c


 
   
c

 
Likeoriginalofferingsfrom market pioneerVMwareandothers, Microsoft'scurrent server virtualisation
product, Virtual Server 2005, is a hosted solution, designedto run as anapplication on top of a
standard operating system. In Microsoft's case that means Windows Server 2003, the Virtual Server
software sharing out the server's processors, memory, disk, networkandother I/O interfaces between
multiple virtual machines (VMs) via the host OS.

A hypervisor changes allthat, removing the needfor a host operating system. At least, there's no host
OS in a format most of uswouldrecognise; however, to save havingtoreinvent the wheel, most
implementationsborrowquite a bit fromeither Linux, Unix or Windows. Thatsaid, a hypervisor
canstillbeinstalleddirectlyonto a bare server, enablingittocommunicatedirectlywith the supporting
hardware ratherthan via anintervening OS.

This approach is designedtodeliver a number of potential benefits, the first of which is enhanced
performance. This is made possiblebecauseanordinary operating system has to do a lot of
otherworkbesideslookingafterguestVMs. Thisincludestaskssuch as file and printer sharing, and
hosting services, applicationsandso on. A hypervisor, on the other hand, canbeoptimisedpurelyfor
the task of running virtual machines. The end result is, typically, the abilityto host more virtual
machines on the same hardware and/or improvetheir level of performance.

Second, although a hypervisor does littletoenhance security at the individual virtual machine levels,
thereshouldbe far fewervulnerabilities in the underlying hypervisor code comparedto a standard host
OS, making for a much more secure solution overall.

Andthird, costreduction is yetanotherpossible benefit, as there's no needtolicence a host OS before

virtual machines canbedeployed. However, thisreallyonlyappliesto Windows implementationsand,
eventhen, itisn't a major issue.

Of course there are alsodisadvantageswithhypervisors. For example, they are much more hardware-
specificthanhostedvirtualisation products. Even so, hypervisors are generallyseen as a goodthingand
a number of established products are alreadyavailable Ͷ most notably, VMware's market leading
ESX Server plus variousimplementations of the open-source Xen hypervisor from the likes of Red Hat,
Novell and, sinceitsacquisition of XenSource, Citrix.

cc
  

Microsoft's Hyper-V differssignificantlyfrom most existing hypervisor products. To begin with, the
latteralltendtobebased on Linux/Unix code, whereasMicrosoft's hypervisor
(originallycodenamedViridianbeforebeingrechristened) is tightlybound up withits new server
operating system, Windows Server 2008. But there are otherdifferencestoo.

For example, although Hyper-V is installeddirectlyonto server hardware, enablingitto host multiple
virtual machines in logically separate 'partitions', the primary or 'parent' partition has to run
Windows Server 2008. Thismay sound contraryto the hypervisor ethos, but isn'treally. Rather, Hyper-
V takes advantage of drivers and services within the Windows software
tobothbettercommunicatewith the supporting hardware andtoprovidefor management. Microsoft
describesthis as a 'micro-kernelised' architecture, enablingittominimise the footprint of the core
Hyper-V code whilestilldelivering a rich set of features.

WithMicrosoft's Hyper-V, Windows Server 2008 (or a subset of it) must be running in the
parentpartition.

Despiteitsdependence on Windows, it'salso important tounderstandthatyoudon'tneed the full server

OS for Hyper-V towork. The full product canbe run in the parentpartitionifyou want, and Windows
Server 2008 purchasedwith the virtualisation component toenablethisto happen. However, the cut-
down command-line Server Coreimplementation, whichlacks the Windows GUI,
canbeemployedinstead. Microsoft has alsoannounced a custom Hyper-V Server product complete
withenough Windows Server code to support the hypervisor but nothingelse. This is expectedby the
end of the yearandwillsellforjust $28 per host Ͷ effectivelygivingitaway.

Anotherkeydifferentiatorwith Hyper-V is the abilityto augment the standard I/O emulators usedby
most othervirtualisation products withtechnologythat'sbetterabletouse the underlying hypervisor.
Thisinvolves the use of socalledVirtualization Service Providers (VSPs), whichprovide a shared
interface to drivers in the parentpartitionandVirtualisation Service Clients (VSCs) in child (guest)
partitions. The twothencommunicate via a Virtual Memory bus (VMBUS), givingguests direct access
to the host drivers with no needfor the extra translation processing requiredof I/O emulators.
VSPs (Virtual Service Providers) andVSCs (Virtual Service Clients) provide access to drivers in
parentandchildpartitionsrespectively. 'Enlightened' guestOSscomewith the required VSC code, while
non-enlightened platforms must make do withemulation.

Of course, forthistobepossible, guest virtual machines needtobeequippedwith the necessary VSC

code Ͷ so-called 'enlightened' operating systems. In fact, this is notabsolutelyessentialbecause non-
enlightenedguestscanstilluseemulation. However, enlightened platforms are betterequippedtouse
the host resources, withknock-on effects in terms of performance and flexibility.

Windows Server 2008, naturally, is anenlightened OS, as is Windows Vista. Microsoft

canalsoprovideenlightened extensions for Windows XP and Windows Server 2003, but is
mostlyleavingit up tothirdpartiestocaterforother platforms. XenSource (now Citrix) is the most
advanced, havingcollaboratedwith Microsoft on the Hyper-V development. However, othersaren't far
behind: there'swide support for the betaimplementationalready, with more expectedfrom
companies like Novell and Red Hat by the time the Microsoft platform finallyships.

c
  

Hyper-V is a keytechnologyfor Microsoft, and the company is throwing a lot of resources behind the
development of whatithopeswillbecome the preferred server virtualisation platform in
enterprisedatacentres. However, there are a few issues tobear in mind, some minor somelessso.

Although the software canonlybeinstalled on servers with 64-bit processors, that'snottoo big a
drawback: no self-respecting corporate willbuyanythingless, and 32-bit servers are as rare as
hen'steethanyway. Moreover, unlike Virtual Server 2005, Microsoft's hypervisor can host 64-bit as
well as 32-bit guests, which means itcanbeusedto run more demandingapplicationssuch as the latest
64-bit-only Exchange Server 2007.
Hyper-V alsorequires processors witheither Intel VT or AMD-V hardware virtualisation extensions Ͷ
although, again, that'snowverymuch a standard hardware feature.

On the plus side, Hyper-V is a lot more scalablethan Virtual Server 2005, which is
unlikelytobedevelopedmuchfurther, accordingto Microsoft Server product manager Gareth Hall. This
is understandablebecause Virtual Server 2005 is limitedto 32-bit virtual machines with a single virtual
processor per VM. By contrast, Hyper-V, even in its first release, can run either 32-bit or 64-bit
guestswith up to 4-way virtual SMP. Each Hyper-V guestcanalso have up to 64GB of memory,
comparedtojust 3.6GB with Virtual Server 2005.

Indeed, the capabilities of Hyper-V come close to matching what'spossiblewithVMware's ESX Server
andcatapult Microsoft straight into the top echelon of server virtualisationvendors. Of some concern,
however, are the delays the company has encounteredgetting the product to market,
togetherwithcompromises in terms of functionalitythat have been made to meet release dates.

Originallyexpectedtobeavailablealongwith the rest of Windows Server 2008, Hyper-V development

has been doggedbyproblems. The official line is thatitwillnowbe a no-cost upgrade, available 'within
180 days of Windows Server 2008 beingreleasedto manufacturing'. The RTM date was 4 Februaryso,
accordingtothat claim, Hyper-V oughttoship on or around 1 August. Althoughthat'snottoo far away,
it'sstill well behindbothVMwareandXen.

Functionality has also been cut back since the originalannouncement, the most significant
omissionbeing the abilitytomigrate virtual machines fromone host toanother without shuttingthem
down. This option is availablebothwithVMware ESX Server and, more recently, XenServer Enterprise
from Citrix. Microsoft is working on somethingsimilarthatcan take advantage of the enhanced
clustering facilities in Windows Server 2008. However, it has yettoprovide a firm date
forwhenthiswillbeintroduced.

£  
 
 
As a late entrantto the hypervisor market, Microsoft faces a
hugetaskifitexpectstobeabletooustVMwarefromitsleadingposition. Thatdoesn'tmeanitcan't happen,
of course. Hyper-V will benefit frombeingbundled as part of Windows Server 2008, and the market
for server virtualisation is far fromsaturated. In fact, Microsoft reckonsthatlessthan 10 per cent of
production servers are deployedthis way. The company also has another trick up itssleeve, in the
form of its VM management tools.

As with Virtual Server 2005, tools to manage individual Hyper-V deployments are includedwith the
core software. But Microsoft has alsorecentlyadded a Virtual Machine Manager (VMM) product toits
System Center family, whichcancentrally manage virtual machines across multiple servers running
bothvirtualisation platforms.

However, the abilityto manage Hyper-V won'tbeaddeduntilshortlyafter the hypervisor is released. In

the meantime, Virtual Machine Manager 2007 is limitedto managing Virtual Server 2005, with VM
interoperabilitybetween the two platforms allowingcustomersto start off with Virtual Server
nowandquickly upgrade when Hyper-V ships.

According to Microsoft, the next release of VMM willbeableto manage VMWare virtual machines as
well, with Citrix XenServer support to follow shortlythereafter. That's a wise move
givengeneralagreement that server virtualisation is unlikelyto last very long as a separate application.
Tothis end, Citrix has stateditsintentiontoprovidecompeteinteroperabilitybetweenits product and
Hyper-V and the consensus is thathypervisorswill, eventually, beembeddedinto server hardware.
Indeed, Dell has alreadystarted down this route byofferingXenServer, andsoon Hyper-V Server, as a
factory-fit option on itsPowerEdge systems.

Whenthathappens, customerswill no longerbeconcernedabout the technologyinvolved or

whoitbelongsto. Rather, the keydifferentiator, and the product that most organisationswillbuy, willbe
tools to manage virtual machines. That'salreadystartingto happen andit'shere, in the management
tools ratherthan the underlyingtechnology, that Microsoft looks to set to make its real mark on the
server virtualisation landscape.