[CoLoCo] virtualization in hardy: kvm

[Soren Hansen]

On Mon, Mar 17, 2008 at 09:35:07AM -0600, Kevin Fries wrote:
>> What hardware have you attempted this on? Which distribution and
>> version? Did you use said distribution's shipped version of kvm?
> I am currently using two IBM R40 laptops in the office, but my home
> machine is a 2.6GHz P4.  It has HT but not VT.  

Then I'm afraid you're stuck with something different than kvm.

> Since Ubuntu is such a "end-user" focused distro, is requiring such a
> modern computer prudent, especially when other solutions are available
> that do not have that requirement?

*sigh*

You seem to somehow be under the impression that apart from the
requirement of hardware support, the various solutions are completely
equivalent, and that we in addition chose kvm *because* of its
dependency on hardware support.  VirtualBox, for instance, was rejected
due to its lack of ability to run in headless mode (the rdp server is
not available in the OSE version). QEmu, which I admire for its
any-to-any approach to *emulation* is not suitable for anything even
remotely resembling production use. It's simply waaaaay too slow.

>>> On the few times I fought with it enough to get it running, the
>>> performance was better than qemu (and lets face it, that aint hard),
>>> but no where near what VBox can do.
>> A standard build of KVM will - if the CPU extensions are not
>> available - fall back to non-accelerated mode, which *is* qemu. If
>> that feels faster than qemu, that's not much more than a statistical
>> anomaly, I think.  I have no benchmarks to back this up, but KVM and
>> VirtualBox should provide about the same performance.
> KVM does not fall back, it fails.  I tried this, and it tells me it
> will not run the post install script from the apt-get.

A standard build of KVM will -- if the CPU extensions are not available
-- fall back to non-accelerated mode. You insinuate that you have used
kvm on numerous occasions since the project's inception, yet the *only*
instance in which kvm will *not* fall back to non-accelerated mode is in
quite recent versions in Ubuntu Hardy (I think I made this change about
a month ago). 

>> So your problem with KVM is that it requires hardware support?
> Not completely.  My problem with it is that it requires too modern a
> computer to run at all, 

Er... And this is not what you call "requires hardware support"?

> then when it does, it still does not perform as well as other product
> that already exist in the same marketplace.

Sure it does. It's 27 times faster than any of its competitors.

(See how useless one's claims become when one does not provide *any*
sort of references?)

> Its almost like justifying Microsoft Windows with the following
> agument:

No, it's not.

> That is my problem with it.  I would rather focus on an industry
> standard product that works, and is free, than on that has been
> plagued with problems and is open source.

You mean VMWare? It's not free.[1]

Kevin, I'm surprised I need to tell you this, but crap like "plagued
with problems" is extremely unprofessional.

> Reality is a cruel mistress.  

So is the desire to make substantiated arguments..

> I also see this as one of the key problems with Bug #1.  Geeks like me
> aside, most people just want stuff that works.  The do not care about
> open source.  They see VMWare, VBox, KVM, and Xen all in the same
> light.  I do not have a problem with KVM being in the repositories,
> but VMWare is the industry leader, and is the solution people are
> looking for.  That should be our focus.

You must be kidding. Most people run windows.. Should we base Ubuntu on
that? Or Solaris, perhaps? Or Mac OSX or any of the 50 other operating
systems that we wouldn't be able to support either because we don't have
the source code for it?

> Focusing on Linux as a replacement for Windows in VM technologies also
> has another benefit.  Microsoft is spending lots of money trying to
> tell everyone that Linux is not as easy or cheap to run as Windows.
> We all know that is crap.  

Yeah. Some of us recognize crap when we see it... Oh! There it is:

> But businesses are only hearing one well funded argument.  Focusing on
> tools that are cross platform allows the Linux community to fight the
> FUD with reality.  By focusing on VMWare, it gives the Linux community
> the extremely legit argument of: Go ahead and try us, its free, and
> you can use the same VMWare technology you are used to.  Once they try
> Linux and find out it is this easy to run, its easier to say: You
> know, we make a great border router [mail server, database server,
> etc] also.  Its the same embrace and conquer mentality that Microsoft
> used against Unix so many years ago... How sweet would it be to turn
> the tables.  That can not happen if you are using Linux only
> technologies!

How about this: We make Ubuntu just a basic platform that is made to run
Oracle, Bea weblogic, VMWare, etc.. They're the market leaders anyway?
Why try to compete with that?

Because we care about free software, that's why. 

>> Er... No. VirtualBox OSE is not the same as VirtualBox. MySQL,
>> however, is (not surprisingly) the same as MySQL.
> I said nothing about OSE.  

You said: "InnoTek uses their commercial sales to spur their open source
product." What open source project is that, if not VirtualBox OSE?

> Virtualbox is free for persoanal use.  You may also obtain a version
> with commercial support... alla MySQL.  

The free (open source, if you will) version of MySQL does not have
important features removed from it. VirtualBox's open source edition
does.

> You are confusing the goals of Ubuntu with Gobuntu.

I'm not the one who's confused here.

>>>>> VMWare server is free to use, period.  
>>>> If you accept the terms of use and obtain a license key, yes.
>>>> Exclamation point![1]
>>> So what!!!
>> Er... So it's not "free to use, period.". If you don't care about the
>> difference between free beer and free speech, that's your "problem".
> Again, you are confusing the goals of Ubuntu with Gobuntu.

Again, I'm not the one who's confused here. Ubuntu is a free software
project.

> Real competition comes when companies are all given an equal footing,
> and equal chance in the market place.  You can not figure out why I am
> in Linux because you are as bad as Microsoft.  In your world,
> everything must be better if it is open source, and evil if it is
> commercial.  

Kevin. Do. not. put. words. in. my. mouth. period. (Am I doing the
punctuation thing correctly?)

I'm not saying that open source solutions by definition are better. If I
were to say anything on the subject, I'd probably say that there are no
other solutions, only temporary workarounds.

What happens if VMWare decides to not offer a free product anymore?
We're screwed. What happens if I'm a skilled developer and I want to add
features or fix bugs in their product?

Most of what I know about software, I know because I have the source
code for every single piece of software on my hard drive. I can look at
it, learn from it, improve it, and help others. How does that work in
the fantastic, "practical" world of yours?

> I see a place where both could (and should) live side by side.  Free
> software, whether open sourced or not, should always be available to
> everyone.

And how do you intend to ensure that this will happen if you're not in
control of the source code?

> It should be based upon standards that allow all OSes to play evenly.

Open standards and protocols are only useful if you're exchanging data
in any meaningful way. How does this apply to e.g. VMWare of which you
seem to be so fond.

> Given this philosophy, it should not be hard to see why I am in Linux.

Right. It's better. I get it.

> I believe everyone should be given the opportunity to build a better
> wheel and put it on the market.

So do I. I just find it useful that anyone who decides to put a new
wheel on the market doesn't need to start from scratch designing a brand
new wheel. It's so much easier if you can take someone else's wheel and
build upon that.

> Every product, both FOSS and commercial should be based upon its
> merits, and judged by it cost vs benefit.  Personally that is all I am
> looking at.  You are only looking at whether somebody will let you
> look at the code. 

Kevin... Don't tell me what I'm looking at.

> The restricted drivers are a perfect example (See Mark Shuttleworth's
> blog posts if you want more details, I will not speak on his behalf).

Why not? You speak on my behalf all the time. I'm well aware of Mark's
views on the restricted drivers. If you were too, you'd see why it's
completely irrelevant when it comes to the VMWare vs. KVM issue.

> You are making the Gobuntu argument all over again.

No.

>> What is this seamless mode of which you seem to be so fond?
> VBox will allow me to run my Windows desktop on top of my Linux
> desktop in one integrated view.  Since I run the AWN launcher, I tell
> Windows to "auto hide" its startbar.  When I want to run a Windows
> program, I run my mouse cursor to the bottom of the screen, and I get
> the start button.  Programs->Microsoft Office->Visio, and Visio is
> running in a window on my otherwise Linux screen.  All without any
> complicated network setups.  All I have to do is start VBox (I have it
> as a shortcut on my AWN bar).  If Windows comes up in the normal
> bounding box, I just press ctrl-L and Windows hides itself.

I see. Thanks for the explanation.

>>>>> Of course, all the really cool tools are in the paid version.
>>> I don't know about that... 
>> Er... You wrote that, didn't you? Or did I get my quoting messed up?
> No, I never said that, if I did, it was a mistake.  

Your exact words as can be seen in[2]: 

   VMWare is distributed as a free or paid product.  It can be
   downloaded directly from their website at:

   http://www.vmware.com/download/server/

   They ask you to get a license, but all that is required is they ask
   you a few questions on how you are using it.  Its more like a "you
   tell us what is important, and how you are using it, and we will let
   you use it for free."  Of course, all the really cool tools are in
   the paid version.  But for an R&D lab like us, the free version is
   all that we could use and more.

>>> KVM is refusing to load, but VMWare loads, and is running 4 virtual
>>> private networks consisting of 11 machines on a single machine with
>>> 2 cores and 2GB of ram. 
>> Good for you. I'm not sure what your point is.
> My point is, you are working on a distro that professes its "I just
> work out of the box and am so end user friendly" mentality.

From[3]:

   Our work is driven by a philosophy on software freedom that aims to
   spread and bring the benefits of software to all parts of the world.
   At the core of the Ubuntu Philosophy are these core philosophical
   ideals:

      1. Every computer user should have the freedom to download, run,
      copy, distribute, study, share, change and improve their software
      for any purpose, without paying licensing fees.

      2. Every computer user should be able to use their software in the
      language of their choice.
      
      3. Every computer user should be given every opportunity to use
      software, even if they work under a disability.

(See? Providing references is not that hard. Really.)

> Why are you putting programs in the main distro that are the furthest
> from that philosphy.

Don't you ever get tired of making the easy argument? Sure, it's
unfortunate that you're unable to use kvm if your hardware isn't up to
the task. Had we chosen VirtualBox we could be discussing why, oh why,
did we chose a program that requires an X server to run? Had we chosen
VMWare... Oh, right. That'd never happen. Why? Because *we* are the ones
who are supporting it. How would we do that without the freedom to
change it?

> VBox and VMWare work where KVM does not.

VirtualBox doesn't work in environments where you need live migration.
I'm not seeing your point.

You seem to think that kvm is like a version of VirtualBox with all the
good stuff removed and then further crippled by requiring hardware
support. Or maybe you *are* aware that this is not the case, and then
you're just being pointlessly difficult making completely useless
arguments.

> What is so difficult to understand about this?

I honestly don't know.

>> > You are touting a product that will not run, 
>> Erm... Please tell that to the 10 virtual machines I have running
>> here on my laptop. In kvm, that is.
> On your laptop yes, but not on many, many others.  Others that would
> run with any other product on the market.

*yawn*

> This is the same bogus argument given by the software developer that
> installs tons of tools to develop a program, then distributes it, but
> was unaware that the tool included a library it did not document very
> well (Any other Visual Studio survivors other than me out there?).
> Then they argue, there is no problem because the program works on
> their development machine.

Yeah, I claim that it'll run on *any* hardware *all* the time?

>> I happen to be in the free software business. Your signature suggests
>> you are, too? 
> I am in the solutions business, and so should you.  

Is that a job offer? If it is, no thanks. I doubt I'd work very well
with you.

> Free software is a tool, not an absolute.  We use whatever provides
> the biggest bang for the buck. 

Here's a shocker: I'm not in this for the money.

> KVM on the other hand will fail to load, period, even if you are
> running another Linux instance.  

"Running another Linux instance"? What do you mean?

> Therefore, Xen's reliance on VT and KVM's reliance on it, are
> completely different.

I have claimed nothing else.

>> It never ceases to amaze me how you can get completely focused on one
>> shortcoming of something and thus conclude that said something is
>> completely and utterly broken. For added hilarity, this alleged
>> "shortcoming" of kvm is a deliberate design choice of kvm's authors. 
> Apples and oranges, see previous comment

Er.. Are you saying that you have *not* claimed that KVM is completely
useless and essentially broken? Are you also saying that that conclusion
is *not* based on the fact that kvm requires hardware support to do its
magic?

As you seem to not remember to what I'm referring, we had an equally
pointless discussion[4] six months ago (or thereabouts) where you kept
claiming that Ubuntu was completely incapable of doing upgrades.  After
a *lot* of discussion whose nature was not much unlike this one's, it
turns out that you had come to this conclusion because you once had a
third party repostory in your sources.list that update-manager had
failed to magically figure out what to change to now that you were
essentially using a new distribution.

I'm not sure why I bother.

[1]: If you can treat your interpretation of "free" as the only true
one, so can I.
[2]: https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-us-co/2008-March/003655.html
[3]: http://www.ubuntu.com/community/ubuntustory/philosophy
[4]: Starting at
https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-devel-discuss/2007-September/001630.html
and accidentally continuing off list (my mistake).

-- 
Soren Hansen               | 
Virtualisation specialist  | Ubuntu Server Team
Canonical Ltd.             | http://www.ubuntu.com/
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
Url : https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-us-co/attachments/20080318/b770a8cf/attachment-0001.pgp