RouterOS works ok using Hyper-V R2, but using Legacy Network Adapter.
Using Legacy Network Adapter you have less performance than using a synthetic adapter, and most important, you are limited to only 4 adapters/virtual machine.
I’ve used Linux IC on an CentOS installation and everything seems to be working ok (installation went smoothly, perfroamce is good).
Is there any chance that Linux Integration Components be adapted for routeros use, maybe Mikrotik guys could create a package “Hyper-V IC” based on the official IC’s?
if hyper-v “syntetic” interface was working in previous versions, just create supout.rif file of the RouterOS where this interface is not supported. And send it to us.
i dont think it ever worked. it cannot work without integration components.
‘synthetic’ interface means that the integration components are installed in the guest operating system (ther eare synthetic drivers for the disk io subystem, network interface, hartbeat detection, time sync, etc).
I’ve tested thoose Integration Components on an CentOS installation, and it seems to work just fine.
Could you adapt them, so that we could use it when virtualizing RouterOS using Hyper-V.
I suspect the situation is the same for other virtualization solutions. without some sort of driver/integration component the guest operating system would use only emulated hardware.
and to make matters worse, microsoft emulated a DEC21140 network interface.
“hardware” components used to work, like, ethernet interface. Last report is that legacy works but specific Hyper-V interface does not, but used to work. If you can make supout.rif file with that specific interface and send it to us, please do so.
About tools that should be installed on guest os - they will never be added to RouterOS, as there are a lot of implementations that require them, they all work work well without them. Yes there are some limitations that can be overcome with some network monitoring tools like the Dude, that is free download and if required can be run on Linux using wine, without requiring expensive server OS licenses.
edit: in short - if interface is not working but has decent linux driver, we can look at it and add it. Guest tools will never make it into RouterOS.
Xen and Hyper-V can both use fully emulated hardware (meaning the guest OS is not aware it’s inside a virtual machine), only if you have support for hardware virtualization (AMD-V or Intel VT). Virtualbox and VMware do the same thing, but do not require hardware virtualization support. Mikrotik will support this mode.
Xen and Hyper-V can also run in paravirtulized mode (Integration Components). This means the guest OS (aka RouterOS) must include tools that run inside the guest so that it is aware that it’s in a VM. Mikrotik will NOT support this.
Also, please do not ask Mikrotik to support option 2, they just won’t do it at this time. It would take much more development time and resources. Mikrotik should focus on make a solid system that IS the OS, not software that runs inside VM’s. If you want other solutions, they do exist, however that is not where Mikrotik shines.
I hope this is clear, and helps others coming in from search engines also.
I would agree but microsoft allready developed Linux Integration Components, that work perfectly on many linux distros.
I suspect Mikrotik would not have to write them again from scratch, jut include them as a package somehow.
It would help a lot on VPN solutions. Routerboard hardware (except rb1000 which is not in production anymore — and it’s expensive) cannot handle high badhwidth VPN (ipsec/pptp) so i (and others) have to use x86 hardware to create VPN servers/clients. Since 1 modern server is already pretty powerful, i, and maybe more people will use it as a platform for virtualization, and run many virtual computers on it.
i currently have 1 dell 2u server with 16 virtual cpu’s, 64gb ram and 14 hdd’s and i allready have 15 vm’s on it. It’s a waste of money for me to buy a new server and not use the current one. Even if i buy new hardware routeros would not use it properly, yet.
I’m not trying to say Mikrotik guys should prioritze this, i’m just asking if the could use what Microsoft already developed.
problem with all these implementations is that vendor forgets to support them. With current kernel it works, it is not clear if future kernel releases will work with “Vendor X” sources. It was bad experience with XEN and their integration with Linux kernel. That is reason why Mikrotik is avoiding adding “Vendor X” code to RouterOS, because then we have to support it even if “Vendor X” drops support for it.
As I said before, Mikrotik is not targeting the VM world heavily. They make RouterBoards with RouterOS as a single operating system.
However, Mikrotik is not so proprietary like other vendors, so you can still integrate using protocols like SNMP, NetFlow, etc… etc…
Mikrotik’s Dude can even monitor other devices’ status through standard network protocols.
If I could get Microsoft to commit to supporting their released code for Linux, would Mikrotik come to the party? It’s worth a try, I mean simply asking them that is…
This seems like an incredible shame otherwise. We miss out on things like running RouterOS in their HA clustering and not only performance on the v-ethernet. With VLANs there are amazing things that RouterOS does for me, the sky is the limit and clustering would complete this. This would also completely nix the whole issue about not supporting RAID btw. Not to mention, you already support SMB as of late.
Wow!
Did I just read in a previous post “Don’t ask MikroTik to support …”
This issue appears to me to be pretty straight forward..
The argument of “future support” and “vendor abandonment” is ridiculous.. We could say the same thing about MikroTik and thier products. Who is more likely to be around and support thier products in the future, MikroTik or MicroSoft?
The bottom line is this, there are Many of us system integrators who are committed to using Hyper-V. We want an integrated router system without the appliance for various reasons.
MikroTik Should be ecstatic that we are considering thier RouterOS over the likes of Cisco and others. But we have to be able to run it in a Hyper-V VM, PERIOD!
So, If I am understanding this correctly, MikroTik does not think there is a Hyper-V market to make it worth the (I am betting rather small) investment in time to support it.
Maybe they are right and there is not enough of us Hyper-V/MikroTik fans out there.
With that type of thinking, this is a self-fullfilling prophecy.
