While IBM has had a virtual-machine product available for four decades, and a few other companies, including Oracle and Hewlett-Packard, have recently added virtual-machine support to their high-end enterprise servers, the idea of virtualization has largely been ignored in the PC world until recently. But in the past few years, a combination of new needs, new software, and new technologies have combined to make it a hot topic.

First the needs. Many companies have traditionally run their mail servers, Web servers, FTP servers, and other servers on separate computers, sometimes with different operating systems. They see virtualization as a way to run them all on the same machine without having a crash of one server bring down the rest.

Virtualization is also popular in the Web hosting world. Without virtualization, Web hosting customers are forced to choose between shared hosting (which just gives them a login account on a Web server, but no control over the server software) and dedicated hosting (which gives them their own machine, which is very flexible but not cost-effective for small to medium Websites). When a Web hosting company offers virtual machines for rent, a single physical machine can run many virtual machines, each of which appears to be a complete machine. Customers who rent a virtual machine can run whatever operating system and software they want to, but at a fraction of the cost of a dedicated server (because the same physical machine supports many virtual machines at the same time).

Another use of virtualization is for end-users who want to be able to run two or more operating systems at the same time, say Windows and Linux because some of their favorite application packages run on one and some run on the other. 

 ‘‘virtual machine monitor’’ requires more keystrokes than people are prepared to put up with now. Note that many authors use the terms interchangeably though.

While no one disputes the attractiveness of virtual machines today, the problem then was implementation. In order to run virtual machine software on a computer, its CPU must be virtualizable (Popek and Goldberg, 1974). In a nutshell, here is the problem. When an operating system running on a virtual machine (in user mode) executes a privileged instruction, such as modifying the PSW or doing I/O, it is essential that the hardware trap to the virtual-machine monitor so the instructions can be emulated in software. On some CPUs—notably the Pentium, its predecessors, and its clones—attempts to execute privileged instructions in user mode are just ignored. This property made it impossible to have virtual machines on this hardware, which explains the lack of interest in the x86 world. Of course, there were interpreters for the Pentium, such as Bochs, that ran on the Pentium, but with a performance loss of one to two orders of magnitude, they were not useful for serious work.

This situation changed as a result of several academic research projects in the 1990s and early years of this millennium, notably Disco at Stanford (Bugnion et al., 1997) and Xen at Cambridge University (Barham et al., 2003). These research papers led to several commercial products (e.g., VMware Workstation and Xen) and a revival of interest in virtual machines. Besides VMware and Xen, popular hypervisors today include KVM (for the Linux kernel), VirtualBox (by Oracle), and Hyper-V (by Microsoft).

Some of these early research projects improved the performance over interpreters like Bochs by translating blocks of code on the fly, storing them in an internal cache, and then reusing them if they were executed again. This improved the performance considerably and led to what we will call machine simulators. However, although this technique, known as binary translation, helped improve matters, the resulting systems, while good enough to publish papers about in academic conferences, were still not fast enough to use in commercial environments where performance matters a lot.

 The next step in improving performance was to add a kernel module to do some of the heavy lifting. In practice now, all commercially available hypervisors, such as VMware Workstation, use this hybrid strategy (and have many other improvements as well). They are called type 2 hypervisors by everyone, so we will (somewhat grudgingly) go along and use this name in the rest of this book, even though we would prefer to call them to type 1.7 hypervisors to reflect the fact that they are not entirely user-mode programs. In Chap. 7, we will describe in detail how VMware Workstation works and what the various pieces do.

In practice, the real distinction between a type 1 hypervisor and a type 2 hypervisor is that type 2 makes uses of a host operating system and its file system to create processes, store files, and so on. A type 1 hypervisor has no underlying support and must perform all these functions itself.

After a type 2 hypervisor is started, it reads the installation CD-ROM (or CD- ROM image file) for the chosen guest operating system and installs the guest OS on a virtual disk, which is just a big file in the host operating system’s file system. Type 1 hypervisors cannot do this because there is no host operating system to store files on. They must manage their own storage on a raw disk partition.

When the guest operating system is booted, it does the same thing it does on the actual hardware, typically starting up some background processes and then a GUI. To the user, the guest operating system behaves the same way it does when running on the bare metal even though that is not the case here.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here