Failing the 'Sniff' Test

"When looking at new x86 virtualization licenses, VMware continues to hold on to its strong position in the x86 market with a combined market share of VMware ESX and VMware Server at 44%. However, in its first quarter of general availability Microsoft Hyper-V delivered a strong showing, and when combined with Virtual Server 2005, Microsoft's market share is 23% of new shipments."

Those are significant figures, enough to make any journalist or blogger sit up and take notice. There's only one problem with them:

They're crazy.

Sometimes you have to apply common sense, even to analyst reports from a company as respected as IDC. And common sense says to this virtualization watcher that those figures must be way, way off. Does anyone who follows this industry really believe that Microsoft is already at half of VMware's market share for new hypervisor shipments? Good grief, Hyper-V's only been available for four months. Are we supposed to believe that it, in concert with Microsoft Virtual Server (a insignificant product in terms of enterprise virtualization usage), Redmond has captured a quarter of the market?

As Al Borland used to say to the Tool Man, "I don't think so, Tim."

So if they are bogus, what accounts for such Fantasy Island numbers? It's hard to know exactly, but Mike DiPetrillo of VMware has hazarded some theories. Keeping in mind that Mike is less than an objective observer, I think he makes a number of very good points.

In addition, the IDC figures clash substantially with those of Gartner, as Alessandro points out over at virtualization.info. Somebody's wrong somewhere, but the Gartner figures jibe more closely to what my common sense tells me. I discussed this with Virtualization Review columnist, and well-respected Burton Group analyst, Chris Wolf this morning, and he was similarly suspicious of the IDC numbers. Of course, Burton Group is an IDC competitor; it's worth noting, however, that Burton does not do any vendor-sponsored reports, the way IDC and Gartner do. Chris has nothing to gain or lose by stating his opinion in this.

I'm also not claiming, as Mike D. strongly implies, that the IDC study was commissioned by Microsoft. Although it may have been, I have no evidence of that. If the IDC study was commissioned, they absolutely should say so, and by whom (Side note: the relationship between many analyst firms and vendors is far too incestuous. I'm more than skeptical of any sponsored report, study or survey. I'm downright cynical, in fact, to the point of "guilty until proven innocent." I assume there's a bias at work that influences the results, unless I'm convinced otherwise. Back to your regularly scheduled programming.)

So, what are my conclusions on this report? It's a bunch of hokum. Much more serious analysis needs to be done before this kind of information should be put out there. In other words, do your homework better, IDC.

I would also caution my fellow journalists to do more of a "sniff" test on these types of things. Does a purported fact make sense on its face? If it doesn't, you might wanna hold off and do some more reporting.

As a P.S., I have to disagree with one other quote in the IDC report. Analyst Brett Waldman says: "IDC believes that the high-volume consolidation opportunities - the low hanging fruit in the x86 server virtualization market -- is starting to dry up. This is, in turn, resulting in smaller deals overall." That quote doesn't square with the latest estimates that about 12 percent of servers are virtualized. That leaves quite a harvest of low-hanging fruit still on the trees. Doesn't sound like it's drying up to me -- even though server consolidation may be seen as passe these days.

Posted by Keith Ward on 10/31/2008 at 12:48 PM0 comments

Sneak Peek at Hyper-V 2.0

The big upgrade, as most everyone knows, is Live Migration, or the ability to move running virtual machines (VMs) from one physical host to another with no downtime.

Other notable upgrades, according to Web site HyperVoria, include hot-swapability of memory and storage; a doubling of the supported number of logical processors; and Second Level Translation, which should decrease the load on the hypervisor to make better use of memory and increase efficiency.

It's good to see some confirmation of what, essentially, we already knew. It shows two things: First, that Microsoft is committed to remaining in this space for the long haul; and second, that Redmond remains pretty far behind VMware in terms of virtualization technology.

Posted by Keith Ward on 10/30/2008 at 12:48 PM0 comments

Changing of the Magazine Guard

First, the gloomy news: Greg Shields, our "Virtual Architect" columnist, is no longer with the magazine. The September/October issue was his last column with us.

Greg has been with Virtualization Review since the first issue, and will be missed tremendously. There aren't many writers out there with a better grasp of virtualization and the skill to explain it so clearly to readers.

Greg and I go back a long way. I gave him his first serious writing assignment, when he was picked to be the "Editor for a Day" for an issue of Redmond magazine, which I used to edit. I could see Greg's talent immediately, and he made me look very good by doing an outstanding job with the issue to which he contributed. He wrote some more freelance articles after that, and every one was terrific.

Eventually, when Redmond's "Windows Insider" columnist Bill Boswell left to join Microsoft, I asked Greg to step into Bill's large shadow. Greg was the first name I thought of to take over, and I wasn't disappointed; his work was consistently thought-provoking and high quality.

That quality continued throughout his work with Virtualization Review, which I asked him to join months before we launched. Greg has been working with virtualization technology for many years, and knows the stuff inside and out.

Greg is not only a terrific writer, but a first-class person as well. It's been a treat to work with him over the years. I note also that our loss has become TechNet Magazine's gain, as he's taken on a column for them. He will be a real asset for their readers.

I'm happier to report that we've found his replacement; not one, but two writers! We've brought on board the husband-and-wife team of Nelson and Danielle Ruest, who have already written their first column as our new "Virtual Architects" (note the pluralization). I've worked with Nelson and Danielle for years as well, starting again with Redmond. The Ruests write lots of books and are constantly working with clients, giving their writing a real-world feel that instantly connects with readers. Much of their current work revolves around virtualization, and they've already written a number of stories for Virtualization Review.

Another thing that separates Nelson and Danielle's work is the precision of their details. They make sure you understand the foundations first, then build on that. They think the way they write: Step by step. Their first column can be found in our upcoming Buyers' Guide, and it's a typically strong effort: A discussion of what it truly means to have a "dynamic datacenter", and how well the three big players -- VMware, Microsoft and Citrix -- stack up in that area.

So goodbye Greg, and congratulations on your new gig. And Nelson and Danielle, welcome aboard.

Posted by Keith Ward on 10/27/2008 at 12:48 PM1 comments

First-Ever Print Buyers' Guide

We've put a lot of work into this special issue, the first of its kind. The buyers' guide contains more than 90 products, broken down by virtualization category:

• Server
• Storage
• Application
• Virtual Desktop Infrastructure (VDI)
• Business Continuity/Disaster Recovery
• Management/Optimization
• Security
• Miscellaneous (a category for products that didn't fit into one of the other categories, like training, power and cooling and outsourcing.)

It's a strong list. We didn't get every product in every category; that would require a magazine the size of Computer Shopper, circa 1998. But we're very pleased with what we've got; I've gone over the list a number of times, and firmly believe this is an excellent overview of what's out there.

There's more to the issue than just the buyers' guide. In addition, look for highlights from a one-on-one interview myself, Executive Editor Tom Valovic, Editor-in-Chief Doug Barney and Editor Ed Scannell from Redmond magazine did with Paul Maritz; Chris Wolf analyzes the recent VMware announcements from VMworld in September, and what it means for the future of the industry; my "Take 5" column is a list of the top five news headlines in virtualization for 2008; and Barney highlights the great development work being done by virtualization-focused companies in Russia and Israel.

It's an issue to file away, for sure. Keep an eye out for it.

Posted by Keith Ward on 10/27/2008 at 12:48 PM0 comments

My New Laptop

First, some background. I'm a confirmed Macophile, and love my three-year-old dual-core Intel MacBook Pro to death. It's my main work machine, and has never let me down. But I needed another laptop, and for various reasons, decided to go with Windows Vista. One big factor was that I wanted a machine with lots of power and RAM to run serious virtualization. It needed to have at minimum a dual-core proc, 4GB RAM and 200GB hard drive. And, most importantly, fit into my limited budget.

With specs like that, I knew a Mac laptop would be far out of my price range. Considering that an equivalent MacBook Pro would be more than $2,000, and closer to $2,500, it just wasn't an option in this case. Editor in Chief Doug Barney eviscerates Apple for this type of confiscatory pricing, and he's dead-on correct.

In the end, after much looking around online and in stores, I bought this HP Pavilion from my local Best Buy. It's simply impossible to beat the value: dual-proc, 4GB RAM, 250GB hard drive, Vista Home Premium, and, as an added bonus, 64-bit power.

In the process of this, I learned how behind the times I am. When I started looking, I had no idea that a laptop like this would be sub-$1,000, let alone sub-$700. Just amazing.

I spent a healthy portion of last night setting it up. One of my first downloads was Virtual PC 2007. I've quickly learned that a number of programs won't work in a 64-bit environment, so using VMs is a necessity. Two key programs I'd like to see upgraded to 64-bit immediately: the Cisco VPN client and VMware's virtual infrastructure client (Update: My bad. VMware does have a 64-bit Windows client now. My information was old). On the Cisco side, I have no hope whatsoever; it has never seemed to care much about its VPN client, and I don't expect that to change. On the other hand, I expect VMware to be more responsive, although that has yet to happen.

I set up my first VM with 32-bit XP SP2. It runs well on this laptop -- in fact, better than the same OS runs in Fusion on my Mac. That should be expected, with 64-bit performance. I assigned 1GB RAM to XP. I'll be adding various Linux and other OSes in the future. So far, I'm quite happy with the HP. I love the recessed, polished-metal trackpad, and the webcam is a nice bonus; it's been on Mac laptops for years, and is starting to become ubiquitous on PCs.

A great laptop for less than $700. I'm still shaking my head.

Posted by Keith Ward on 10/16/2008 at 12:48 PM14 comments

New Version of Microsoft Assessment Tool Out

The toolkit, which Microsoft says will be available after 3 p.m. PT today, is version 3.2. It includes a "Power Assessment" feature, Microsoft says, which looks at your environment and advises on ways to save energy.

MAP, which is free, is essentially an infrastructure inventory tool that is expanding into other areas. Of interest to virtualization admins, it recommends good candidates for server consolidation with Virtual Server and Hyper-V. According to a blog posting, it can now give advice on good candidates for App-V, Microsoft's application virtualization product formerly known as SoftGrid.

Microsoft is better than any vendor out there (open source excluded, of course) at providing good, free tools. If you're using MAP, I'd like to hear about your experiences.

Posted by Keith Ward on 10/16/2008 at 12:48 PM5 comments

No 64-Bit Support for VI Client

One other thing I was looking forward to was running VMware's virtual infrastructure client on it. But alas, it's not to be. That's because VI 2.5 (the latest version) doesn't work on 64-bit OSes.

Huh?

I would think VMware would have produced a 64-bit compatible client some time ago. It's not like 64-bit is brand new, even on PCs. And folks who would be using the VI client are much more likely than the general populace to be running 64-bit. So where's the support, VMware? This is a ridiculous oversight, in my opinion.

Yeah, there are workarounds. Here's a kludgy one that seems to work. The simplest one would be to load 32-bit Windows XP or Vista into a VM, and run the VI client through that. But, of course, that adds another layer of complexity and slows your system down. Running natively is the way to go here.

I can't imagine this is an insurmountable technical issue. Why the delay?

By the way, if there is a 64-bit client supported now, I'd love to be corrected. Please let me know.

Important Update:

And they did let me know! My information is out of date. The VI Client does work on 64-bit Windows now. According to this VMware knowledgebase article, it does require Microsoft's .NET Framework, version 2.0, to be installed first. Once that's done, however, VI Client 2.5 should work fine. Many thanks to the VMware engineer who gave me the link, and my apologies to VMware for the old information.

Posted by Keith Ward on 10/16/2008 at 12:48 PM3 comments

ESX vs. ESXi

A table at the bottom of the page reveals in stark detail the big differences between the two. For instance, ESXi lacks many key ESX features like Update Manager, VMotion, Storage VMotion, high availability, and a lot of other technologies. In reality, you can't do much with ESXi except create virtual machines. If that's all you need to do, ESXi will do the job; if your requirements go beyond that, you're looking at upgrading to some version of VMware Infrastructure, which includes ESX.

One other point worth mentioning: We know that Microsoft is working hard to add functionality like Live Migration (the equivalent technology to VMotion) in the next Hyper-V release, slated for 2010. If that schedule is met, Redmond will have a free hypervisor that does more than VMware's free hypervisor. That could give it a serious edge, unless VMware trickles down more functionality from ESX to ESXi.

Posted by Keith Ward on 10/14/2008 at 12:48 PM8 comments

Breaking Down the Client Hypervisor

Not much was released about the client hypervisor at VMworld, and VMware has been tight-lipped about development -- CTO Stephen Herrod made a quick mention of it during his Wednesday keynote, but no shipping date has been announced, and we don't know much more about it than the project exists.

Still, it's hard not to get excited about the potential of a bare-metal client hypervisor. As Brian points out in his article:

There are several advantages to running a hypervisor on a client device:

• The hypervisor provides generic hardware to the VM, so a single disk image can be used on very different types of devices.
• Since the VM is running locally, it works offline, and you don't have to worry about thin client remote display protocol

At VMworld, I talked to a VMware employee and he said that the client hypervisor will not be based on ESX or ESXi, VMware's server hypervisors. The requirements are just too different, he said, when you factor in client requirements like graphics, video and other multimedia.

It's interesting that no other vendors have discussed a Type I client hypervisor yet (that doesn't mean Microsoft, Citrix and so on aren't working on one -- just that they haven't released any information about it), given the obvious benefits. Now that VMware has broken the ice, however, I predict we'll see similar announcements coming soon from the others -- there's still a lot of "me too" announcements in the industry, and they mostly follow VMware's lead.

Posted by Keith Ward on 10/13/2008 at 12:48 PM0 comments

Down Under Company Chooses Microsoft

"You've got to question whether it's worth paying $50,000 for that. I know the VMware camp go on about features like VMotion, but for $50,000 I could pay someone to move my virtual machines for me."

It's a funny quote, to be sure, and has to be music to Redmond's ears. It's essentially the argument Microsoft, Citrix, Virtual Iron and others continually make -- yeah, VMware stuff is good, but our stuff is good enough, especially at the lower cost point.

A couple of things I would point out about this, as a caution. First, VMware offers a lot more, of course, than just VMotion for the price. High availability, distributed resource scheduling, memory overcommitment and other technologies come with that solution, so it's a little unfair to make the argument that all you're paying for is VMotion.

The second point is that this is a small datacenter -- 16 physical servers initially, down to four now and 12 virtualized. Those types of shops don't typically have as great a need for (or ability to pay) what VMware offers. Although VMware is trying to get more traction in the SMB market, it's still an enterprise product, for the most part. It probably shouldn't be so surprising that a small organization would experience sticker shock.

Still, though, one has to wonder if this kind of anecdote will become more commonplace. A couple of years ago, even a shop this size might have opted for VMware, given the dearth of alternatives. Now that the offerings are expanding exponentially, it's no longer a choice only between VMware and open source, like Xen.

Are you experiencing similar issues? Let me know.

Posted by Keith Ward on 10/10/2008 at 12:48 PM6 comments

VMware's Maritz Stays True to His Roots

"I did this for a couple of years after leaving Microsoft but you realise after a while you are not the next great novelist or opera singer, or, even worse, you're a computer guy and you may as well get used to it."

He says he's from "the bush". Not your typical computer giant background. Maybe that's one reason he's been so successful.

Posted by Keith Ward on 10/10/2008 at 12:48 PM2 comments

Fusion vs. Parallels: The Mossberg View

The best thing about the trip, other than spending serious quality time with my daughter? My iPhone and its GPS capabilities. I'm a pretty serious iPhone addict now, and this trip further cemented my standing as a Steve Jobs fanboy. I got a windshield mount for my car, plugged the phone into the cigarette lighter with an adapter, and let it guide me all the way there. Worked fantastic, except for a few minutes when I lost signal. It was truly a revelation (you listening, Tom?)

Anyway, back to some virtualization stuff. Walt Mossberg over at the Wall Street Journal recently published a review of VMware Fusion, and compares it with Parallels. His conclusion?

"In my view, Fusion is now the better choice for running Windows on a Mac virtually."

That doesn't mean he didn't like Parallels, because he did. He just thought Fusion edged it out in some areas like speed, better snapshot management and superior graphics capabilities.

I'm a Fusion user as well (on my dual-core Intel MacBook Pro), and agree with his assessment of Fusion's capabilities. I have the latest version, 2.0, and it works very well. The interface is improved, but I haven't seen much in the way of performance improvements.

(A side note here about Windows operating systems: I have Windows XP installed in a VM, and it works great. I had Vista installed, too, but deleted it, because it slowed my computer to a crawl. Interestingly, the same thing happens with my kids' computer, a PC with Virtual PC installed -- XP runs fine in a VM, Vista makes me feel like I'm on the D.C. Beltway in rush hour.)

What's your take on Fusion vs. Parallels? Let me know.

Posted by Keith Ward on 10/09/2008 at 12:48 PM1 comments