September 11, 200817 yr I was wondering today if this is possible with virutal machines.Is it possible to install virtual machine software on top of itself with an OS on top of this also?Why? because it will allow one to install multiple virtual machines isolated from each otherand each containing numerous OS' that are installed in each of these virtual machines. Then thiscollection of virtual machines would be running on top of a base virtual machine thattalks to the hardware.One could keep doing this with multiple layers of virtual machines virtualized on top of each otheruntil one gets tired of doing this.....
September 11, 200817 yr Well not with VMWARE Workstation, it know that it is a VM and won't let you install VM Workstation inside the VM. Tried once for the fun of it.
September 12, 200817 yr Author Well not with VMWARE Workstation, it know that it is a VM and won't let you install VM Workstation inside the VM. Tried once for the fun of it.What about MSofts PC 2007 virtual machine on top of VMWare or vice versa?With two processor cores, can the BIOS be tricked into booting two or more virtual machinesside-by-side then with OS' running in each. The virtual machines could be from the same vendoror different vendors.The way I'd think this could be done is a boot mgr acts like a server which spawns one virtualmachine to start and then spawns a second virtual machine (could be the same or differentvendors) and each spawned copy would be associated with one of the processors in the PCby using the processor affinity capability. The OSS software HURD was being developedalong these lines from what I remember such that the OS would be a client-server based OSvs. the OS one thinks of today. The other way was to boot a Corba server, and each applicationwould be written as a plug-in to be spawned by this server. I believe Sun did some researchin this area in the 1990's, but I forget what it was called then. Thus the Virtual machine wouldbe designed as a plug-in to the Corba server. Other people thought the OS would be thebrowser such that when the computer starts, the browser would run and any app would beshown in the browser as if it were on a desktop. When one clicked on it, the browser would spawnthe application or run the plugin. This is what scared MSoft back in the 90's since if theydidn't get into the browser market fast, their windows OS would be obsolete since it could bereplaced with a browser, plugins and third party apps. The hardware drivers would bewritten as pluggins too for the browser to add additional functionality for various hardwarethat came out in the future. Thus, one wouldn't have to rewrite the browser softwareeverytime hardware came out. Thus, the browser could be thought of as a server withthe apps the clients. Similarily the Corba would be the server and would have plugin apps.This also would be similar to the HURD system being developed. Thus these type of serverscould be thought of as the OS. Edited September 12, 200817 yr by mikesw
September 12, 200817 yr The problem with this approach is it's inefficient usage of the underlying hardware, due to multiple levels of virtualization. It might be better to consider a hypervisor-based virtual server (assuming you have the Intel or AMD hardware to support such software) like Microsoft Hyper-V, Xen, or VMWare ESXi. This way your virtual server software is running in the hypervisor, and your VMs are running as close to the hardware as possible and still give you the ability to divvy up resources as needed.
September 12, 200817 yr Well not with VMWARE Workstation, it know that it is a VM and won't let you install VM Workstation inside the VM. Tried once for the fun of it.You can install it if you make it silent [/qn] but the VM will not run Edited September 12, 200817 yr by ricktendo64
September 12, 200817 yr You can install it if you make it silent [/qn] but the VM will not run ok, then same result, except you just took up space in your VM.
September 12, 200817 yr You can, however, install Virtual PC inside a hyper-v VM... . Not sure why you'd want to do it, but, it can be done.
September 12, 200817 yr Author The reason to do all these variations is "because....." , "why not" and "can it be done..."Of course, it will take up extra resources and may not be practical in reality - but why not try to see if it can be done. Maybe someday this complexitywill be thought of as state-of-the-art and everyone will be wondering "can it be done!" Edited September 12, 200817 yr by mikesw
September 12, 200817 yr Well I answered both q's...can it be installed? (yes) will it run? (no)Maybe if somebody hex edited/patched the VMware executable or something
September 15, 200817 yr You know, as far as a matter of fun or testing, I can understand why you'd want to do this. But I think it falls into not being a "best practice" situation. At a previous company, one of my co-workers did just this. He ran a VM within a VM, and this VM would automatically boot up and load another VM. He ended up with a mirrored/windowed effect, and I believe that something bad had happened to the computer because of that. In the end, it became a company policy that said we were forbidden from running VM within VM...
September 15, 200817 yr Author Hey! I see others are thinking outside-of-box.... I mean outside-of-VM!!
September 16, 200817 yr I think the main response here is that there is a better way to do what you want, but all the power to you to make it happen!
Create an account or sign in to comment