Multiple OSes at the same time

[goatedpenguin]

2 minutes ago, Blue4130 said:

than having two OS's fighting for access.

Hence, my scheduler

[goatedpenguin]

18 minutes ago, emosun said:

imagine thats the exact question you would ask the people who sent you the cease and desist.

Why would they? What am I doing wrong here?(assuming I did do it successfully)

[Blue4130]

3 minutes ago, goatedpenguin said:

No i mean the imb z architecture u were talking about.

That wasn't me.

3 minutes ago, goatedpenguin said:

Hence, my scheduler

How would this be any different than a dynamic VM? What makes it better?

[emosun]

2 minutes ago, goatedpenguin said:

Why would they? What am I doing wrong here?(assuming I did do it successfully)

do you plan on selling this or using it by yourself

[emosun]

Just now, Blue4130 said:

That wasn't me.

How would this be any different than a dynamic VM? What makes it better?

the intended client for this ability is basically somebody stranded on a deserted island with no access to money , a second computer , or a kvm. But surprisingly does have one computer and..... the need to run two operating systems only at native speeds... lol

[Blue4130]

3 minutes ago, emosun said:

the intended client for this ability is basically somebody stranded on a deserted island with no access to money , a second computer , or a kvm. But surprisingly does have one computer and..... the need to run two operating systems only at native speeds... lol

I see the use, but it is a solved problem with VM's already. No need to reinvent the wheel.

[goatedpenguin]

8 minutes ago, Blue4130 said:

but it is a solved problem with VM's already.

You have an abstraction layer, using a vm would make it slower i am trying to suggest that both OSes can run on bare metal with a sceduler that makes sure they dont clash and allocates resources dynamically..@emosun I am not trying to sell this I have no idea why you are assuming so, I have said multiple times that this is just an idea. It almost sounds like that you are trying to make my idea something to sell while its only being discussed just for knowledge and a healthy talk thats all.

[emosun]

9 minutes ago, goatedpenguin said:

You have an abstraction layer, using a vm would make it slower i am trying to suggest that both OSes can run on bare metal with a sceduler that makes sure they dont clash and allocates resources dynamically..@emosun I am not trying to sell this I have no idea why you are assuming so, I have said multiple times that this is just an idea. It almost sounds like that you are trying to make my idea something to sell while its only being discussed just for knowledge and a healthy talk thats all.

ok well nobody here said it was 100% impossible to run two os's at once. sure you can. discussion over?

the only reason I'm asking why.... is because that's the only thing to discuss.  it's technically possible , much in the same way putting a toilet in the living room is possible. asking why though is the only thing to hash out.

[goatedpenguin]

1 minute ago, emosun said:

the only reason I'm asking why.... is because that's the only thing to discuss. 

No its not. For you it is.

[emosun]

2 minutes ago, goatedpenguin said:

No its not. For you it is.

for everyone it is.

we already established that.... you appear to be the only person requiring it.... so if you wanna talk to yourself then beats talking to me. good luck with it.

[Blue4130]

21 minutes ago, goatedpenguin said:

You have an abstraction layer, using a vm would make it slower i am trying to suggest that both OSes can run on bare metal with a sceduler that makes sure they dont clash and allocates resources dynamically..@emosun I am not trying to sell this I have no idea why you are assuming so, I have said multiple times that this is just an idea. It almost sounds like that you are trying to make my idea something to sell while its only being discussed just for knowledge and a healthy talk thats all.

That scheduler is going to need to be constantly monitoring both OS's, It's going to take resources causing slow down. No matter what, somewhere you are going to loose a litle speed.

 

(But honestly, aren't cpu's fast enough today that you would not really notice a couple of % being chewed up by a VM host)

[BoomerDutch]

There's xen virtualisation QubeOS made it possible with xen hypervisor. Its hard to find information how to replicate it since QubeOS is kinda custom made.

 

But if xen hypervisor kept improving and more people get interested then yeah you can run multiple OS at same time.

 

Good luck finding that out since I'm already have hard time figuring out.

[goatedpenguin]

11 minutes ago, BoomerDutch said:

But if xen hypervisor kept improving and more people get interested then yeah you can run multiple OS at same time.

I have heard of xen; never knew it did something like this but are the OSes running side by side or is one the host and the other the guest?

[Eigenvektor]

3 minutes ago, goatedpenguin said:

I have heard of xen; never knew it did something like this but are the OSes running side by side or is one the host and the other the guest?

Xen is the host, and runs on bare metal (type-1 hypervisor), every other OS is a guest.

 

~edit: You can read a bit more here: https://xenproject.org/users/virtualization/

[goatedpenguin]

Just now, Eigenvektor said:

Xen is the host, and runs on bare metal (type-1 hypervisor), every other OS is a guest.

That is hyper v too, I want the OSes to run side by side(very short oversimplification of my whole idea)

[BoomerDutch]

7 minutes ago, goatedpenguin said:

That is hyper v too, I want the OSes to run side by side(very short oversimplification of my whole idea)

Afraid it's not possible.

 

That would require complex coding.

 

Which no one will build it because there's nothing to gain from it.

 

Security wise and performance.

 

Only exception if you have two hardware and have mouse program to go between them yeah that's possible.

[Eigenvektor]

12 minutes ago, goatedpenguin said:

That is hyper v too, I want the OSes to run side by side(very short oversimplification of my whole idea)

Yes, it's still (para-)virtualization. There is no other way to get two OSes to run side by side. They both expect to have full control of the hardware, which isn't going to happen if two run at the same time. So you need some in-between layer that takes care of that, by virtualizing the hardware.

 

Each OS works as if it was running on actual hardware, the VM takes care of communication with the actual physical hardware. The performance loss from virtualization is fairly minimal, especially with a type-1 hypervisor. Of course if both guests are doing something performance intensive such as playing a game, you'll need additional resources and ideally more than one GPU or a GPU that supports virtualization as well.

 

If your OS supports para-virtualization the overhead can be even lower, but that requires support on both the guest and the host (e.g. Xen host + Linux guest)

[BoomerDutch]

10 minutes ago, Eigenvektor said:

Yes, it's still (para-)virtualization. There is no other way to get two OSes to run side by side. They both expect to have full control of the hardware, which isn't going to happen if two run at the same time. So you need some in-between layer that takes care of that, by virtualizing the hardware.

 

Each OS works as if it was running on actual hardware, the VM takes care of communication with the actual physical hardware. The performance loss from virtualization is fairly minimal, especially with a type-1 hypervisor. Of course if both guests are doing something performance intensive such as playing a game, you'll need additional resources and ideally more than one GPU or a GPU that supports virtualization as well.

 

If your OS supports para-virtualization the overhead can be even lower, but that requires support on both the guest and the host (e.g. Xen host + Linux guest)

Gotta agree with that one.

 

It is technically running multiple os at same time including GPU passthrough.

 

I've tried it although I've failed because too old gpu or I'm missing documentation.

[goatedpenguin]

11 minutes ago, Eigenvektor said:

They both expect to have full control of the hardware

Thats my solution with my idea, its to essentially virtualize the hardware so the OS knows how much resources that they have been given with native performance. 

[Eigenvektor]

7 minutes ago, goatedpenguin said:

Thats my solution with my idea, its to essentially virtualize the hardware so the OS knows how much resources that they have been given with native performance. 

That's basically what a type-1 hypervisor is. It's a minimal layer between guest and hardware.

 

Rather than

Hardware -> OS -> Hypervisor -> Guest

You have

Hardware -> Hypervisor -> Guest

 

The big advantage of virtualization is normally that it can be used with any OS as-is, while providing isolation between the guests.

 

If you want even less overhead, there is para-virtualization, which allows more direct access to host hardware, but requires modifications to the guest OS.

[goatedpenguin]

7 minutes ago, Eigenvektor said:

That's basically what a type-1 hypervisor is. It's a minimal layer between guest and hardware.

 

Rather than

Hardware -> OS -> Hypervisor -> Guest

You have

Hardware -> Hypervisor -> Guest

 

The big advantage of virtualization is normally that it can be used with any OS as-is, while providing isolation between the guests.

 

If you want even less overhead, there is para-virtualization, which allows more direct access to host hardware, but requires modifications to the guest OS.

See I get that but ik it sounds stupid however, I want to have the splitting to be horizontal rather than vertical. The OSes virtualization in my idea are not below one another if that makes sense. And even with a type 1 HV there is still the host OS between no?

[Blue4130]

19 minutes ago, goatedpenguin said:

And even with a type 1 HV there is still the host OS between no?

And your idea uses a scheduler.... Which is what the host OS is. Call it a scheduler or a host OS, both use resources.

[goatedpenguin]

19 minutes ago, Blue4130 said:

And your idea uses a scheduler.... Which is what the host OS is. Call it a scheduler or a host OS, both use resources.

But it does not run under it, both run under the main “scheduler”

[goatedpenguin]

2 hours ago, WhitetailAni said:

Something like this?

Kinda but my idea is for them to operate them at the same time. Interesting tho might do more research on that too... Thanks for the insight  

[Blue4130]

37 minutes ago, goatedpenguin said:

But it does not run under it, both run under the main “scheduler”

Replace scheduler with type 1 hypervisor. That is how a type one hypervisor works. Maybe this picture will explain it better for you.