| Author |
 Topic  |
|
|
timberk
Old Timer
USA
567 Posts
Status: offline |
|
|
timberk
Old Timer
USA
567 Posts
Status: offline |
 Posted - 10/23/2008 : 4:13:30 PM
|
Just an update on this topic, I have successfully installed the Linux Integration Components on SLES 10 SP2 x64. This is fairly simple, if you follow the Release notes provided with the LIC. Unfortunately, there are a lot of missing features in the RTM version of the Hyper-V LIC. Such as: No integrated mouse support, no time synchonization, no external shutdown support, no backup support and no support for kernels after version 2.6.18. Performance IS noticeably better than not having them installed, but feature poor.......
I was able to get the unsupported CentOS 5.2 running with the Hyper-V LIC, with the help of this very nice guide:
http://www.jules.fm/Logbook/files/win2008_linuxic_rc2_rhel.html
This guide describes how to get RHEL or CentOS as Hyper-V guests running with the Linux Integration Components. This is probably not a task for the faint of heart, as it involves compiling a version of the Linux kernel that contains the Hyper-V patches........... But it does work.
MS has a long way to go in Linux support as a Hyper-V guest operating system.
~tb |
Edited by - timberk on 10/23/2008 5:22:44 PM |
 |
|
|
joe_elway
Honorable But Hopeless Addict
Ireland
6673 Posts
Status: offline |
Posted - 10/24/2008 : 07:39:59 AM
|
SLES seems to be quite unpopular with some of the Penguin-heads I've talked to. They'd prefer to use RedHat or CentOS. Lack of production IC support for those OS's is a major problem but there's a cerain amount of fingers-in-ears when it comes to the people in Redmond. We'l have OpsMgr support for RedHat (as well as SLES) soon and I can only hope the virtualisation team follows with IC.
I've read through the IC install for SLES and it appeared easy enough. Not quite, next-next-next but not rocket science.
In theory, any Xen enabled kernel will run on Hyper-V. The problem is that your're not getting the same performance, e.g. the legacy NIC uses up slightly more resources than the VMBus NIC. In production, I wouldn't hack the IC into place. |
Aidan Finn
MCSE, MVP (Virtual Machine: Systems Administration)
IT Blog: http://www.aidanfinn.com
My Photography: http://www.aidanfinnphoto.com/
My Hyper-V Book: Mastering Hyper-V Deployment
Twitter: http://twitter.com/joe_elway |
|
|
|
timberk
Old Timer
USA
567 Posts
Status: offline |
Posted - 10/24/2008 : 12:44:29 PM
|
Agreed, I certainly wouldn't run a production machine with the IC hacked in to place. I was just curious to see what was involved to get it up and running on CentOS. I was kind of expecting that the IC would give an experience similiar to a Windows vm; not having to do the ALT+CTL+right arrow key combination to release the mouse, Heartbeat Service etc. That was not the case.
Interesting that SLES has fallen out of favor....
~tb |
Edited by - timberk on 10/24/2008 12:44:50 PM |
|
|
|
deandownsouth
Old Timer
USA
415 Posts
Status: offline |
Posted - 10/24/2008 : 7:42:24 PM
|
Red Hat really owns the enterprise Linux space. The reason MS supports SLES, at least first, is due to the infamous agreement that they entered into with Novell. Many "Penguin heads" really did not like that at all since it gave credence to that idiotic notion that Linux violated some of MS patents. As a self respecting Penguin head, although I didn't like what Novell did, I did see the need for it since at that time, the SCO suit had not been settled so Novell wanted to hold harmless its customers (Xandros, TurboLinux and Linspire [not big players at all] also signed). The purists in the FOSS world reacted wrongly since what Novell did was very important at the time. Red Hat (and I believe IBM as well) called MS' bluff and refused to sign (MS never did come clean with what IP Linux violated) but in an ironic twist of history, Ballmer (and others at MS) intimated that one area was with certain windowing components which sounds eerily familiar to Apple's suit against MS regarding Windows' 'look and feel' of a decade or more ago (which is even more ironic since all that stuff came from Xerox PARC so Apple didn't 'invent' it either).
SLES/SLED are decent products (and as a Novell MCNE I'm sure torn) but I prefer RHEL (and its clones), Slackware and Gentoo for my servers and Fedora and Ubuntu for my desktops. Suse's problem for me is really one of what I'm used to; it puts config files in different places and is just too GUI. Newer folks to Linux will no doubt appreciate it much more as it is along the lines of Ubuntu in ease of use. |
Mark Dean
|
|
|
|
ptwilliams
Moderator
United Kingdom
4401 Posts
Status: offline |
Posted - 10/25/2008 : 3:56:13 PM
|
How come there's no mention of Solaris Mark? That's a genuine question from a 99.9% Windows-oriented IT infra. pro. who's working somewhere heavily involved with Sun (and must admit some of it looks really cool but is amazed how difficult it is to change an IPv4 address  ). |
|
|
|
deandownsouth
Old Timer
USA
415 Posts
Status: offline |
Posted - 10/25/2008 : 4:53:02 PM
|
Ah, Solaris-yes a sometimes strange beast. I cut my Unix teeth on SunOS in 1988 before moving to the NetWare, HP-UX and AIX worlds and I supported Solaris for several years in the mid-90s and still run it on a couple of UltraSparc stations and one 2-way SparcServer 10 system (all of them also run Linux when needed) and I've had x86 Solaris since SunOS 2.5.1. I do have VMs running Solaris 6-10 as well. The cool thing about x86 Solaris is that it can run most of the Linux software and Wine and Codeweavers fully supports it. Solaris is also *real* Unix, if that means anything to anyone. But Sun really blew it and is still doing so. Their OpenSolaris project is the latest attempt to capture some non-Windows market share back and to also keep the flow of Unix shops going from Solaris to Linux. Indeed, most of the migrations to Linux that I've been involved with have not been from Windows but from other Unix with Sun being a large share. Sun should have Open Source'd Solaris years ago and their OpenSolaris is not released under GPL so that attempt was really lame. Sun has only recently come to realize that companies like the idea of commodity x86 systems and shy away from propriety hardware (like Apple did)-especially nowadays with very powerful 64 bit CPUs and large memory addresses.
The big question is why would a company run Solaris over Linux on x86 if they are wanting/needing to run a non-Windows system? There is a ton of work being done on Linux with three major corporations backing it heavily (Red Hat, Novell and IBM). I can see a company who has propriety Sun servers standardizing on Solaris even for their x86 systems. But other than that, as much as I like Solaris, and I hope I'm wrong, but I see it dwindling in market share and becoming more and more niche.
It's really kind of like FreeBSD. Yes, it's cool but there is not nearly as much work and support around it as is Linux. In an ironic twist, Linux has become more like Windows in that it is the de facto standard for x86 Unix. |
Mark Dean
|
|
|
| |
Topic |
|
Thoughts on Linux Integration Comp'ts for Hyper-V?
