Virtualization Technology bios setting

[alex666]

Hi all.

I've got a DS3 (see sig, bottom system) and want to run MS Virtual PC 2007. I ran MS Virtual PC 2004 in the past with success on a machine that did not have any kind of bios switch for virtualization, but the DS3 has that switch in the advanced bios settings for "Virtualization Technology". I had disabled it but then enabled it and installed the the above virtual 2007.

So how exactly does this bios setting affect the virtualization program? I mean, the 2004 version of the program ran fine on my other mobo without this bios feature, so how will this bios feature cause virtualization to run better, or whatever?

BTW, I installed the virtualization program (and previously installed it) to run Win 98se, as there are a couple of programs my son uses that actually run better on 98se than XP, and ran quite well under the MS Virtual PC 2004. So I'm hoping they will do the same on the 2007 version.

Thanks.

marty

[elvin]

The purpose of it is to give it better stability when you do run a virtual server from with in windows.

[alex666]

The purpose of it is to give it better stability when you do run a virtual server from with in windows.

I don't understand; why would anyone want to run a virtual server from within windows? And how does the bios setting improve stability?

[elvin]

alex i found the article in windows page do i search on it has the info you want with lots of detial.Intel side example of that setting is what i stated above that's the whole purpose of it.I don't know more then that i figure that small bit i gave you should have you google away to go deeper into it.

[alex666]

alex i found the article in windows page do i search on it has the info you want with lots of detial.Intel side example of that setting is what i stated above that's the whole purpose of it.I don't know more then that i figure that small bit i gave you should have you google away to go deeper into it.

Okay, thanks.

[Ned Slider]

You really want to enable virtualization in your bios.

There are two ways you can do virtualization - in software or in hardware. Before recent CPUs that support hardware virtualization, this was always done in software with programs like VMWare or Virtual PC. These software solutions "virtualize" a second processor to run a second OS, and obviously there is some overhead involved in this (hence why a virtual OS never quite performs as fast as a native OS).

However, with the introduction of hardware virtualization, a single CPU can act if it were several CPUs running in parallel, allowing the system to run several operating systems at the same time. In theory hardware virtualization should be more efficient than software virtualization.

Software such as Xen, VMWare and Virtual PC support hardware virtualization. Xen is a little different than programs such as VMWare and Virtual PC that run on top of a conventional OS in that it uses a thin software layer known as a hypervisor (basically a virtualization-enabled kernel) that is inserted between the server’s hardware and the virtualized operating system(s), so there's not really an underlying OS as such like Windows. Xen is very popular with hosting companies that want to host multiple virtual servers on a single hardware server.

Also, I believe if you don't enable hardware virtualization in your bios, on a C2D system you would only see a single core processor on your virtual machine as the virtualization would be performed in software.

[alex666]

Ned, thank you. That was very informative response and definitely addressed my question.

marty

[Ned Slider]

You're welcome marty

You know, it's great that guys like us can play with this stuff now, because in a few years I think virtualization will be the norm. It's already huge in the corporate hosting sector, and with quad and higher cores coming to market, it's only going to increase.

Imagine, you have an 8 or 16-way cpu, running multiple virtualized OSes with a KVM switch serving the whole house/family from one central PC box. Dad watches the big match streamed from the web, Mom is checking out a new recipe online, little Billy is zapping his mates in the latest game when he should be doing his homework, whilst Jane is watching a DVD on the media center... you get the idea, all running their own virtualized OSes on one central family PC.

In the office too, 8 folks sharing a small office all just using Office and the web - hardly taxing stuff, now run one central PC instead of 8, each with their own virtualized OS. The cost savings in terms of electricity and hardware outlay soon mount up over a large corporation

[alex666]

Ned, that's very compelling, though to be honest I don't quite grasp how the family scenario you described would actually work, i.e., how four people could be doing 4 different things simultaneously from one machine. It's the hardware side, how each virtual OS would need its own hardware (video card, monitor, keyboard) and how that would all connect up, that puzzles me.

At this point, for me, running virtual PC just lets me run alternative OSes within one system. I've got 98se running fine, have struggled with unbuntu though I'm going to try their new distribution and see if I can get it to work. But the situation you described on a multi-core system, yes, that could be quite interesting from a number of perspectives.

marty

[Ned Slider]

Yeah - you're totally right

I didn't think that one through - was thinking of the way I log in remotely or serve a virtual OS with VMWare Server.

[elvin]

ah there a man with a detail of it.I knew someone would give a deeper detail.It was over my head only toke in that one big point of it all.

[reks]

I don't understand; why would anyone want to run a virtual server from within windows? And how does the bios setting improve stability?

A good example among many is ... Think of someone studying for a systems engineer exam, setting up multiple domain controllers, dhcp servers, print servers etc from the one multicore pc would be more cost affective than buying hardware for each. This has helped me with study in the past.

Ned, that's very compelling, though to be honest I don't quite grasp how the family scenario you described would actually work, i.e., how four people could be doing 4 different things simultaneously from one machine. It's the hardware side, how each virtual OS would need its own hardware (video card, monitor, keyboard) and how that would all connect up, that puzzles me.

At this point, for me, running virtual PC just lets me run alternative OSes within one system. I've got 98se running fine, have struggled with unbuntu though I'm going to try their new distribution and see if I can get it to work. But the situation you described on a multi-core system, yes, that could be quite interesting from a number of perspectives.

marty

I am a Citrix Engineer and am responsible for over 115 servers, 125 if you count the virtual ones

You're more than likely already familiar with citrix technology but for the benefit of others, it's a multi user platform sharing resources on single hardware - MS's equivalent is Terminal Services in application mode. In fact Citrix is merely a layer on top of Terminal Services application mode that deals with user mouse/keyboard and screenupdates :\

On our windows 2000 server (physcial blade) boxes we can host well over 35 users and on our 2003 server boxes we can fit up to 130 users depending on what is being hosted on each box.

Users on these servers access everything they need simultaneously to other users logged into the same hardware. Fantastic technology, MS has caught up to citrix with this regard in their latest implementation of Terminal services, in terms of comparable traffic compression/footprint/performance.

Virtual Serving: In our current environment we have virtual print servers, SQL servers, Web servers and a whole host of other member servers that run virutally - each of these is VMWare a server. Each piece of hardware currently hosts in excess of 15 VMWare servers and we have atleast 6 of these beasts hosting that number of member servers

There are pros and cons to using both virtual technology and shared resourcing. For example, single point of failure that will affect all users or services connected should there be downtime. The upside is centralised and uniform administration as well as a huge cost saving in not having to fork out for the individual blades/workstations/enclosures/racks/networking infrastructure/staff resourcing etc.

I can see Neds Vision coming into fruition in the not too distant future Good insight ned

[MarkHark]

Does anybody know if DOS 6.2 will run fine on VirtualPC 2007, enough that I should be able to run most old games on it?

[alex666]

Thanks reks. Hey, I'm just schmuck who likes to build computers for home use. I've cobbled together one home network; that's the sum total of my network experience other than what I use at work, with "use" the operative term, as I have nothing to do with network management. I'm just one of many on the network.

Bottom line: I really don't understand beans about networks, let alone the fine points you described ( sorry, I've never heard of Citrix).

Now, if you're interested in how to conduct a neuropsychological evaluation for Alzheimer's disease or other dementias, drop me a line. But networks, forget it.

[reks]

Thanks reks. Hey, I'm just schmuck who likes to build computers for home use. I've cobbled together one home network; that's the sum total of my network experience other than what I use at work, with "use" the operative term, as I have nothing to do with network management. I'm just one of many on the network.

Bottom line: I really don't understand beans about networks, let alone the fine points you described ( sorry, I've never heard of Citrix).

Now, if you're interested in how to conduct a neuropsychological evaluation for Alzheimer's disease or other dementias, drop me a line. But networks, forget it.

Funny that, I work for a hospital. I'll tell you what I tell the medical staff who say they're lost when it comes to computers: "If it's not part of your job to know any of this stuff, don't feel bad about it, I'd be lost in your medical terminology also, but I don't need to know about that to any great extent either".

My point is that what Neds suggested is to a greater or lesser degree happening right now