Microsoft and Citrix Systems hosted a virtual desktop love-in Thursday, talking about how their respective desktop virtualization products mesh well and how the companies will continue to cooperate in the future. Microsoft also lifted the veil on upcoming service packs for Windows Server 2008 R2 and Windows 7, which have …
similar to hot add
maybe similar to vSphere's hot add feature,
I don't know if it supports hot remove, I've never tested the feature itself. Most of the work needs to be done in the OS, to be able to gracefully detect new memory and new cpu, I imagine it's significantly more complex for the guest OS to do hot remove, at least with memory.
"If this sounds like Microsoft's Dynamic Memory to you, join the club."
Not to me. It sounds more like the Xen method, whereby the memory allocated to a VM can be changed dynamically, and the guest kernel has been modified to cope with this.
Totally different to ESX overcommit, whereby the guest gets a never changing amount of memory.
...we have apps that take a huge amount of horsepower and RAM to fire up, then 95% of the time sits there doing bugger all. Choice has always been loads of RAM that then sits idle or little RAM, then the app takes an eternity to fire up.
Wake me up when it's 1970 again
Every time I hear about amazing new things that VMMs can do, I'm reminded of the evolution of OSes in the 50s and 60s. So you can dynamically expand the memory available to a process ^H^H^H OS, now? Gosh!
A Quantum Leap Morph for the Cloud Control Crowd ...... the Few *
There is still a long way for Microsoft to go before they even come close to the System Processing which dDelivers Deja Vu and Precogniscence with AIDynamic Future Memory Banks/MetaDataBase Stores ........ which would be what you may know of as Core Source and Lode Vein in Pre Virtualisation Operating Systems.
Get rid of the middle man
All this effort so an OS can run virtualised so why not get rid of the OS?
Just have processes run directly on the hypervisor which can allocate memory to them as and when they need and provide I/O facilities and so forth...
.... errr wait a minute , that sounds like an OS...
VMs - I just don't get the point of them. OS's already "virtualise" process so what the hell is the point of virtualising the OS itself?
A King's Ransom for the LOVE of GOD*
"VMs - I just don't get the point of them. OS's already "virtualise" process so what the hell is the point of virtualising the OS itself?" ...... boltar Posted Friday 19th March 2010 15:07 GMT , "Get rid of the middle man".
boltar, In the Quantum Communications Field, it has Everything to do with getting rid of the top and middle men in OSs and thus delivering OS Kernel Control to Remote Virtual Reality Programmers.
With such Powers are they then Beta Enabled to Deliver to the Present, Future Projects with AIdDevelopments in Advanced Intelligence and CyberIntelAIgent Security Systems.
* The Sore Loser will Pimp and Pump the Sour Grapes and Squeal that such is just as a Pirates' Danegeld Payment for the Live Operational Virtual Environment of Global Operating Devices .... but who cares, and why bother wasting Time in Space denying it, or even agreeing with them on it, whenever their Own Systemic Faults and Abiding Failings Result in them not having the Necessary Vital and Viral Intelligence to Dare Share and Win Win in a Novel AIRace for Hearts and Minds.
There are various reasons for virtualising operating systems:
- Applications requiring different OS/patch levels
- Applications requiring the same resources (e.g. all binding to the same TCP port)
- Multiple instances of the same application which can't co-exist
- Security separation of applications/users
To be honest, it's mainly a Windows thing; in most cases, you run one application per server. Multiple applications on a single OS instance tended to fail horribly on Windows, although it can be done on Unix/linux a lot more safely.
"Applications requiring different OS/patch levels"
Yeah, and in three years time we won't just have DLL hell, we'll have VMversion hell too, because Windows version Q is incompatible with/unqualifed on VM version P.
A band aid on an elastoplast on a wart on a lump of s..t.
How about writing proper apps on proper OSes in the first instance? It might actually be more cost effective.
I use VMs to test our software & websites on 8 different OS's with different service packs installed running different browsers. It's much cheaper and uses far less space than setting up 8 physical computers!
And in the data centre we can remove several old-ish servers and replace them with a new more powerful server running VMs. This provides a cost saving because we buy less hardware, have less hardware to maintain and it consumes a lot less power.
Billy Friggin Whiz
"With the Windows Virtual Desktop Access (VDA) add-on to the SA license, the price drops to $100 per year per device, and now that device can be anything you want - a mobile phone, an airport kiosk, Microsoft doesn't care. These SA license changes take effect July 1."
How many times do you have to pay for the same copy of windows just to use it in a sensible way? Eventually we will just be giving MS money every year to run their tat on a subscription basis.
Two licences please OEM and enterprise. Enterprise gets to put them on real hardware or virtualware and can access them in whichever way they want to for 150 quid a head one off payment, or we start to walk away to the open source community.
- Put down that Oracle database patch: It could cost $23,000 per CPU
- The END of the FONDLESLAB KINGS? Apple and Samsung have reason to FEAR
- Pics It's Google HQ - the British one: Reg man snaps covert shots INSIDE London offices
- DAYS from end of life as we know it: Boffins tell of solar storm near-miss
- Bose decides today IS F*** With Dre Day: Beats sued in patent spat