Printable View
Blame my non-native English. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by BlazingArrow
Not really. I am not too familiar with virtualization, but what I've understood is that e.g. CPU 1 can offer better performance for virtualized tasks than CPU 2. E.g. in this case Shanghai offers better performance under virtualized OS and virtualized tasks than the competitors, even though the competiting products might be better(faster in this case) at the other stuff.
This is not xtreme rant-flame-troll forum !
Well will someone please explain to me a coherent explanation of what virtualization is !! LOL :shrug:Quote:
Originally Posted by Cooper
Basically you can emulate an operating system (quest OS) within the host operating system using specific Virtual Machine engines like VMWare. Using the VM you can allocate parts of the physical hardware to the guest OS. Depending on host system specs you can run many guest OSes...like have single server and few dozens/hundreds client systems (monitor, mouse/keyboard). or test software on various OSes on a single system and monitor it's performance/stability in real time.
Its running multiple OSes basicly on a machine. Like Imagine a 2008 server. Running 16 instances of 2008 server inside. For maybe things that dont need much horse power. But cant work well or at all on the same box.Quote:
Originally Posted by BlazingArrow
Its ofcourse a simplified view of it. You can also use it to consolidate the serverroom. So you have a few large servers, instead of 100 small servers. And you can use it for fast recovery. Just move/start the virtualized image on another server.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cooper
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shintai
Ohhhh...Ok i think I get it. Here let me see if this is what you mean:
I work at the University of Colorado, and in the department I work in, our IT person who takes care of all the software and networking, actually lives in Texas and only comes here once a month. He is able to access all of the computers and networks and servers at our office, from his home PC. Is what he is doing, is running the computers/network in virtualization??
He may be using some virtualization somewhere, but the scenario you described has nothing to do with virtualization.Quote:
Originally Posted by BlazingArrow
Thats nothing to do with virtualization. Thats just remote management. Ofcourse it could be easier.Quote:
Originally Posted by BlazingArrow
However it would be easier to install a NEW server. Since its just a virtualized instance. Unless its the physical server. So when you call him and say, hey I need a new webserver for this test stuff. He can just make one fast or even start a prepared one in seconds. Instead of actually getting a physical server, installing Windows/Linux etc the slow way.
Nope thats Remote administration. :up:Quote:
Originally Posted by BlazingArrow
not necessarily. you can operate servers by remote control, e.g. through rdp (remote desktop protocoll), ssh (secure shell), or whatever, which doesn't have anything to do with virtualization (but of course can be used simultaneously with each other).Quote:
Originally Posted by BlazingArrow
the leader in virtualization atm is vmware with its e.g. esx server, which is basically a slimmed down unix/linux os. now, after a esx server is set up you can connect to it through a client (e.g. virtual infrastructure client) and create new virtual machines on one physical machine. these virtual machines (vm) share the same physical hardware, but the esx server (respectively the virtualization software) divides the physical resources into every vm.
i hope this explanation helps. i'm not a native english speaker as well, so it's always hard to explain something :D
http://www.infoq.com/interviews/bill...virtualizationQuote:
Originally Posted by BlazingArrow
tutorial: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g_h9FBpc4FM
If you try it, you won't go back
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:V...orkstation.png
check out that pic. its a pic of ubuntu running in windows.
It could be described as running an OS as an application.
Wow, actually that was the trigger. Now I think I understand what this is all about. So, then can someone now explain this:Quote:
Originally Posted by RaZz!
If Intel processors burn AMD in most benchmarking programs, how is it that AMD is better at 'splitting up it's resources' when using virtualizations??
architecture wise, virtualization lives on the fast memory and large io bus, just what intel is still missing in current architecture. although harpertown in 2s with its 1600fsb is able to manage rather well is a dead end in 4p where although nice core enhancements all lack on the interconnect features.Quote:
Originally Posted by BlazingArrow
this mostly has to do with how the processor functions and presents it's hardware capabilities to a host OS. This requires the hardware to be able to effectively segment itself to the point where if one virtualized OS/application makes high demand of a CPU, other virtualized OS's and apps do not feel the change. Also the host OS has to be relatively transparent as to performance issues and at it's best form isn't using much resources and just effectively forwarding all hardware functions to the virtualized OS.Quote:
Originally Posted by BlazingArrow
Personally I'm only interested in the tech from the dorky standpoint of trying to run high performance games and apps on my desktop and streaming them to a UMPC/MID type platform.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blauhung
Thank you so much! As well as everyone else who helped! I love how everyone is patient here an doesn't get frustrated. I've learned a lot, but even more so I'm highly impressed regarding the level of intelligence possessed by some members of this forum. :clap:
Here is a quick example for you:Quote:
Originally Posted by BlazingArrow
Windows XP and Ubuntu running on top of Mac OSX
Three OSes running at the same time on the same computer.
http://forum.xcpus.com/gallery/d/8044-2/VM.jpg
Yeah, good point, I misunderstood the real intent of the post.Quote:
Originally Posted by donitsi
This is an interesting concept really. AMD went for the high margin jugular with K8, just looking at the design there is little doubt they had server in mind from the get go. It naturally slid well into desktop, had a bit harder time getting into mobile.
EDIT: I see where I misunderstood, Duploxx was commenting that Intel released Nehalem first into the desktop, followed by server... I don't think the context of his post was quite what you originally thought :) ... both AMD and Intel are currently using a common architecture across all three major product segments.
Well actually it's the integrated memory controller and the Hypertransport link. Basically any OS that you would use under a virtual machine resides in the RAM, AMD CPU's atm are able to sustain much higher speeds through the Hypertransport link. Basically let's say you run Windows XP, the main part already copies itself to the RAM, that's why it uses let's say 300MB of RAM, now if you set up a virtual machine to run Linux under it depending on the distribution the Linux OS would copy a part of it to the RAM too, let's say 200MB. Now because AMD processors are able to access RAM memory faster those two operating systems would run faster on an AMD machine. All that is about to change though as Intel i7 will feature something similar called QPI and a wider memory controller + DDR3.Quote:
Originally Posted by BlazingArrow