Apple to Allow Virtualization of Leopard

[MacVault]

Apple to Allow Virtualization of Leopard (But only on Apple hardware )

In a notable about-face, Apple has changed its stance with regard to allowing Mac OS X Server to be run inside a virtual machine (VM), much as Parallels Desktop and VMware Fusion make it possible to run Windows and other PC-based operating systems on a Mac. Until the release of Mac OS X 10.5 Leopard Server, Apple's software license agreement explicitly forbade running multiple copies of Mac OS X Server on a single Mac, preventing Parallels and VMware from including Mac OS X Server among the operating systems that could be virtualized legally. Apple's Tiger Server software license agreement reads:

This License allows you to install and use one copy of the Mac OS X Server software (the "Mac OS X Server Software") on a single Apple-labeled computer at a time.

However, a sharp-eyed systems engineer noticed that Leopard Server's software license agreement is significantly different. Dave Schroeder, Senior Systems Engineer at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, posted to the MacEnterprise.org mailing list about his finding, calling out this change:

This License allows you to install and use one copy of the Mac OS X Server software (the "Mac OS X Server Software") on a single Apple-labeled computer. You may also install and use other copies of Mac OS X Server Software on the same Apple-labeled computer, provided that you acquire an individual and valid license from Apple for each of these other copies of Mac OS X Server Software.

This change applies only to Leopard Server, not to the desktop version of Leopard. Apple has not changed the software license agreements for either version of Tiger.

 

[Nermal]

I find it interesting that this is only available for Server. If I'm reading the licence correctly, there should be nothing stopping you from running Client in a VM too, so long as you have a separate licence for it.

 

[johny5]

Sorry I don't understand? what benefit would this bring anyway when you are already running that OS on that Mac? why would you want to run another copy of the same OS? or am I reading this wrong?

 

[Peace]

Why would Apple allow it's server OS to operate on non-Apple hardware to begin with ?
Apple doesn't allow it's OS on non-Apple hardware.

 

[MacVault]

Why would Apple allow it's server OS to operate on non-Apple hardware to begin with ?
Apple doesn't allow it's OS on non-Apple hardware.

That's my point - I wish they would allow it to non-Apple hardware so that I could build my own box just exactly the way I want it. Until I'm able to do so, Mac OS X is very crippled IMO.

 

[psonice]

Good news for servers...

This makes a lot of sense, you wouldn't really want leopard running in a virtual machine in leopard (well, unless you're testing applications etc., I do this a lot but with windows running under windows) but it's extremely useful on servers.

Virtual servers are more and more common now - you buy perhaps 3 physical servers, but use virtualisation to run perhaps 10 virtual servers on them. That way, you can run all those nasty server apps that really need to run on their own box but don't need much power to run them, and not pay a fortune for a load of actual boxes. As an example, say you run a website. You can run the 'real' version of the site on one machine, and a test version on another. If the test one crashes and burns and takes the whole OS with it, it won't affect your 'real' site, as it's on a different virtual server.

 

[Sky Blue]

Sorry I don't understand? what benefit would this bring anyway when you are already running that OS on that Mac? why would you want to run another copy of the same OS? or am I reading this wrong?

Virtual Servers.

 

[johny5]

This makes a lot of sense, you wouldn't really want leopard running in a virtual machine in leopard (well, unless you're testing applications etc., I do this a lot but with windows running under windows) but it's extremely useful on servers

Ahh ok I understand maybe beneficial to windows and the apps crashing but if you have a stable Mac OS I dont see the real benefit of running many virtual servers on the same server (unless the application management is better this way). Surely the processor overhead of merely running the extra virtual servers alone would have an affect on the main physical server as oppose to installing the many different apps/processes that you would on the physical server.

 

[GoodWatch]

According to VMware, the VM kernel only adds about 4% overhead to the resource pool. The VMkernel is a thin layer between the actual hardware and the virtual machines running on top of that layer. We have 2 servers with two 4 core processors and 16 GB RAM each. The files of the actual VMs reside on iSCSI SANs. (We’ve made the whole setup redundant, one SAN synchronises with another SAN over a fibre link between two locations). This provides for a number of crucial functions. Load balancing, VM snapshots, isolation and in our case HA (high availability). With Vmotion you can transfer a running VM to another server, on the fly. It just keeps working.

Being able to run multiple OSs side by side on the same hardware is actually very efficient and flexible.

No hardware is 100% fool proof and Apple’s hardware is no exception. Nor is OS X fool proof. Even systems like Himalaya or NonStop servers can fail.

 

[Phil A.]

This is great news and may help Apple with server sales. I hope they do the same for OSX desktop too - as a developer there would be a massive benefit in being able to setup multiple virtual machines for testing, configuration, etc - not to mention beta testing new update seeds (and even Leopard's successor )