose Xen over VMware are the same reason you''d choose
Linux over Solaris.  Cost, support services and access to the open source.
 
What you''re suggesting is running nested hypervisors, there''s
NO performance advantage, no security advantage, no virutalization advantage.
 
What you are trying to do is completely illogical -- the VMware hypervisor and
the Xen hypervisor cannot *both* own ring0.
 
Load a VMware Server instance on a Linux 32 bit host (on EM64T hardware) with
VMX enabled then load an EM64T Guest, sent debug = "TRUE" in the guest
.vmx configuration file and read the vmware.log output file.
 
Full virtualization.
 
Then burn the box and invite everyone to the party.
 
Cheers,
ndex
 
 
On Tue, Feb 19, 2008 at 12:38 AM, Nico Kadel-Garcia <nkadel@gmail.com>
wrote:


Javier Guerra wrote:
> On 2/18/08, Nico Kadel-Garcia <nkadel@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> The bit about refusing to run with a Xen hypervisor in place was very
>> clear, however. It might be justified, but the refusal to even try to
>> start up seemed excessively harsh. I''m happy to accept a
warning that
>> what I''m about to attempt with my software is a bad idea, but
I want a
>> reference to exactly what the problem is or at least the ability to try
>> it, anyway, after insisting on the warning.
>>
>
> in most cases, "check; but try anyway" would be a serious bug
IMO.
>
> if you''re trying to run VMWare on PV, ''trying''
would definitely fail,
> and quite possibly crash the whole system.  that''s because PV
doesn''t
> emulate hardware, not even close.
>
> if it''s refusing to run on HVM... well, it _should_ run, possibly
with
> some limitations, and big overhead... but run.  then i would say
it''s
> not nice on VMWare''s part
>
>
Javier, I was trying to do this on Dom0, not inside a DomU. I''ll take a
shot at a fully Xen virtualized DomU runn VMWare inside it, as soon as I
get a few cycles.

_______________________________________________
Xen-users mailing list
Xen-users@lists.xensource.com 
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users 




This e-mail may contain confidential and privileged material for the sole use of
the intended recipient.  If this email is not intended for you, or you are not
responsible for the delivery of this message to the intended recipient, please
note that this message may contain SEAKR Engineering (SEAKR)
Privileged/Proprietary Information.  In such a case, you are strictly prohibited
from downloading, photocopying, distributing or otherwise using this message,
its contents or attachments in any way.  If you have received this message in
error, please notify us immediately by replying to this e-mail and delete the
message from your mailbox.  Information contained in this message that does not
relate to the business of SEAKR is neither endorsed by nor attributable to
SEAKR.


_______________________________________________
Xen-users mailing list
Xen-users@lists.xensource.com
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users

On 2/22/08, Ndex Server <ndex.srvr@gmail.com>
wrote:
> What you are trying to do is completely illogical -- the VMware hypervisor
> and the Xen hypervisor cannot *both* own ring0.
certainly running vmware on a PV DomU is absurd, since it doesn''t have
access to ring0, not even in kernelspace.

but in Dom0... any userspace app should run, and ''most'' kernel
modules
should also. Qemu runs as a pure userspace app, but kqemu has
problems... maybe solved now that it''s open source?

it would be very nice of VMWare if it could run in a ''pure
userspace''
mode... but i guess it''s too different architecture and too few little
market for such a feature.

-- 
Javier

_______________________________________________
Xen-users mailing list
Xen-users@lists.xensource.com
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users

Ndex Server wrote:
> What you''re suggesting is running nested hypervisors,
there''s NO
> performance advantage, no security advantage, no virutalization advantage.
He didn''t say there was. Read his post again; what he actually said,
and
what you quoted, was:
>> It
>> works on VMware, but for various reasons I prefer to use Xen on my
>> Dom0. (I like open source, and the base OS for the commercial reasons
>> is much, much more recent, and I suspect the Xen Dom0 performance for
>> managing backup systems is superior.)
You said:
> What you are trying to do is completely illogical -- the VMware
> hypervisor and the Xen hypervisor cannot *both* own ring0.
What Nico said was:
> Hmm. Does a Xen DomU look to the unsespecting local environment like
> a ring 0 kernel, especially in full virtualization rather than
> para-virtualization? It would be contorted, but would allow me to
> keep my Dom0 as a Xen host, at a serious but potentially acceptable
> performance loss.
That seems like a good question to me. If you can''t virtualise
something
that thinks it''s running in ring 0, then it seems to me that
you''re not
virtualising at all.

-Evan


_______________________________________________
Xen-users mailing list
Xen-users@lists.xensource.com
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users

*I can only get PV support (O/Ss that are AWARE they are being virtualized)
in Xen.*
**
This is one of the things makes this absolutely the most fascinating tech
topic in the industry today, imo.

It seems a lot of extra effort to have to deal with OSes that are aware
they''re virtualized.  Windows, for example, likes to self destruct
under
those circumstances which is why we''re all here...

My current reason for using Xen is to get DMA remapping support for PCIE
devices with VMX enabled CPUs, so I must admit to a prejudice to urging the
techology forward in favor of my own nefarious purposes o_O.

Experiments with hardware virtualization have shown that VMware''s
Server
provides the superior performance with VMX enabled platforms over Xen
3.2but I''m hoping that the networking issues will settle down and the
*issues*
with the various BIOS vendors will be, uhm, rectified so VT-d support will
work or... something.  Meanwhile, I''ve been running VMware Server
without
VT-d because I want to be able to use unmodified guests.  PV isn''t
really
appealing to me.

My chief complaint about VMware is that I''m tired of the 440BX chipset
presented to the guest.  It''s like some bad IT job that can''t
be escaped.
It''s solid as a rock and it supports all the legacy hardware out there
so
90% of the legacy x86 server farms can be run on it trivially.  It just
seems pointless to me to use VMware unless you really have a need for that
440BX emulator.

At any rate, one solution to the problem may not be in VMwares hands but in
Xen''s.  The inability to *host* VMware is not VMware''s
failure, it is
Xen''s.  VMware workstation is a user space app, as is KVM.  It would be
Xen
that is blocking VMware''s access to ring 0, wouldn''t it?  
Unless
you install VMware as a module and load it in place of qemu?

I''m morbidly fascinated by the problem, but you''d have to pay
me to work on
it my friend!!  :-D

ndex




On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 12:35 PM, Nick Couchman <Nick.Couchman@seakr.com>
wrote:
>  *It supports hardware and paravirtualization.*
> Only very recent versions of VMware support paravirtualization - this is a
> very new feature and, to my knowledge, only works on ESX 3.5 right now.
> Paravirtualization requires modification of the guest kernel - MOST VMware
> products do NOT require that the guest kernel be modified and do not run
> correctly with a PV guest kernel - unless you know something about PV
> support in VMware that I don''t.  If you have found Workstation,
Player, or
> Server to support (provide) PV kernels, I''d be very interested to
hear how
> you got that to work - I''ve not heard anything about that.
>
>  *The reason to choose Xen over VMware are the same reason you''d
choose
> Linux over Solaris.  Cost, support services and access to the open source.
> *
>
> Maybe so, for the most part, but I choose Xen over VMware due to
> performance, as well.  Since I don''t have ESX 3.5 running in my
datacenter
> (yet), I can only get PV support (O/Ss that are AWARE they are being
> virtualized) in Xen.
>
> -Nick
>
> >>> On 2008/02/22 at 12:42, "Ndex Server"
<ndex.srvr@gmail.com> wrote:
>  VMware is a fully functional, full featured virtualization engine.  It
> supports hardware and paravirtualization.
>
> You don''t run Xen *and* VMware together, that''s the
equivalent of running
> Solaris NIS+ inside Linux chroot.
>
> VMware is a *closed* source commercial product which does provide a few
> open source packages.  Xen is an open source project which (under their new
> Citrix masters) also provides commercial products.
>
> The reason to choose Xen over VMware are the same reason you''d
choose
> Linux over Solaris.  Cost, support services and access to the open source.
>
> What you''re suggesting is running nested hypervisors,
there''s NO
> performance advantage, no security advantage, no virutalization advantage.
>
> What you are trying to do is completely illogical -- the VMware hypervisor
> and the Xen hypervisor cannot *both* own ring0.
>
> Load a VMware Server instance on a Linux 32 bit host (on EM64T hardware)
> with VMX enabled then load an EM64T Guest, sent debug = "TRUE" in
the guest
> .vmx configuration file and read the vmware.log output file.
>
> Full virtualization.
>
> Then burn the box and invite everyone to the party.
>
> Cheers,
> ndex
>
>
> On Tue, Feb 19, 2008 at 12:38 AM, Nico Kadel-Garcia
<nkadel@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Javier Guerra wrote:
> > > On 2/18/08, Nico Kadel-Garcia <nkadel@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >> The bit about refusing to run with a Xen hypervisor in place
was very
> > >> clear, however. It might be justified, but the refusal to
even try to
> > >> start up seemed excessively harsh. I''m happy to
accept a warning that
> > >> what I''m about to attempt with my software is a bad
idea, but I want
> > a
> > >> reference to exactly what the problem is or at least the
ability to
> > try
> > >> it, anyway, after insisting on the warning.
> > >>
> > >
> > > in most cases, "check; but try anyway" would be a
serious bug IMO.
> > >
> > > if you''re trying to run VMWare on PV,
''trying'' would definitely fail,
> > > and quite possibly crash the whole system.  that''s
because PV doesn''t
> > > emulate hardware, not even close.
> > >
> > > if it''s refusing to run on HVM... well, it _should_ run,
possibly with
> > > some limitations, and big overhead... but run.  then i would say
it''s
> > > not nice on VMWare''s part
> > >
> > >
> > Javier, I was trying to do this on Dom0, not inside a DomU.
I''ll take a
> > shot at a fully Xen virtualized DomU runn VMWare inside it, as soon as
I
> > get a few cycles.
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Xen-users mailing list
> > Xen-users@lists.xensource.com
> > http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users
> >
>
>   ------------------------------
> This e-mail may contain confidential and privileged material for the sole
> use of the intended recipient. If this email is not intended for you, or
you
> are not responsible for the delivery of this message to the intended
> recipient, please note that this message may contain SEAKR Engineering
> (SEAKR) Privileged/Proprietary Information. In such a case, you are
strictly
> prohibited from downloading, photocopying, distributing or otherwise using
> this message, its contents or attachments in any way. If you have received
> this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying to this
> e-mail and delete the message from your mailbox. Information contained in
> this message that does not relate to the business of SEAKR is neither
> endorsed by nor attributable to SEAKR.
>
>

_______________________________________________
Xen-users mailing list
Xen-users@lists.xensource.com
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users

Ndex Server wrote:
> /I can only get PV support (O/Ss that are AWARE they are being 
> virtualized) in Xen./
> // 
> This is one of the things makes this absolutely the most fascinating 
> tech topic in the industry today, imo. 
>  
> It seems a lot of extra effort to have to deal with OSes that are 
> aware they''re virtualized.  Windows, for example, likes to self 
> destruct under those circumstances which is why we''re all here...
>  
> My current reason for using Xen is to get DMA remapping support for 
> PCIE devices with VMX enabled CPUs, so I must admit to a prejudice to 
> urging the techology forward in favor of my own nefarious purposes o_O.
>  
> Experiments with hardware virtualization have shown that VMware''s 
> Server provides the superior performance with VMX enabled platforms 
> over Xen 3.2 but I''m hoping that the networking issues will settle
> down and the *issues* with the various BIOS vendors will be, uhm, 
> rectified so VT-d support will work or... something.  Meanwhile,
I''ve
> been running VMware Server without VT-d because I want to be able to 
> use unmodified guests.  PV isn''t really appealing to me.
>  
> My chief complaint about VMware is that I''m tired of the 440BX
chipset
> presented to the guest.  It''s like some bad IT job that
can''t be
> escaped.  It''s solid as a rock and it supports all the legacy
hardware
> out there so 90% of the legacy x86 server farms can be run on it 
> trivially.  It just seems pointless to me to use VMware unless you 
> really have a need for that 440BX emulator.
>  
> At any rate, one solution to the problem may not be in VMwares hands 
> but in Xen''s.  The inability to *host* VMware is not
VMware''s failure,
> it is Xen''s.
Xen''s use case is not putting VMware to work on top of it, but to make 
guests working on top of it. So putting vmware to work on top of xen may 
not be interesting for  xen developers as well.

--Sadique
>  VMware workstation is a user space app, as is KVM.  It would be Xen 
> that is blocking VMware''s access to ring 0, wouldn''t it? 
Unless
> you install VMware as a module and load it in place of qemu?
>  
> I''m morbidly fascinated by the problem, but you''d have to
pay me to
> work on it my friend!!  :-D
>  
> ndex 
>  
>  
>
>  
>
> On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 12:35 PM, Nick Couchman 
> <Nick.Couchman@seakr.com <mailto:Nick.Couchman@seakr.com>>
wrote:
>
>     /It supports hardware and paravirtualization./
>     Only very recent versions of VMware support paravirtualization -
>     this is a very new feature and, to my knowledge, only works on ESX
>     3.5 right now.  Paravirtualization requires modification of the
>     guest kernel - MOST VMware products do NOT require that the guest
>     kernel be modified and do not run correctly with a PV guest kernel
>     - unless you know something about PV support in VMware that I
>     don''t.  If you have found Workstation, Player, or Server to
>     support (provide) PV kernels, I''d be very interested to hear
how
>     you got that to work - I''ve not heard anything about that.
>      
>     /The reason to choose Xen over VMware are the same reason
you''d
>     choose Linux over Solaris.  Cost, support services and access to
>     the open source.  /
>      
>     Maybe so, for the most part, but I choose Xen over VMware due to
>     performance, as well.  Since I don''t have ESX 3.5 running in
my
>     datacenter (yet), I can only get PV support (O/Ss that are AWARE
>     they are being virtualized) in Xen.
>      
>     -Nick
>
>     >>> On 2008/02/22 at 12:42, "Ndex Server"
<ndex.srvr@gmail.com
>     <mailto:ndex.srvr@gmail.com>> wrote:
>     VMware is a fully functional, full featured virtualization
>     engine.  It supports hardware and paravirtualization.
>      
>     You don''t run Xen *and* VMware together, that''s the
equivalent
>     of running Solaris NIS+ inside Linux chroot.
>      
>     VMware is a *closed* source commercial product which does provide
>     a few open source packages.  Xen is an open source project which
>     (under their new Citrix masters) also provides commercial products.
>      
>     The reason to choose Xen over VMware are the same reason you''d
>     choose Linux over Solaris.  Cost, support services and access to
>     the open source. 
>      
>     What you''re suggesting is running nested hypervisors,
there''s NO
>     performance advantage, no security advantage, no virutalization
>     advantage.
>      
>     What you are trying to do is completely illogical -- the VMware
>     hypervisor and the Xen hypervisor cannot *both* own ring0.
>      
>     Load a VMware Server instance on a Linux 32 bit host (on EM64T
>     hardware) with VMX enabled then load an EM64T Guest, sent debug >   
"TRUE" in the guest .vmx configuration file and read the
>     vmware.log output file. 
>      
>     Full virtualization.
>      
>     Then burn the box and invite everyone to the party.
>      
>     Cheers,
>     ndex
>      
>      
>     On Tue, Feb 19, 2008 at 12:38 AM, Nico Kadel-Garcia
>     <nkadel@gmail.com <mailto:nkadel@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>         Javier Guerra wrote:
>         > On 2/18/08, Nico Kadel-Garcia <nkadel@gmail.com
>         <mailto:nkadel@gmail.com>> wrote:
>         >
>         >> The bit about refusing to run with a Xen hypervisor in
>         place was very
>         >> clear, however. It might be justified, but the refusal to
>         even try to
>         >> start up seemed excessively harsh. I''m happy to
accept a
>         warning that
>         >> what I''m about to attempt with my software is a
bad idea,
>         but I want a
>         >> reference to exactly what the problem is or at least the
>         ability to try
>         >> it, anyway, after insisting on the warning.
>         >>
>         >
>         > in most cases, "check; but try anyway" would be a
serious
>         bug IMO.
>         >
>         > if you''re trying to run VMWare on PV,
''trying'' would
>         definitely fail,
>         > and quite possibly crash the whole system.  that''s
because
>         PV doesn''t
>         > emulate hardware, not even close.
>         >
>         > if it''s refusing to run on HVM... well, it _should_
run,
>         possibly with
>         > some limitations, and big overhead... but run.  then i would
>         say it''s
>         > not nice on VMWare''s part
>         >
>         >
>         Javier, I was trying to do this on Dom0, not inside a DomU.
>         I''ll take a
>         shot at a fully Xen virtualized DomU runn VMWare inside it, as
>         soon as I
>         get a few cycles.
>
>         _______________________________________________
>         Xen-users mailing list
>         Xen-users@lists.xensource.com
>         <mailto:Xen-users@lists.xensource.com>
>         http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users
>
>
>    
------------------------------------------------------------------------
>     This e-mail may contain confidential and privileged material for
>     the sole use of the intended recipient. If this email is not
>     intended for you, or you are not responsible for the delivery of
>     this message to the intended recipient, please note that this
>     message may contain SEAKR Engineering (SEAKR)
>     Privileged/Proprietary Information. In such a case, you are
>     strictly prohibited from downloading, photocopying, distributing
>     or otherwise using this message, its contents or attachments in
>     any way. If you have received this message in error, please notify
>     us immediately by replying to this e-mail and delete the message
>     from your mailbox. Information contained in this message that does
>     not relate to the business of SEAKR is neither endorsed by nor
>     attributable to SEAKR.
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Xen-users mailing list
> Xen-users@lists.xensource.com
> http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users

_______________________________________________
Xen-users mailing list
Xen-users@lists.xensource.com
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users