Closed. This question does not meet Stack Overflow guidelines. It is not currently accepting answers.
This question does not appear to be about a specific programming problem, a software algorithm, or software tools primarily used by programmers. If you believe the question would be on-topic on another Stack Exchange site, you can leave a comment to explain where the question may be able to be answered.
Closed 2 years ago.
Improve this question
I'm trying to install WSL2, but getting error above. Virtual Machine platform and Windows subsystem for linux are enabled, also kernel update installed. In BIOS intel virtualization is enabled. How to fix that?
It's worth verifying the machine meets the hardware requirements.
Buried in the WSL troublshooting page under "Please enable the Virtual Machine Platform Windows feature and ensure virtualization is enabled in the BIOS" the first item is to check Hyper-V System Requirements.
WSL 2 uses a subset of Hyper-V for virtualization, so while you don't need Win 10 Pro, you do still need the hardware to be able to run Hyper-V.
At the time of writing, the docs say Hyper-V requires the following:
64-bit Processor with Second Level Address Translation (SLAT).
CPU support for VM Monitor Mode Extension (VT-x on Intel CPU's).
Minimum of 4 GB memory. As virtual machines share memory with the Hyper-V host, you will need to provide enough memory to handle the expected virtual workload.
A quick way to check requirements: run msinfo32.exe and under System Summary at the very bottom it notes the Hyper-V requirements:
...in my case, I'm out of luck as my processor lacks SLAT.
The issue might be that virtualisation is disabled in you compute. To enable, follow these steps:
Open a PowerShell console as Administrator.
Run the following command:
Enable-WindowsOptionalFeature -Online -FeatureName Microsoft-Hyper-V -All
Ref: Microsoft's enable Hyper-V Docs
If still had this error, make sure hyper-V in CPU is enabled. For AMD CPUs, it's called SVM (in BIOS).
If you're inside a Virtual Machine, your VM may not be setup to run nested VMs:
Windows Nested Virtualization
I went through the same situation as you.
SVM(VT) is enable and Hyper-V option is enable but Can't use WSL2.
My problem is rebooting problem. windows 10's reboot is not actual reboot.
WSL2 does not complete installed.
Try reboot with press shift key.
The problem was in BIOS. You need to disable Limit CPUID Max to get it work.
Related
Closed. This question does not meet Stack Overflow guidelines. It is not currently accepting answers.
This question does not appear to be about a specific programming problem, a software algorithm, or software tools primarily used by programmers. If you believe the question would be on-topic on another Stack Exchange site, you can leave a comment to explain where the question may be able to be answered.
Closed 5 years ago.
Improve this question
Our customer has about 800+ computers running Windows XP distributed across the country. Each computer can be accessed using TeamViewer. The goal is to replace XP by a Linux distribution remotely.
Does anybody know if this is possible, and where to start?
Thanks!
PXE is your only realistic hope:
Some on-site assistance is needed to press F12 at Bios before Windows XP boot:
A) On PC-A, setup DHCP server that refer DHCP-client to PXE server that download Linux ISO from a web server (of course all three can be a Windows machine in the same LAN segment onsite)
B) reboot PC-B onsite to reboot machine and press F10-F12 to choose Boot-options
C) then choose network-boot (PXE-Boot)
further reading : https://www.vercot.com/~serva/
guide: https://youtu.be/nnxgFpUr1Og?t=39
Note: Make sure you have enabled proxyDHCP and not DHCP Server
I would try with something like these:
Clonezilla, which works by replicating a previously prepared disk image to one or more computers booted inside a network segment
Cobbler, which works like a provisioning server for Linux based machines
Of those options, I have used Clonezilla with success. As long as the prepared base image doesn't change too frequently, the main time consuming tasks would be related with configuring the Clonezilla server and building that seed image.
I did a basic test of Cobbler and it worked fine in my environment, being this a way that would be more apt to deal with requirement changes.
Please also note that both options require some network configuration, like DHCP server settings that work with the PXE protocol.
Also, for your requirement, someone, a human being, would be needed to execute one or more of these tasks:
Properly enable network booting in the BIOS of each of the 800+ machines, unless it has already be done before
Boot the machines to install the new operating system
The network booting option, based on the PXE specification, should be supported by the motherboard of those machines and have higher booting priority than other devices, like CD drives, hard drives, etc.
Another thing to consider for the couple of options I'm suggesting, is how are those 800+ distributed across the country. The more disperse they are, the more cumbersome this task will be. Quite contrary, if there are few places were those machines are located, the more feasible this task will be; for example, by preparing and testing a server, computer or laptop that you then carry to each of those few places and installing the new operating system.
Regarding the option to boot using the public Internet to reach a remote deployment server, I don't know about how that could be done; in fact, for me that would be something quite interesting to learn about. If something like this is possible, another variable to note is the hardware compatibility of the destination machines, because as far as I know, protocols like PXE do some kind of multicast or broadcast in the local network segment and I presume those 800+ machines don't have recent motherboards with advanced firmware that could support more modern boot protocols.
That's all for now.
Closed. This question does not meet Stack Overflow guidelines. It is not currently accepting answers.
This question does not appear to be about a specific programming problem, a software algorithm, or software tools primarily used by programmers. If you believe the question would be on-topic on another Stack Exchange site, you can leave a comment to explain where the question may be able to be answered.
Closed 9 years ago.
Improve this question
I am wanting to install OpenShift Origin on my PC running Windows 7.
I am completely new to Linux environments and terminology but wanted to 'look around' the OpenShift product with the hope that I can become familiar with its offerings and features.
So I have started here:
https://www.openshift.com/products/origin
Where the instructions are:
"The easiest way to run OpenShift Origin locally is to download an image suitable for running on a VM. The image will work on KVM , VirtualBox or VMWare . You can also spin up a VirtualBox instance using Vagrant or build your own machine using Puppet".
I have downloaded openshift-origin.latest.tgz and I am assuming the next step is to download and install a 'VM' (something I also have never used)?
I have heard the name VMWare before but when I visit the site there seem to be 15+ different products and I'm not sure which one is required for the above task.
So, is it possible for someone to provide a <ul> of steps required to install and run OpenShift Origin on Windows 7?
A google search for how to install openshift origin on windows 7? does not seem to return any immediately obvious results (the first result links to an article that starts with [obsolete]).
There is a video called 'open shift origin setup' here:
http://youtu.be/rzW3N_C5sIE
But it starts with a file called 'openshift_origin.iso' and not the 'openshift-origin.latest.tgz' that I have downloaded and then it gets into some terminal coding that is completely foreign to me.
Any pointers appreciated.
Edit:
In addition to accepted answer below, as virtual machines may be a bit ominous to newbies here are some screenshots which show the installation of VirtualBox, it was really pretty easy.
For Windows 7, I downloaded VirtualBox 4.2.16 for Windows hosts x86/amd64 from:
https://www.virtualbox.org/wiki/Downloads
and then ran the installer:
Then you will see a few of these type of screens, just click 'Install'.
Unfortunately then when running OpenShift, as per instructions in accepted answer, I got this message:
And I haven't been able to find a workaround to this yet.
But this error shouldn't occur for those who have hardware acceleration enabled.
VirtualBox
VirtualBox is freely available.
Open VirtualBox from the Start Menu - this opens the VirtualBox Manager.
Open the menu File > Import Appliance or press CTRL+I.
Click Open Appliance...
Browse to the folder you downloaded OpenShift Origin to.
Select the .ovf file.
Press Next.
Press Import.
It'll import the file for a while (roughly 2 minutes on my computer) and show up as a Virtual Machine afterwards. You can just click Start and it'll boot up.
VMWare
VMWare Player is free for personal non-commercial use while most other VMWare products are not.
I haven't personally tried this route, but it seems easy enough to just open the .vmx file directly.
Your choices of software to run the ISO (VM image with Fedora) on Windows is VirtualBox or VMWware Workstation. Here's an interesting article that compares the 2:
http://www.infoworld.com/d/virtualization/review-vmware-workstation-9-vs-virtualbox-42-203277
2 unrelated things here...
First, if you do not have a hardware virtualization enabled 64 bit processor (listed as VT-X on Intel chips, and AMD-V on AMD processors), then you cannot host an OpenShift Origin VM, which itself spawns VMs, and thus not only needs the virtualization enabled processor, but needs its VirtualBox VM enabled for virtualization (a checkbox under System/Acceleration in the settings for the VM).
Second, OpenShift Origin relies on multicast DNS, which is not supported on Windows 7, so it won't work.
If you can install Fedora 20 Alpha (I expect Fedora 19 will work, but I haven;t tried it) onto metal, then install VirtualBox and the nss-mdns RPM, that should work.
Been there, done that, got the headache.
Closed. This question does not meet Stack Overflow guidelines. It is not currently accepting answers.
This question does not appear to be about a specific programming problem, a software algorithm, or software tools primarily used by programmers. If you believe the question would be on-topic on another Stack Exchange site, you can leave a comment to explain where the question may be able to be answered.
Closed 9 years ago.
Improve this question
I am forgoing dual booting for the ease of a virtual machine and I have a few questions which I am unable to find answers to online. Could someone answer these, or at least point me in the right direction to find out details about how a virtual machine might be able to utilize full hardware power?
I am going to be running Windows 8 (natively) and using a VM to run a flavor of Linux (probably Ubuntu 12.04.2 if it matters).
(1) Will my virtual machine be able to run my Fortran in Parallel?
- I have a Intel Core i7 2.4 GHz processor which has the ability to hyperthread up to 8 cores. If I run code in the VM using MPI/pthreads/openMP, will I be able to utilize the 4 physical cores? How about the hyperthreading 8 cores?
- Will there be a slow down of the 2.4 GHz? I assume there will be some since they need to also run Windows, but how horribly will it be affected?
(2) I have a dedicated GPU (GeForce GTX 770M), will I be able to use the dedicated GPU for CUDA based (or OpenCL, or any kind of GPGPU) programming?
(3) I am starting out with 4 GB or RAM, but plan on upgrading to 16 GB. I know that the RAM will affect the VM, but will it be the dominate thing which affects VM performance? Once I upgrade to the full 16 GB of RAM, will I be able to consider any other inefficiencies to be negligible?
Thanks for the help ahead of time. Again, even pointing me in the right direction for reading will help if full answers cannot be given.
(1) VMWare supports multiple cores and hyperthreading. You can choose how many to assign to the VM. The physical processor isn't slowed down, but obviously your host OS will be using some CPU too, and the virtualization has an overhead (albeit small on modern CPUs).
(2) You'll need to check that out for the particular virtual machine software and version.
(3) RAM works in a pretty obvious way: the host OS uses some, the guest OS some, and VMWare's overhead is an order of magnitude smaller. 4 GB is enough to run Ubuntu in Windows, but if you want multiple VMs or are running processes that use gigabytes, add a corresponding amount of RAM.
I've used VMWare Workstation for years, plus VirtualBox recently. I'd say that for high end or leading edge stuff, VMWare is still the better choice. For easier tasks VirtualBox is nice.
Closed. This question is off-topic. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it's on-topic for Stack Overflow.
Closed 9 years ago.
Improve this question
This is more of an advisory question.
I am into a virtualization project and need a good software to do that.
Basically I am into Desktop virtualization that allows to run multiple operating systems on the same physical hardware.
I cannot afford to buy the developer APIs of VMWare, so I have moved on to Linux.
I did some research on the same and learnt that Xen can't be installed on Fedora 16. Is it true? because I am doubtful of the same.
My Questions are :
Which Operating system should I install?
Fedora 16 /Ubuntu 11.10 /Any other?
Which software for the same?
Xen/Any other?
I want an advise because I am using it for the first time and any post-installation problems will hurt me bad.
I am a newbie in linux... Can anyone please help me out on this?
P.S. : No offence, I am not asking which is the BEST! I am just asking what will suit my purpose.
If you are looking for APIs you are probably most interested in libvirt for simple ESX style api for interfacing LOCALLY with the virtualization hypervisor on your system.
libvirt works with qemu, kvm, and xen and probably more.
http://libvirt.org/
redhat has traditionally had better virtualization support in its enterprise offerings. but fedora is not that. I'd suggest ubuntu oneiric.
If you are looking for a REST API to talk to a large number of virtualization servers... ala vsphere. I'd suggest looking at openstack.
http://www.openstack.org/
http://www.devstack.org/
http://www.trystack.org/
I have used VirtualBox several times. I had some production servers running virtualized on Linux with it. I think it was bought by Oracle, but still open source and free (I hope :)
Take a look at it, may be is what you need. I remember installation and configuration was easy, and very well documented.
It seems you want to begin with Linux as a Windows guy. Why not to intall Microsoft Virtual PC? I bet it does support Linux and all modern distributions will likely work.
I also recommend VirtualBox as a good starting point for you if you want to use Windows as a hypervisor.
If you want to use Linux as hypervisor, I recommend to stick with standard KVM. E.g. in RHEL (CentOS) or Fedora you can use it easily. Definitely read this document: Virtualization Getting Started Guide
http://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/Fedora/18/html/Virtualization_Getting_Started_Guide/index.html
As it explains everything to start with virutalization including very easy setup and installation on Fedora Linux. It also applies to Ubuntu, but the installation procedure will be different. But you will end up using the very same tools and software.
Closed. This question needs to be more focused. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it focuses on one problem only by editing this post.
Closed 9 years ago.
Improve this question
What VM technologies exist for Linux, their pros and cons, and which is recommended for which application?
Since this kind of question can be asked for X other than "VM technologies for Linux", and since the answer changes with progress, I suggest to define a template for this kind of pages. Those pages will have the tag 'stateoftheart' and they will be revisited each month and each month there will be up-to-date list of technologies, up-to-date reviews and up-to-date recommendations.
This is a job for ... Wikipedia!
Types of Virtualization
Platform Virtualization
Comparison of Virtual Machines
Now that the obvious stuff is out of the way...
Linux runs fine as a guest on every VM host I've used, so I'm going to assume that you're referring to Linux as the host operating system. I'm also going to assume x86 or amd64 hardware.
Platform virtualization breaks down into two major forms: Desktop virtualization and Server virtualization. Both types will allow you to load and run multiple OS instances as guests that virtualize their I/O through the host OS. Desktop virtualization concentrates on providing a highly interactive console experience for each of the guest VMs, while Server virtualization concentrates on maximizing computing performance, generally while sacrificing console services and more exotic devices (Sound cards, USB, etc.) Server virtualization implementations typically include either RDP or VNC for remote access to a virtual console.
On Linux, your choices for Desktop Virtualization include:
VMware Workstation -- it's commercial, somewhat expensive, mature, and provides the most hardware, device, and guest OS support of any solution.
VMware Player -- it's commercial (freeware) and only supports VMs that were created elsewhere. Available with Ubuntu.
Parallels Workstation -- it's commercial, somewhat expensive, and not up to par with VMware. Doesn't support 64-bit guests.
VirtualBox -- available in commercial (freeware) and community versions (GPL). Fedora's preferred solution.
On Linux, your choices for Server Virtualization include:
VMware Server -- it's commercial (freeware), mature, and provides the most hardware, device, and guest OS support of any solution. Available with Ubuntu.
Xen -- it's open source. A para-virtualization solution, it has only recently added hardware-virtualization, so Windows guest support depends upon specific CPU support.
Virtual Iron -- a commercialized version of Xen that adds native virtualization.
KVM -- it's open source. It depends upon QEMU for the last mile. Ubuntu's preferred solution.
Linux-VServer -- it's open source. It provides virtual jails based on the host OS kernel, so no Windows guests.
For myself, I stick with VMware Workstation (7+ years) and VMware Server for my Linux-hosted virtualization needs. At work, it's VMware Workstation (on Windows), VMware Server (on Windows), and VMware ESX (on bare metal). I'll probably have another look at Xen, KVM, and VirtualBox at some point, but for right now compatibility between work and home is paramount.
2008 Oct
To be filled in at October to reflect the market status then.
2008 Sept
Products/services/technologies currently existing
VMware
Xen
VirtualBox
VServer
???
Comparisons
???
Recommendations for particular application areas
Home multi-boot replacement
Small business which has MS-Windows legacy applications
Datacenter of multinational corporation
???
W Craig Trader answer is great, but just to add there is also User-mode Linux (UML) which has been around for a while - it has been in the mainline kernel tree since 2.6.0 . Note that I haven't used it myself.
Ubuntu prefers KVM, and I believe Red Hat is moving to it over Xen now as well. Both KVM and Xen can be managed by libvirt, optionally through the virtual machine manager GUI. The virtual machine manager can manage remote instances through ssh connections.
In addition, a good comparison can be found here (pdf). Lots of performance tests done. The short version is that xen and linux-vserver were generally the best on performance grounds.