Hi Folks

This is one area I am not an expert on, and am slowly learning on using virtualization. With all of the hypervisors out there, here is a question I have not yet found an answer to. It seems that whenever using virtualization, Linux to Windows or Windows to Linux, that an install of the O/S is necessary through the virtualizing software.

So my question, is there any way to virtualize/start up an existing installation. I have dual boot Ubuntu 9.04 and Windows XP SP3, with GRUB as the boot manager, and I was wondering if it is possible to start up the other O/S through a virtual manager i.e In Linux, start up the existing installation of Windows.

Regards
Andrew

This is a question that has received a *lot* of attention. I have a Windows XP Pro/Ubuntu machine set up dual-boot and I would like to run the XP as a virtual guest without losing the ability to boot it natively if I want to. I've googled 'till I'm confused. The summary of my research so far seems to be:

• I could install another copy of Windows XP as a guest in a virtualization setup, provided I had a full installation CD (restore disks don't work).
• I could create an image of the existing installation and install it as a virtual guest. See http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=769883 I think that the XP EULA requires me to delete the 'native' installation at this point, otherwise I would have two XPs on the one machine and so would, according to Microsoft, need two licences.
• I could try to get the virtualization software to point at the existing XP installation in 'raw' mode. Problem here is that Microsoft's anti-piracy measures detect the environment presented by the virtualization software as a different installation and require reactivation. XP then stores the new location information, so that subsequently firing up the dual-boot XP directly results in another request for reactivation. Ways to get round this exist for XP up to SP2, but don't work for SP3. Latest info is that someone has a kludge which works with SP3 and VMware.
  See http://mazimi.wordpress.com/2007/07/...-virtualizing/ and comment 35 for the extra work for SP3

My virtualization software of choice is VirtualBox, so more work is required. Any hints and tips would be gratefully appreciated, as I'm scheduled to give a talk on this topic on 26th November (2009)!

Mike G.

You cannot simply boot a normal setup using a hypervisor. The virtual hardware presented is different, the NIC MACs will change... it's just not something to be done, and this is not what virtualization is intended for.

I can't see any reason why you would want to do it

Alot of problems I hear about with Linux applications is not using the distributed versions of apps that are in the repositories. If somebody uses Debian [or Ubuntu I believe], there is a relatively new version of Virtual Box in the repository. It works *great*. It was painless to install!!. I run XP with like 192MB of ram and a 15GB hard drive. Obviously my demands are few on it, but it would be easy enough to give it more ram...

The installation also integrated perfectly with the system to allow me to set "Virtual Box groups" as I see fit.

For Windows, you can download and run the "VMWare Converter" which will generate a VMWare machine image of the native OS with relevant device drivers etc. modded to run in the VM Environment. Sun VirtualBox should also be able to run the generated image natively, and theoretically at least the QEMU utils should be able to convert same image into Xen or KVM formats.

YMMV

Thanks for the reply JFK. I'll try your suggestions. I am currently experimenting with Sun's VirtualBox, simply because it is free, and I don't want to lay out cash until I am comfortable with virtualization.

Regards

Howdy,
I'll tell you why I am looking for a usable p2v tool. I have one remaining Windows machine. It is running Windows 2000 and I use it for a couple of applications that I use every once in a while. These applications don't work well enough in wine or crossover for me. Windows 2000 is not supported any more and if I do a fresh install on the VM, I won't be able to get it all patched the same as my current Windows box. I don't want to buy another license just to retire the old P3 and Windows 2000 licenses are hard to find these days. I won't allow Windows XP or newer on my network. I may look at the VMWare tool, but I suspect I won't be able to use it. The license has been unacceptable on the last couple of VMWare products I started to install.
Have a good day

Hi Dyasny

Thanks for your reply, I suspected as much.

But you ask why I or others would want to do this. Simple, a number of us use dual boot scenarios to preserve the full use and operation of one or two O/S's i.e Windows and Linux. In my case I run my own business and do a lot of support with my clients on Windows, MacOS and Linux.

As 8oluf7 covered in his post, to virtualise, and have a full dual boot install would mean a double installation of the required O/S's, and in the case of Microsoft, also end up with a license problem. This also means an incredible amount of disk space needed for all of this. A typical scenario as an example to explain myself. I could have started up in Linux for use by myself (this is my primary O/S), but I need something from Windows, to assist a client, so either I have to shutdown and reboot into Windows, or virtualise into it, if I have set this up. This could also be vice versa with the O/S's. To me it seems a waste to have to have both dual boot and also create a virtualisation environment to achieve the same task.

And not all of my clients have or will allow VNC, and it means that I have to have the full environment running, to guide my clients over a telephone or video conference. Now maybe I am expecting too much, or the wrong thing from virtualisation, but this is what I imagined and expected that virtualisation would be. As I currently understand virtualisation now, one has to have and use the primary O/S of choice, and only virtualise into a second O/S of choice from this primary O/S.

What my ultimate goal is, for support reasons, and ultimately cool, is to buy myself a new Apple Powermac (I have an old Quicksilver 2002, which does not support Windows, it's a PPC system), and dual boot between MacOS, Linux and Windows XP/Vista and 7, one hardware device, mutiple O/S choices, but again, imagine to storage needed to virtualise some of these as well.

Hopefully now you understand me and get my drift, as to why I and possibly many others would want this.

Regards
Screwbottle

Not that you're not correct, but I'm having a problem with this statement - "it's not something to be done". What is the difference between paravirtualization and full virtualization? My understanding, based on reading and not experience (as I'm new to virtualization and haven't managed to get it to work yet), is that paravirtualization "tweaks" the guest OS, requiring that the guest OS be installed from within the vm server, but full virtualization does not tweak the OS. If it doesn't tweak the guest OS why would it care when, or how, the OS was installed. For instance, one of the Xen 3.4.1 options for creating a VM is a choice between 1) I need to install an operating system. 2) I have a disk or disk image with an installed operating system. 3) I need to upgrade an existing operating system. #2 sure seems to suggest that full virtualization could/would run from a previously installed OS, and that would seem to be right up the alley for a dual-boot system.

I understand the problems people are facing, and I'm no xen specialist. However, especially with windows guests, when you use kvm, you present windows with hardware which is not compatible with the physical hardware of the host. With windows that would mean a BSOD on boot unless you're using the exact disk controller qemu emulates, and a lot of hardware detection activity and reboot each time you boot the system to physical/virtual besides that. Much like if you move a hard drive with windows installed on, between two different physical machines, that feature totally different hardware. I do suspect there is no difference when xen is used.