Virtualization with MS Hyper-V?

[VirtualLarry]

How does this work, compared to say, MS VirtualPC?

Is there an advantage to running a specific virtualization OS like Hyper-V server? Over just installing a regular OS and then a virtual-machine software?

Do I need VT-d for Hyper-V, in order to run graphics drivers on a virtualized OS? Is that even possible? (Running Win7 64-bit on top of Hyper-V, and playing games on it hooked up to the graphics card?)

 

[Lifted]

Not good w/ gaming, yet anyway. If you want to play games on the same box then stick w/ a windows 7 host, and just run vmware server/player/workstation, virtual pc, virtualbox, or whatever for your vm's.

Running a dedicated hypervisor on the server minimizes the footprint, which reduces the maintenance and configuration required to keep the hypervisor patched and secured.

 

[dawks]

Hyper-V can be a service on a Full Windows Server OS (?) or bare-metal Virtualization platform (Server Core), just like VMWare ESXi.

Hyper-V can be run as a stand-alone OS (Server 2008 Core) including all the basics required to boot a system and provide service for hosting guest OS's. Its meant to minimize overhead and maximize hardware performance. I think I read ESXi only uses about 35megs ram for its own purpose for example. So rather than booting a full Server 2008 OS, then loading the virtualization software, then the guests, you boot a minimal Hypervisor, then the guests. This also has the benefit of reducing the complexity of securing and patching a full OS, and should technically reduce the attack surface.

I haven't heard of being able to run 'virtualized graphics' yet. I know VMWare Fusion is doing graphics driver emulation to allow for 3D in VM's on Mac OS. I haven't experimented with it on other platforms. Windows 7 Aero interface works in VMWare Fusion virtualized OS's. 3D support in Virtualized environments is still pretty experimental at this point.

I'd love to be able to boot a tiny Hypervisor, then load a Server 2008 instance, and a Windows 7 instance and have both run like they are on baremetal, but its not quite there yet. I'd love to see Virtualized video card technology like Intel/AMD does on CPU's.

 

[Nothinman]

I'd love to see Virtualized video card technology like Intel/AMD does on CPU's.

KVM and Xen on Linux support full PCI pass-through so you can dedicate a device to a VM, although I haven't tried so I don't know how well it works first-hand.

 

[Thor86]

Hyper-V RemoteFX requires certain hardware level reqs in order to used a dedicated pass-through-like graphics tech for VMs.

I've read it is good enough for HD video playback, but not sure for 3D gaming if that is your intention.

 

[spikespiegal]

I'd love to be able to boot a tiny Hypervisor, then load a Server 2008 instance, and a Windows 7 instance and have both run like they are on baremetal, but its not quite there yet.

I'm getting consolidation ratios of 6-8:1 in my data center with Vmware, so I dare say 'it's there'. Hyper-V remains a bit behind in bare hypervisor efficiency, but the lead will narrow. However, hardware assisted virtualization is getting more and more sophisticated, and I would expect to see hypervisors moved increasingly to onboard hardware, which is both scary, and cool. Yeah...I'm talking about 'on chip' logic that performs all the virtualization.

I have no problems watching streaming HD video real time off a virtualized server while it's in the process of a V-motion migration. Been there - done that - showed it to the CIO who nearly had to change his pants after he saw it. However, that kind of stuff along with RDP or ICA are difference engines.

Gaming however involves intensive video interaction pipelines with extreme levels of low level data transfers, and is insanely latency sensitive. Hypervisors just can't handle this. Hell, modern CPUs and system memory can't handle this, which is why it's off loaded to high performance GPUs. So, you put a handshake in the driver that talks to your hypervisor and just performs a pass through, and all is good with minimal over-head. The question we need to be asking though is if were enabling pass through on all the I/O paths with guest operating systems for desktop performance reasons what advantage do we get virtualizing in the first place? Are we virtualizing because we're gaining something, or just because desktop OS'sare so clunky and inefficient we're better served shoving them in a wrapper? Sorry...rambling.

 

[dawks]

I'm getting consolidation ratios of 6-8:1 in my data center with Vmware, so I dare say 'it's there'. Hyper-V remains a bit behind in bare hypervisor efficiency, but the lead will narrow.

More specifically, I meant full performance, 3D included. Just being geeky, I'd like to run a basic server (not even full server OS, just a game/shoutcast/ftp server on one OS, and do client stuff like game on another OS. (partly just to avoid reboot issues and such and have good uptime on the server..)