Back to Article

  • SlyNine - Tuesday, July 27, 2010 - link

    "I think a better first step is for the hypervisor and VM to share common graphics rendering commands and primitives so that >the< hypervisor does not have to convert one graphics command set to another in order to render on the VM's behalf."

    Just trying to make a good artical even better :).
  • npoc - Tuesday, July 27, 2010 - link

    Why just vmware? They are not the only game in town.

    KVM / qemu is on the up and up.
  • trancos - Tuesday, July 27, 2010 - link

    I know of at least 3 Virtualization platforms, Hyper-V, ESX/ESXi, Xen. Do you have any insights as far as performance is concerned (Disk I/O, processor performance, Networking) with these 3 different platforms?
  • haxter - Tuesday, July 27, 2010 - link

    Virtualized I/O should be considered a current front for virtualization security research. Virtual PCI devices in hardware offer more performance and stronger security too. While Rich mentions the Intel VT roadmap it's worth your time to read up on VT-d for IO:
    ( )

    Check out more on Trusted eXecution Technology (TXT), aka LaGrande, here:

    This allows the use of the in-chipset Trusted Platform Module (TPM) to test guest signatures to verify VM trust prior to boot. TXT lets VC security software do cool things like limit VM portability to certain trusted hardware.

    Virtualization security R&D is my day job so I'm immersed in this now.

    VMware is where the money is at. Xen users don't like to pay for software so innovation is limited there. HyperV is just starting to get my attention. KVM deserves a lot of praise and already has some support for both TXT and VT-d, check it out!

    Will DeHaan
  • justaviking - Tuesday, July 27, 2010 - link

    This is a repeat question from before.
    Maybe it is so basic and stupid it doesn't warrant a reply, but I'll ask again.

    Do you foresee virtualization becoming a component of an average consumer's PC? Just like many people buying a laptop at Best Buy don't differentiate between onboard and discreet graphics, might there be a role for virutualization on typical consumer PCs, even if they are not aware of it.

    If so, why, and when?
    If not, why not?
  • Peroxyde - Wednesday, July 28, 2010 - link

    By average user, I am referring to the user who doesn't even have the notion of an URL or address bar in the browser. They enter the site in the search box and click on the first link. These users will have absolutely no idea about Virtualization and will never need it. For the average user, cloud computing would probably be the most useful, they use the application via the browser and save their data in the cloud. Low responsibility, zero maintenance, little chance to screw up something.

    These average users already have difficulties to understand their own computers.They will not get the concept of a virtual computer running inside another computer.
  • justaviking - Thursday, July 29, 2010 - link

    Thanks, Peroxide.

    Let me relate my question to another feature that is beyond a lot of typical consumers. (I don't mean to be high-and-mighty or condescending when I say that.)

    DISK PARTITIONS - How many people understand the concept of a disk partition? When you want to use one, and what the pros and cons are?

    All the laptops I've purchased for family members have a partitioned disk. Why? To aid with system restoration, if needed.

    So there is an example of average consumers buying a "technology" that they actually know little or nothing about.

    In the same way, I wonder if we will soon find virtualization (even if it is hidden under the covers) in off-the-shelf desktops or laptops in the near future. And if so, why?
  • duploxxx - Wednesday, July 28, 2010 - link

    Question #1 by Eric A.

    What types of computing will (likely) never benefit from virtuaization?

    Answer #1 by Johan de Gelas, AnandTech Senior IT Editor

    Quite a few HPC applications that scale easily over multiple cores and which can easily gobble up all the resources a physical host has. I don't see graphical intensive applications being virtualized quickly either. And of course webservers that need to scale out (use multiple nodes) don't have much use for virtualization either.

    all depends of the scope of an application, its app depending. you can still use VMware for HA only or being able to easily migrate towards new hw. These are our major reasons to virtualize, we have some HPC intensive apps always combined with few none HPC in a pool. We never have more vCPU then Pcpu in our configs and the same thing for memory but yet we virtualize as much as possible. increase uptime and reduce general cost but never reduce cost at i/o level.
  • gorgamin - Wednesday, July 28, 2010 - link

    this is all fine for the people who get to play with these expensive toys, but what about me? who only wishes that virtualization could access hardware graphics, iow, enable me to play games in a virtual windows xp pro environment while accessing my GPU.

    Also, when will linux finally get some decent game support? Come on ubuntu, you have everything else. work with the gaming companies. engage with them. enough with the elitist linux "you have to be able to recompile the kernel" guys .get all the latest games running on there and let other people with no experience, do it in a few clicks. It is possible.
  • HMTK - Wednesday, July 28, 2010 - link

    They're talking about professional grade hardware and software with high profit margins. How much would you pay for a hypervisor on your desktop machine? Reply
  • GeorgeH - Wednesday, July 28, 2010 - link

    On my desktop machine at home? Nothing.

    On a server running in my basement serving multiple fully functional (including gaming) VMs to thin clients all over my house? Easily $200-$500, maybe more.
  • HMTK - Thursday, July 29, 2010 - link

    Well, I think you'd be a very rare individual indeed. Rare enough for software vendors not to be interested. If you don't need the vid performance and 6 cores is enough, ESXi works great and is free. More cores will cost you - a lot - which is stupid from VMware IMO as 8 and 12 core CPU's have become common. Reply
  • gorgamin - Sunday, August 01, 2010 - link

    you're right, this article does not really concern my interests, and yes I but one guy with these needs... but having tinkered with vmware and reading the rumours... they are gearing up for GPU hardware access. this is also true for hardware sound devices.

    think of the downtime that could be saved just in a media/game dev. company... running all your dev. applications in vm's, and you just auto backup that virtual image every night. any viruses/malware and you just load the backup virtual image. done. forget about the infection, forget about AV software that sits in your ram. its the next step, and it just makes sense
  • serenecrue - Thursday, July 29, 2010 - link

    The specs above are really great,samsung is probably cheap product to buy .
    <a href=""&... pavement reflectors </a>
  • alinhan - Saturday, July 31, 2010 - link

    When I first heard of virtualization, I imagined the following would be possible: to have a computer run multiple operating systems simultaneously, with no problems, except for a small performance hit, of course. And afaik, this is possible, but with a big exception regarding the GPU: you cannot run any hardware accelerated games in a guest with almost the same performance as if you would run them in the host (minus, let's say, 20%).

    Will this ever be possible?

    My ideal setup would be: a powerful machine with a Linux host, where I would do most of my work, and a Windows guest for games, since games still are Windows-centric on the PC.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now