Some thoughts on VM techniques for
Many of us are geeks who like to play with technology "because it is
there". We might want to try out a new OS, or a new piece of
software. Maybe install a beta version of something, or be able
to test a client-server setup. Historically that has meant having
one (or more) test machines, configured as multi-boot. In 2002 I
spent $600 on a Celeron 1200Mhz machine with 256Mb RAM and a 40Gb disk
for precisely this purpose; it multi-booted into XP, NetBSD, Solaris
86, Fedora... at that point I ran out of primary boot partitions.
Today, however, machines are a lot more powerful. Since I had a
spare case, power supply and 3*500Gb disk sitting around I spent $500
getting a new motherboard ($90), an i5-750 CPU($200) and 8Gb of RAM
($210). I picked this setup because it was a VT-x compatible CPU
so could do hardware virtualization for Windows guests. Also, in
the worst case, it could quickly be used as a standby machine if my
primary server (Q6600, 4Gb RAM) died. Redundancy :-)
Then I had to decide on what virtualization technology to use on this
Types of hypervisor
Hypervisors come labelled in two types; "type 1" and "type 2".
It's really a little but kludgy to have this separation but...
Type 1 hypervisors are typically small kernels that essentially act as
a message bus between guest OS's and a "control domain". The
guest may think it's talking to a SCSI controller but really this talks
to the hypervisor, which passes the request to the control domain,
which then does the work of talking to the hardware. Hypervisors
built on this model can be quite small and are potentially suitable for
embedding into server firmware. Because of this they're commonly
known as "bare metal" hypervisors. This is what Sun have done
with some of their newer hardware; the sun4v platform is a hypervisor'd
virtual SPARC chip; LDOMs are guest domains. In the Intel (read
"Intel, AMD and similar") space Xen is the common OpenSource type 1
hypervisor; VMware ESX is a common commercial one. Microsoft's
HyperV is a Type 1 solution.
Type 2 hypervisors run a step away from the hardware; you have your
primary OS install and the hypervisor runs inside that; this is called
"hosted". As with type 1, guests request access to their SCSI
controller, the hypervisors traps this and then makes a request of the
primary kernel. This sounds inefficient and would be, except that
common type 2 hypervisors have kernel loadable modules and so
essentially run in the kernel space of the primary OS. This may
make them as efficient as Type 1. VMware Server, VMware Player,
and VirtualBox are examples of Type2 hypervisors.
What about full machine virtualisation? Where the whole machine
is "virtual". I consider this an extreme example of a type 2
setup. An example of this is 'User Mode Linux', where the Linux
kernel itself runs as an application instance inside another install.
Essentialy, with a type 1 hypervisor the hypervisor is loaded first and
all the OS instances (control domain, guests) load afterwards.
With a type 2 hypervisor an OS instance loads first, and the hypervisor
afterwards (or, with kernel modules to confuse things, at the same
In order for the guest to access things like network or disks they need
to have drivers. So, typically, your VM solution will emulate
some common hardware (maybe a RealTek or Intel ethernet card; an IDE or
BusLogic SCSI disk). The guest will have drivers for this
already, so they'll "just work". But as you can guess this may
not be very efficient and may result in many context switches as the
guest's requests bounces around the system before it gets to the
physical hardware. To help shortcut this the hypervisor may
expose an easier-to-emulate interface to the guest which can be
processed a lot quicker. To the guest these devices will look
like a different piece of hardware entirely and so will require
drivers. This technique is called paravirtualization and can
result is massively improved performance in the guest.
Hardware assisted virtualization
A hard part of virtualization is emulating the CPU. Some of the
instructions are, apparently, complicated and expensive to virtualize
and this causes the hypervisor to do lots of work. Intel created
something known as "VT" (aka 'Vanderpool'); AMD have AMD-V
('Pacifica'). This allows the CPU, itself, to virtualize some
parts of the instruction set taking the load off the hypervisor, and
speeding up virtualization.
Related to this is the ability to virtualize hardware devices, such as
PCIe plugin cards. Intel call this VT-d (Virtualization
Technology for Directed I/O). With this it's possible for a guest
OS to have direct exclusive access to hardware devices (maybe one of
the USB controllers, or a disk controller). This is, really, a
layer violation but it can be a performance gain or allow VMs to access
hardware that the hypervisor can not emulate. My machine,
apparently, supports VT-d in the BIOS but either the chipset (H55)
doesn't support it or something else is wrong; the capability isn't
available to the hypervisor.
What are my requirements?
I wanted a virtualization platform that would let me use the computer
to host different OS images and run them. I wanted it to "just
work"; even though I'm a geek and enjoy playing with technology this
was one area where I wanted to play with the VMs, not with the VM
technology. I didn't want to delay messing around with <x>
because I had to fight my VM system of choice in order to deploy new
Obviously stability was a requirement; if I had to keep rebooting the
host because the platform then I'd get annoyed.
Got to be able to run Windows. If I want to test-drive Windows
2008 (well, I might, on a
trial license) or test W2K3 was an Active Directory controller or
whatever... Hmm, could this be used to work around the expiration
of the Windows trial license? Whenever the license is due to
expire just destroy the VM and rebuild it. For something like AD
have two servers, promote the other to master, bring up a new
replica. Heh. Not that I'd ever advocate working around
license agreements like this!
No artificial limitation on the number of guest OSes; I don't want to
be stuck just running 4 VMs.
CLI to manage it would be nice; GUI to manage it almost essential (see
ease of use, my primary requirement).
You'll notice that speed wasn't a primary goal; full virtualization or
paravirtualization wasn't too important, since these weren't high
throughput high demand systems. So what I'm testing for isn't
performance. This also isn't a long term test. I'm
primarily focusing on ease of use, of of setup, ease of
administration. That is, after all, my primary goal.
So what did I test?
My primary server OS of choice is CentOS 5 (currently 5.4).
Partly because I've been using RedHat variants for... 14 years? I
started with RedHat 4.0 (no, not
Enterprise Linux 4, just standard "RedHat") around 1996, from an
InfoMagic disk. Previously I'd used home-grown setups,
Yggdrassil, SLS, MCC-Interim... Not sure when I first got
hold of a Debian disk but by this point it was too late for me to
change. It also helps that my employer's primary Linux OS is
RedHat so what I use at home is very close to what I use at work.
RedHat/CentOS comes with two different virtualization technologies (Xen
and KVM) so I tested both of them. I also tested the commercial
version of Xen (Citrix XenServer). No comparison would be
complete without VMware ESXi. I've previously used VMware Server
and VirtualBox. And I daily use UserModeLinux.
So that's the list:
For the CentOS/Citrix/VMware solutions I let my existing machine act as
a DHCP server, so the management
interface was picked up from a static DHCP config.
- RedHat (ahem, sorry, CentOS!) 5.4 64bit Xen
- CentOS 5.4 64bit KVM
- Citrix XenServer 5.5
- VMware ESXi 4.0
- VirtualBox 2.2
- VMware Server (version unknown)
- User Mode Linux (184.108.40.206 based kernel)
CentOS 5.4 64bit Xen
Stick the DVD in the machine, boot off it, install as if you're doing a
normal Linux install, select the "virtualization" group. And let
it go. 20 minutes later your machine will be ready with a CentOS
Dom0 control domain and the Xen 3.1.2 hypervisor. Simple!
Being Xen, there are plenty of command line tools available for the
install, create, destruction of guest domains (DomU). Some of the
jargon is a little quirky (for example "destroy" doesn't mean destroy
the VM image, just the running VM instance). But I didn't want to
learn the ins and outs of the command line. Fortunately CentOS
comes with an X based GUI, "virt-manager". This is pretty
minimal, but sufficient to build an OS, manage resources, connect to
the console... basic requirements.
First up, install a CentOS guest image. Simple process... I told
it to bridge its ethernet device to my main network (so it looks like
it's on the LAN). Heh, the Dom0 is Linux so I NFS mounted my ISO
images to this and now they're available to act as boot CDs/DVDs for
the build process. This is simple; under 10 minutes later I had a
fully working CentOS guest image... and it was running paravirtualized
as well! Neat! This found my DHCP server and got an address
and did everything I expected of a newly built CentOS machine.
This is what I wanted from a virtual server; building a complete server
in minutes without getting off my arse.
So, next, Windows. Follow a similar install path from the
virt-manager GUI and... now things didn't quite go according to
plan. Just creating the raw disk image took a long time, then
booting for the first time caused a hang. The guest instance just
didn't boot cleanly for installation. Hmm. Indeed it looks
like the hypervisor started to slowly freeze up. The DomU became
unresponsive. I couldn't login on the console... needed a
physical reboot. Ugh. But, OK, after the reboot I started
the guest and the install carried on. The Windows setup process
ran, copied data to the hard disk, then rebooted.... and here the Xen
guest stopped. Needed to be started again and the OS install then
carried on as normal and completed. To be fair, this step is
documented. It just makes unattended installs harder. Not
that the standard Windows install is anywhere near unattended anyway
(asking questions 5 minutes into the process *sigh*) so it's not a big
loss. But, anyway, I had a Windows instance running.
However I had stability concerns (would I need to reboot every time I
created a new windows instance?). So I tried again... yup, reboot
needed! Oh dear. I think this fails one of my primary
requirements. It seems a fully patched CentOS 5 64bit Xen install
isn't sufficiently stable using full virtualization. This could
easily be because it's an old old version of Xen (3.1.2; current
version is 3.4.5).
Data is stored in /var/lib, including the disk images. So either
the relevant areas need to be mounted from a separate partition or a
big root disk created. It is
possible to store data elsewhere but SELinux may get in the way and
need reconfiguring or turning off. Personally I turn it off.
CentOS 5.4 64bit KVM
Nicely enough, it's possible to add KVM to my previous install.
"yum install kvm" adds a new kernel and 3 other rpm's. Reboot
into the non-Xen kernel and we have a KVM system. Apparently this
can also be done at initial install time by selecting the right options
in the "virtualization" options menu. So an equally simple
install compared to the Xen variant.
I'm not sure if this is considered a Type 1 or Type 2
virtualization. Not that it really matters. RedHat nicely
hides the differences between Xen and KVM behind the same interfaces,
so virt-manager is also used to manage KVM instances. This time I
didn't bother with a CentOS guest, I went straight to building
Windows. And this went off without a hitch. A fully
virtualized Windows machine.
Well, I say without a hitch... there was no option to select a
bridge onto my LAN; it could only use a NAT'd network. Unlike the
Xen install (which creates this bridge out of the box) the KVM install
doesn't. The RedHat documentation does explain how to build a bridge
but it's not automatic. The guide also describes to how convert
this instance into a paravirtualized instance. Except it's not
quite so easy and requires manual hacking of config files. Yes,
it does work. It's definitely a step up from the Xen instance (it's stable!),
but I wasn't feeling the "friendliness".
Citrix XenServer 5.5
My hope, here, was to be able to install this onto the 2nd hard disk so
it could co-exist with my physical Windows instance and the CentOS
instance I've just installed. This'd give me a multi-boot test
platform so I could switch and compare. Fortunately it allowed me
to do exactly that! At install time a list of disks is presented,
so I selected the 2nd one. A few minutes later we had a XenServer
The boot sequence looks familiar... huh, under the covers it's actually
CentOS 5.2 (as reported by "rpm -q centos-release") with Xen
3.3.1. The console comes up with a text menu; let's you select
various statistics, start/stop VMs, reboot etc. It doesn't let
you create new VM instances. You can ssh into the dom0 and access
the same menu remotely, so you don't need to be at the console.
Out of the box you get a limited time license; to fully activate the
service you need a free license from Citrix. A little
annoying. More annoying is the fact that this license only lasts
1 year, so it has to be renewed. Let's hope Citrix don't change
their policies and stop giving out free licenses, or use this to force
people onto the upgrade treadmill.
To create VM instances requires a piece of software that only runs on
Windows. A little annoying, since it just makes https webservices
requests. Well, I guess it should also be possible to do the same
via the dom0 command line. But see "ease of use". For my
purposes a Windows client it is. It's pretty small and installs
quickly. From here you can license your server (also see
non-subtle adverts for "Xen Essentials", a paid for enhanced interface)
and perform various management functions, including
create/delete/start/stop VMs. You can also attach to the console of the
server and each VM.
Templated support for Guest OS's is limited (RedHat and variants -
Centos/Oracle/XenApp, Debian 4/5, SUSE server, Windows Variants).
Installation of guests using the ISO library I've got was simple. My
CentOS guest came up properly virtualised. I could then attach
the xs-tools CD image (directly from the console tab, nice) and install
the guest tools which allows the guest to better use the paravirt
interfaces and report statistics to the manager. A Windows
install was just as easy; install the OS, attach the CD. And the
tools come with Windows paravirt drivers (at least for XP Pro) which
just installed and worked. I like that.
But that's pretty much where paravirt support ends; I test installed
OpenSolaris 2009.06. I know this has paravirt support...but under
XenServer it runs fully virtualized. I guess I could delve into
the internals and work out the right kernel and stuff but...see ease of
use. Similarly a Ubuntu Server 9.10 came up fully
virtualized. XenServer really needs to support more OS platforms,
both for paravirt and for xs-tools.
Stability appears to be rock solid.
A nice touch in "guest installation" manual is a description on how to
convert a Windows build into a template (including using sysprep) so
more instances can be cloned quickly. Given how slow a standard
Windows build is, this is nice information.
It's possible to create virtual networks totally internal to the server
(no connection to the outside world) so you can build connections
between servers. I couldn't see an easy way of making the
XenServer act as DHCP server for that network so either you'd need to
run your own DHCP server or make sure all the machines were statically
configured on that LAN.
For the Linux minded, the install takes the whole disk; partition 1 is
the dom0 (CentOS 5.2) and takes 4Gb; partition 2 is of the same
size; not sure what that is used for. The rest of the disk is
assigned to a VG. Guest instances are LVs carved out of the
VG. This is flexible (add a disk, extend the VG, more guest
capability) and simple. You don't need to know any of this, though, to use XenServer.
On the plus side I can also make this work from my primary grub
partition with chainloader, so I can have a physical Windows instance
for when I actually need one (game playing?) and boot into XenServer
for virtualization and my test instances very easily.
Ease of install, ease of use, the simple Windows management GUI are all
pluses. Yearly license and limited paravirt/xs-tools support are
After my experiences with XenServer I was hoping for something similar
here. Obviously that didn't happen. My hardware was
considered "consumer grade" and VMware ESXi only supports server grade
hardware. Essentially, check the hardware compatibility list
carefully before installing ESX. Fortunately other people had
worked out how to get ESXi to work on similar hardware, and along with
some guesses of my own I managed to get it working. As with
XenServer I could select a disk, so disk 3 went to ESXi. Install,
reboot (more hacking needed here) and I had a running ESXi instance.
Not exactly a friendly out-of-box experience, but now I've documented
it (and kept a copy of the required files) I could rebuild this pretty
easily. I won't hold it too badly against VMware :-)
ESXi comes with a 90 days trial license. You can get a free indefinite license by registering
at VMware. Nice. Except functionality in this freeware is
very limited. Here's a comparison:
Trial license Product Features:
The indefinite license has:
Up to 8-way virtual SMP
vCenter agent for ESX Server
Hot-Pluggable virtual HW
MPIO / Third-Party Multi-Pathing
Distributed Virtual Switch
Product: ESXi 4 Single Server Licensed for 1 physical CPUs (1-6 cores per CPU)
Pretty minimal set of features!
Up to 256 GB of memory
Up to 4-way virtual SMP
One thing VMware ESXi does support is "pass-through PCI". Except my hardware doesn't seem to support it.
ESXi normally hides the control domain; you can't access it. Normally
you're meant to use their CLI emulation (perl wrappers calling webservices).
However if you switch to console 1 (ALT-F1) and type
unsupported and then enter the root password
you created then you get access to the command line. It's possible,
from here, to enable ssh. Although it's a Linux based OS the software
looks more like an embedded Linux system (busybox, ash, dropbear etc).
Not that this has any impact on the usage of VMware.
As with XenServer, proper management of the server requires a Windows
client. In fact XenServer is a very clear copy of VMware, from
how the console looks to the layout of the Windows GUI. Except
the VMware version is massively heavier. 330Mb for VMware (vs
15Mb for XenServer). The VMware GUI looks more "next generation"
but this can mean "harder to find stuff". But, yes, all the
functionality you need is there to create and manage VMs.
All in all the experience was very similar to XenServer; not surprising
if XenServer was designed to copy VMware look'n'feel. I found the
VMware version slightly harder to use; some of the options were not in
obvious places. A few times I remmeber thinking "I know I've seen this option... where was it?!".
Again, virtual networks can be built; again I couldn't see how to make ESXi act as a DHCP server to the network.
Neat idea; effectively there's an app store available from the client
where you can download and install prebuilt images into your
server. Want to test Zimbra? Click-click-deploy... there's
a Zimbra instance on your network. The implementation wasn't the
best in the world, but the idea is good.
Windows paravirtualization just worked. But this time I kinda
expected it. But the slowness of the GUI and lack of direct
access to the control domain were beginning to annoy me. I
understand VMware has more guest tools availability than XenServer, but
I never tested them.
One downside to the Linux guest tools; they don't appear to dynamically
handle changes in kernel so you might find yourself running fully
virtualised network/disk devices by mistake.
I didn't test his recently; this is from earlier usage (Jan->Jul 2009).
This is a type 2 hypervisor. I loaded it onto an existing CentOS
5 install. Because it requires kernel modules to work effeciently
it needs to be aware of primary OS kernel updates; to handle this it
uses DKMS. It works well and is, essentially, transparent.
You can upgrade your kernel and on reboot the vbox drivers are
recompiled to match.
This comes in 2 editions; VirtualBox and VirtualBox OpenSource
(OSE). Since I wasn't overly concerned about OpenSource purity (I
wanted something that worked) I went for the closed source enhanced
version. This adds built in RDP servers, ability to to pass USB
ports from the host to the guest, and the ability to use USB ports over
the RDP protocol (with a suitably enhanced rdesktop client, that they
provide). Given one idea was to replace my sole Windows desktop
with a Linux machine but I still needed Windows for ActiveSync to my
cellphone, this looked like a nice idea...
Since I was running this on a Linux machine, the management GUIs were
all X based. I understand it can also be run on a Windows host
with Windows GUIs, but I never tested that.
Client installation was simple enough; Windows installed, ran, worked
as expected. At the time I tested there were no paravirt drivers;
today it seems there are some. The wonders of OpenSource; one
person creates them, many projects take advantage. Similarly OpenSolaris loaded and installed just fine.
The main problem I had with VirtualBox was that it felt like a desktop
virtualization environment. By default all the images lived in
$HOME/.VirtualBox. This is great is you have many users who want
to manage their own virtual environments; not so great if you want
simple automation ('start these VMs at boot time'). I wrote some
simple rc scripts to work around this, but the resulting solution felt
like a kludge. It also felt too dependent on my keeping the host
OS stable; if I ever update from CentOS 5 to CentOS 6 (it'll happen,
eventually) or even switch to another Linux distro (maybe not) then I
didn't feel comfortable that VBox would easily migrate.
VMware Server (version unknown)
Another type 2 hypervisor; I use this (infrequently) at work to load up
an older OS base install that I use to compile software; this install
is minimally patched so I can be relatively sure that the software I
build is compatible with all the deployed instances in the company;
there shouldn't be anything with a lower revision than this!
This doesn't use DKMS, so if I change the kernel then I need to re-run
a script to ensure the driver interfaces are recompiled and
loaded. It warns you at boot time, but who reads boot
messages? Really, VMware should look into DKMS for their tools
(both server and guest). Otherwise there's little to say about
this... "it works". It's less desktop oriented (to my feeling)
than VirtualBox, but pretty much requires root level access to do
There's a similar worry with Virtualbox about major OS upgrades.
User Mode Linux (220.127.116.11 based kernel)
This is the odd-one of the bunch. It's not a virtual machine in
the above context. What we have here is a copy of the Linux
kernel where the devices are emulated. The whole Linux instance
runs as an application inside the host. As you can image, this is
hardly efficient. But it works. There's no pretty GUI,
there's no automated deployment tools... there's nothing that I said I
wanted. So why am I looking at User Mode Linux (UML)?
6 years ago I got a Virtual Private Server (VPS) at a company called
Linode. At the time they were using UML. Also at the time I
was using an old Pentium Pro 200 as my firewall, and running Vserver to
run security separated instances; I ran one for email (UUCP over SSL),
and one for ssh and http. They were effectively bastion
hosts. The core OS ran PPPoE and so was my internet gateway onto
DSL. Time went forward and the PPPoE gateway got replaced with a
Linksys WRT54G, but the PPro still lived on for the bastion
hosts. This was lunacy. So I sat down and built out my own
toolset to build and deploy UML instances. And, mostly, they
work! I can deploy a new Linux instance in 3 minutes.
Efficiency isn't as bad as I expected either. I had a P4 3Ghz HT;
I loaded a Postgres database and wrote code that took 2 hours to run
(heavy transformation of tables). I created an equivalent UML
instance on the Q6600, 2.4Ghz and the same code ran in 1.5 hours.
Despite all the software layers behind UML it ran faster than the
physical machine. Maybe the host OS disk caching helped (1GB RAM
on the P4, vs 4Gb RAM on Q6600), but the Q6600 was doing more different
The neat thing about UML is that its footprint is so minimal; you can
assign 128Mb of RAM and 300Mb of disk to an instance and you know
that's exactly what is taken up. This made it perfect for my
Indeed I ported this technology to work and one of my DR instances is actually a UML instance running on my desktop. Sssh!
I'm a fan of UML, but it's really not a general purpose virtualization
solution. Apart from the fact it's Linux only, you do need to be
a heavy geek to use it.
RedHat Xen... too unstable. I can't use it. Potentially I
could use the latest OpenSource Xen drivers instead of the RedHat
provided ones, but then I'd need to make sure the virt-manager stuff
all worked properly and I'd be worried about OS updates blowing away
customization. I don't want to use a different Linux distro,
because that's yet another variation to support and manage.
RedHat KVM... technologically it may be there. User friendliness,
umm. Maybe if I sat down and built out a toolkit for myself so I
could quickly and easily deploy instances (shouldn't really take more
than a weekend of trial'n'error) then this may doable.
Citrix XenServer... best of the bunch so far; just wish it
supported more platforms for paravirt and tools. And that one
VMware ESX4i... I wanted this to win because it'd give me an idea
of how we do stuff at work. But it was just a headache from start
VirtualBox... if you want virtualization on a desktop OS then this is a
really strong contender. The USB enhancements make it stand
out. I didn't feel the love as a server based solution, though.
VMware Server. Strong basic virtualization. Again, good for
your desktop OS, but if you want to use it as a server then you have
the additional host OS patching requirements.
User Mode Linux. Not in the same class, but really good for small footprint minimal overhead low-power installs.
What am I going to use? I'm not sure! I'm tending towards Citrix XenServer. But not decided, yet.
Virtualization Guide (Xen, KVM)
User Mode Linux
Last modified: Sunday, 06-Jun-2010 16:59:02 EDT