problems with hyper-v and linux (no screens found)

[stoneeh]

hi

just to note, ive never really worked with linux before, except once when i did a q3 server, and all i had to do was install (was a command line only distribution), config the eth interface, copy quake 3 and run quake3.exe with a few parameters

and that was years ago

this time, i am installing suse linux (enterprise server 10 sp2) which is the only supported by M$ linux, in microsoft's hyper-v (the virtualisation with the hypervisor, which should basically be a copy of xen)


ok, install went well. until you install the integration components (this is something like the vmware tools in vmware), you have certain disadvantages, like lack in performance, no network interface, no accelerated virtual disk, no mouse if you use remote desktop, ..

okay, so i installed the integration components like described in the M$ readme

first, install the xen enabled kernel with the rpm command
worked well

i then installed everything else (hypercall adapter, drivers), but now already i had the error msg "failed to start x server" when booting, and "no screens found"

no need to write anything further, as i have screenshots of the dilemma:






if you need further data, i will be happy to supply


greetz
stoneeh

[digg1980]

Hi stoneeh,

I highly recommend you read the Hyper-V guide at VirtualizationTeam (Blog)

They had scripted a step by step guide for installing, configuring, & using MS Hyper-V. I have followed it in our installation for our testing environment and the installation was really easy. The MS Hyper-V 5 parts series are linked to below. Check it out and hope that will get you there easily just as I were able to do it first time.

Intro: Introduction to Microsoft Windows 2008 Hyper-V RTM & Our Discovery Trip.

Part one: Microsoft Windows 2008 Hyper-V RTM Installation

Part Two: MS Hyper-V Virtual Networks Configuration & Hyper-V Server settings.

Part Three: MS Hyper-V Virtual Machine Creation.l

Part Four: MS Hyper-V Virtual Machine Settings.

Part Five: Microsoft Hyper-V Snapshots Technology.

Bonus: Install SUSE Linux Enterprise 10 SP1 & Component Integration for Linux on Hyper-V

Hope that get you there.

Enjoy,
Susan
ITComparison (the best unbaised IT Comparison Site) - Home Page

[stoneeh]

okay. after reading this, i spent about 2, 3 hours straight, and now i have a linux with the xen kernel, hypercall adapter, all drivers, and network, mouse (also in remote desktop) and display work

thank you very much!

[gogalthorp]

I think it would have been easier to use VMware server it takes about 20 min to install and setup an OS.

[stoneeh]

well. i never install additional software as long as things are possible with what came with the operating system
also in theory hyper-v should be faster/use less resources
note the "theory"
:P

[digg1980]

Hey gogalthorp,

Don't get me wrong. Although I have showed the way to install Hyper-V, I would definetly still a VMware ESX FAN. VMware ESX is a lot easier to install, configure, and use. And yes from my experience it has been faster than Hyper-V in every test I have ever done. A good comparison between the two is available at Microsoft Windows Hyper-V (WSV) VS VMware Virtual Infrastructure 3.5

Although that comparison has been done before Hyper-V RTM hit the market. It seems most of it to still hold true after releasing Hyper-V RTM. I have contacted the author and he informed that they will update it soon.

I will only recommend hyper-V if most of your virtual machines will be running Windows 2008, else VMware is the way to go.

Enjoy,
Digg1980

[stoneeh]

i think i can safely say that CPU performance in hyper-v is near physical performance
network performance i havent tested
i estimate disk performance (when using IDE disks) somewhere around 75% compared to physical. it's really not as good as the rest

only backups i have other than my experience is, ive just run the vista performance feature and it gives me 5,1 for the cpu (2 cpus assigned), 2,9 for the ram and 5,8 for the disk, while what i tested on the real machine was 5,9 for the cpu (4 cpus though), 5,9 for the ram, and 5,8 also for the disk


btw i find the comparison on itcomparison really misleading. often, there is no explanation for statements given
and then, some statements are simply wrong. like the OS support of hyper v. i happen to have, or had, the following OS installed with the integration components, meaning fully operational: server08 x86 & x64, server03 x64, XP x86 & x64, vista x86 & x64, and, as you can see from this thread, suse

there might be some good points in this review, but i find myself disagreeing often


greetz
stoneeh