Initially, Hyper-V Server was sort of a mystery. Some kind of “bare metal hypervisor” that “is not Windows” sounded peculiar. Details were scarce. Some thought it would be like ESXi, a small-footprint design that can be embedded in a server via flash memory. As you know, it turned out to be nothing more than Windows Server Core.
Now that Hyper-V Server has been out for a while. I thought it would be amusing to go back and look at some of the “Get Virtual Now” rhetoric that was pouring out of Redmond before the release.
I hope you enjoy this Hyper-bol-V montage:
[flv]https://vcritical.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/hyper-bol-v.f4v[/flv]
(Visited 147 times, 1 visits today)
Some windows technologies…. 😀
What do you mean by “turned out to be nothing more than Windows Server Core”? Are you trying to imply that Windows Server Core IS running the hypervisor (like a hosted hypervisor – VMWare Server/VS2005). Or Server Core runs in the parent partition that sits on top of the hypervisor (like ESX 3.0 and 3.5 run a Linux variant in the console os)?
If the former… then check your facts. If the latter… then whats the point of this post?
Dear Microsoft Employee,
It is the latter, and it sounds like you have not actually watched the video. If you do, you will understand that some people think it is humorous to hear the MSFT program manager say that Hyper-V Server is based on components that are “not necessarily from Windows” when, in fact, it is absolutely nothing but Windows.
Thanks for stopping by.
Eric
Dear Eric,
I did watch the video and I still think your comments are bogus.
Is ESX == Linux? No of course not. Someone like you is smart enough to know that the hypervisor OS and the console OS are seperate. But of course that did not stop the masses from assuming that ESX == Linux because what they see and interacte with is Linux (of course not so much for 3i).
But now you are taking the approach of the masses and assuming that Hyper-V == Windows. The Hypervisor OS is NOT the parent partition OS. Yes the architecture is different from ESX… in fact Hyper-V is very similiar to Xen. Would you say Xen == Linux?
All the Type I hypervisors on the market now (ESX, Hyper-V, and Xen) differ mostly in the architecture (e.g. drivers in the hypervisor vs in the parent/Dom0 partition). Aside from that, the hypervisor code is built from the ground up by each of the respective companies that own the technology (Xen of course lives in the open source and closed source would) in all three cases. Hyper-V is not a derivative of Windows. Same like ESX is not a derivative of Redhat.
This debate has gone off the rails due to a simple misunderstanding.
First, to clarify, I am not trying to say that Hyper-V is a hosted hypervisor. This article has nothing to do with the relative importance of a service console/parent partition.
Secondly, the focus here is on a product called “Microsoft Hyper-V Server” and not the Hyper-V role that is part of Windows Server 2008. The difference between these two is the key.
Before “Hyper-V Server” (not Hyper-V) was released, there was some chatter about it being similar to ESXi: small footprint, no general-purpose OS parent partition. This is what I am trying to point out in the video montage. “It’s not necessarily Windows” and “right on the surface” (whatever that means) are humorous in hindsight when the product is virtually identical to Server Core 2008 Standard.
To clarify one more time: I am not trying to say that Hyper-V runs on Windows. I am pointing out that, just like Hyper-V, Hyper-V Server has a Windows parent partition (and requires Internet Explorer hotfixes).
This video and conversation in the scope of things is a real yawner!!! The Hypervisor is just an enabler moving forward that no one will spend any time discussing. So thes types of discussions will go the way of the garbage to be replaced completley by management of the physical and virtual environment and unification of datacenter services. Have a nice time creating useless videos.
Do you realize that this video is well over a year old? Hyper-V was a newborn.
Al,
if you are trying to imply that hypervisors are going to be commoditized, that may be the case in the long run but certainly not in the short term. There are out there a (long) string of customers that are not fully virtualized simply because they think (perception or reality) that a virtual machine is not quite like a physical server (from a performance perspective). So as you can see there is room for improvement (hence differentiation at that level too).
In addition to that, with new deployment models (i.e. Cloud) SLAs are becoming of paramount importance. Certainly there are things that you can do at the “management layer” (VMotion / DRS etc etc) but there are other things that you have to deal at the Hypervisor level (Network QoS etc etc). Again ESX is not quite there just yet (let alone Hyper-V). Enormous improvement opportunity.
All in all your “management-centric” view is not wrong in principle: it’s crystal clear that in the long run the value is going to be exploited at a level that is different than the level of the Hypervisor. Having this said, to make a parallel, building a castle on the sand may not be one of the smartest engineering decisions. And I don’t want to imply that Hyper-V is that bad. It’s OK ….. but stating that ESX = Hyper-V = who bothers …. well ….
My 2 cents.
Massimo.
P.S. Yes I work for VMware….. (for a reason…. 😉 )