Virtualizing the Virtual Machine?

[mikesw]

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 other

and each containing numerous OS' that are installed in each of these virtual machines. Then this

collection of virtual machines would be running on top of a base virtual machine that

talks to the hardware.

One could keep doing this with multiple layers of virtual machines virtualized on top of each other

until one gets tired of doing this.....

[IcemanND]

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.

[mikesw]

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 machines

side-by-side then with OS' running in each. The virtual machines could be from the same vendor

or different vendors.

The way I'd think this could be done is a boot mgr acts like a server which spawns one virtual

machine to start and then spawns a second virtual machine (could be the same or different

vendors) and each spawned copy would be associated with one of the processors in the PC

by using the processor affinity capability. The OSS software HURD was being developed

along these lines from what I remember such that the OS would be a client-server based OS

vs. the OS one thinks of today. The other way was to boot a Corba server, and each application

would be written as a plug-in to be spawned by this server. I believe Sun did some research

in this area in the 1990's, but I forget what it was called then. Thus the Virtual machine would

be designed as a plug-in to the Corba server. Other people thought the OS would be the

browser such that when the computer starts, the browser would run and any app would be

shown in the browser as if it were on a desktop. When one clicked on it, the browser would spawn

the application or run the plugin. This is what scared MSoft back in the 90's since if they

didn't get into the browser market fast, their windows OS would be obsolete since it could be

replaced with a browser, plugins and third party apps. The hardware drivers would be

written as pluggins too for the browser to add additional functionality for various hardware

that came out in the future. Thus, one wouldn't have to rewrite the browser software

everytime hardware came out. Thus, the browser could be thought of as a server with

the 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 servers

could be thought of as the OS.

Edited September 12, 2008 by mikesw

[cluberti]

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.

[ricktendo]

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, 2008 by ricktendo64

[IcemanND]

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.

[cluberti]

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.

[mikesw]

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 complexity

will be thought of as state-of-the-art and everyone will be wondering "can it be done!"

Edited September 12, 2008 by mikesw

[ricktendo]

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

[Tripredacus]

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...

[mikesw]

Hey! I see others are thinking outside-of-box.... I mean outside-of-VM!!

[Tripredacus]

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!