Our inaugural
Virtualization Buyer's Guide is out, as of today. I've gotten some excellent feedback on this guide -- as far as I know, the first of its kind devoted exclusively to virtualization products.
A number of folks have asked me when it's going to be released, and if it will be in a PDF format. The answers are a) Right now, and b) Yes. It's in our Tech Library, which features white papers and special reports from all the magazines in our group, including Redmond magazine, Redmond Channel Partner Magazine, Redmond Developer News and more. Note that free registration is required.
The Buyer's Guide contains the exact information that's in the print issue, which came out earlier this month. You'll find products broken down by category, making it easy to find that disaster recovery product you heard about, or that management tool you've been wanting to try. Our goal is to make it an indispensable resource for you, something you'll keep and return to often. I hope (and think) we've achieved that goal.
Hope you like it. Let me know what you think, and how we can make the next one even better.
Posted by Keith Ward on 11/21/2008 at 12:48 PM2 comments
When I saw this story about Sun
cutting its work force at least 15 percent, my initial thought was "Ouch!" My second was "What does it mean for virtualization?"
Sun is a very aggressive company in this space, and sees the value in virtualization. This year alone it bought VirtualBox, a nice hosted hypervisor for desktop environments, and released xVM, its Xen-based server virtualization hypervisor. It also has a virtual desktop infrastructure product, and all the hardware of course, being Sun, after all. It's really the only company that can truly call itself an end-to-end virtualization provider.
So, what will happen to its virtualization efforts? It's hard to tell from the story. Here's the key quote from CEO Jonathan Schwartz:
Sun Microsystems will continue to invest in areas such as cloud innovation, open source technologies and "true data centers," according to Schwartz. He said Sun will concentrate on areas that generate profitable returns, and be a "little more aggressive in areas that aren't producing returns."
Phrases like "true data centers" and "cloud innovation" lead me to believe that its virtualization development will continue as before, but that's only speculation. I would hate to see this forward-thinking company pull back, even slightly, from its unique space in the virtualization market.
Posted by Keith Ward on 11/20/2008 at 12:48 PM5 comments
It's kind of hard to believe, but a couple of Symantec's security tools -- Symantec Antivirus (SAV) and Symantec Endpoint Control (SEC) -- don't work with VMware's VMotion.
This Symantec Knowledgebase article tells the tale (hat tip vinternals). What I love is this part of the article:
"Solution:
Symantec does not support ESX server Vmotion at this time."
So, the solution is that there is no solution! Why would a company the size of Symantec not support key products on the most common virtualization platform in existence? The KB article lists six reasons. Hmmm. One would think that with a little development, those problems could be overcome. I'm assuming Symantec is working feverishly on this right now, and this oversight will be corrected. If not, Symantec is in for some angry customers (not to mention leaving money on the table.)
Security is a growing concern for virtualization admininstrators, and the world's biggest security vendor not supporting core products on a platform that's been out for a long time is disconcerting, to say the least. (For those not familiar, VMotion is VMware's technology for moving virtual machines (VMs) from one physical host to another with no downtime. Citrix' XenServer has its own version, but Microsoft won't offer similar functionality on Hyper-V until the next release, sometime in 2010.)
Do you use another antivirus program on your ESX servers? Let me know.
Posted by Keith Ward on 11/19/2008 at 12:48 PM1 comments
Now we know a little more about the new Microsoft hypervisor that is part of the Azure cloud computing initiative. Little has been known or reported up to this point, but Microsoft has provided me some additional details.
Here are some of the salient facts in a nutshell:
- It is a version of Hyper-V, customized for the Azure platform. This is new information, as previous reports said it was going to be a new hypervisor.
- You and I won't be able to get our hands on it. It sounds like it will be used on Microsoft's back end, and there will be no general availability to the public.
Here's the full text of the e-mail, from Doug Hauger, general manager of Cloud Infrastructure Services Product Management Group at Microsoft:
"The Windows Azure Services Platform is designed to help developers easily create applications for the Web and connected devices. Part of the Windows Azure architecture is built with custom version of Windows Server Hyper-V and new fabric controller so that Microsoft can provide a highly-scalable, cloud-specific platform for Microsoft's datacenters. We made modifications to existing products because we have the source code and our development schedule allowed us to adopt newer features, such as those in AMD's and Intel's microprocessors.
The hypervisor and virtual machine functionality is abstracted from users of this platform. Customers will not manage the platform because Azure Services Platform is managed by Microsoft and run only in its datacenters. Customers using Windows Azure Services Platform will not be exposed to Hyper-V technology or virtual machines that are used as part of Azure Services Platform. Because virtualization and OS management are abstracted from them, customers will focus on deploying, configuring and managing the application rather than the hardware, VMs and operating systems. This is a fundamental shift in platform management.
In the future, Windows Azure Services Platform will allow customers to run Windows Server 2008-based virtual machines in the cloud and move Windows Server virtual machines back and forth between cloud and on-premise servers. Currently, Windows Azure Services Platform does not support customers uploading virtual machines containing any version of Windows Server."
So it turns out that there's not much "there" there, after all.
Posted by Keith Ward on 11/18/2008 at 12:48 PM6 comments
I sent out a call for virtualization product reviewers a few months ago, and got some good feedback, but I need some different kinds of reviews. What I need is folks who use virtualization products in a SMB or enterprise environment, who can test and use the products in a live setting.
If you don't have much (or any) previous writing experience, don't sweat it -- we can work with you, if you're passionate about virtualization and professional about meeting deadlines. You'll get paid for your efforts, and more than a token fee -- you won't get rich writing reviews (I think Walt Mossberg is about the only guy who does), but you will get a chunk o' change and the opportunity to play with cool stuff to which you might not otherwise have access. If you do have some writing background, so much the better.
What I don't need at this point are reviewers who want to try stuff on their home network or laptop with Fusion loaded. I want real-world, bullets-flying reports. If that's you, contact me ASAP and let's get working.
Posted by Keith Ward on 11/13/2008 at 12:48 PM2 comments
So now we're getting some predictions about how the topsy-turvy stock market and sliding economy might start affecting IT operations. Market analysis firm IDC is
predicting that U.S. IT spending, expected to grow at 4.2 percent next year, will instead decline 0.9 percent, marking a 5 percent drop.
Actually, that's not as bad as I expected it to be. Warnings about recessions -- and even worse -- are starting to appear in the press, and some analysts believe IT will be hit especially hard.
The question is how that will affect virtualization vendors. Virtualization is usually seen as a money-saving, rather than money-burning, activity. It is true, however, that initially, virtualization can be expensive, as hardware refreshes are quite often necessary. It will take some work to convince the C-level exec who controls your purse strings that upgrading to quad-core, 64GB RAM servers will actually save money. On the other hand, it could be like those IBM commercials (which I love) where the woman explains to her grumpy boss about the energy savings, and the world turns colorful and puts a smile on his face while he happily signs the P.O.
So how about it, IT pros? What does your '09 budget look like? Is the contracting economy going to affect virtualization projects, or will the ultimate cost savings keep thos projects on the front burner? Tell me.
Posted by Keith Ward on 11/12/2008 at 12:48 PM5 comments
Parallels for Mac has just released its latest version, 4.0. For those not familiar with it, Parallels allows you to run a copy of Windows (or Linux, or whatever) inside the Mac operating system. You can run the OSes side-by-side if you want, and have access to Windows programs on your Mac.
I've used Parallels in the past, but prefer VMware's "Windows on Mac" product, Fusion. I've found it to be faster and easier to use (although lots of folks love Parallels). A number of new features intrigue me, however, forcing me to revisit Parallels:
- A new interface, which looks a lot cleaner.
- The ability to share screenshots between OSes.
- The ability to run Apple's Leopard Server inside the VM. I don't know anyone who actually uses Leopard Server, but I'd like to see what it can do.
- Better performance. Parallels claims a performance bump of 50 percent, 20 percent battery life savings, and better support for 3D graphics. If all these are true, or even close to true, this is a serious upgrade.
- And my favorite new feature of all -- iPhone access. Parallels says you can control a VM from an iPhone. This I gotta try.
On the surface, it looks like a fantastic upgrade. We'll put it to the test. Parallels for Mac 4.0 is $79.99, and $39.99 for an upgrade from a previous version. A free trial version is also available.
Posted by Keith Ward on 11/12/2008 at 12:48 PM0 comments
A Barron's blogger reports disturbing news about virtualization's leading light.
Eric Savitz, of Barron's technology investing blog Tech Trader Daily, quotes Trip Chowdhry of Global Equities Research pronouncing major gloom and doom for the tech sector. For example, here are Chowdhry's first two predictions:
- "Almost every Silicon Valley company is facing deteriorating business conditions and will cut their workforce by 3%-10% by year end.
- Project cancellations are accelerating in almost every vertical, including financial services, retail, transportation and public sector."
Pretty strong stuff. When it comes to VMware, he says things are similarly depressing. He expects "10% layoffs by year end." I don't know if Chowdhry has sources on this or is just trying to get attention. I also don't know about his previous track record on predictions, since this isn't something I follow closely. I haven't heard mention of any possible layoffs from VMware, and its most recent financial quater was strong. Still, it's worth watching.
Posted by Keith Ward on 11/12/2008 at 12:48 PM0 comments
So now VMware wants to add virtualization to
mobile phones. That is an interesting new direction, to be sure. My question is, is this a legitimate play by VMware, or a desire to capitalize on a hot market, one currently untapped by virtualization?
I think it's more of the former. I like the idea of a bare-metal hypervisor on a smartphone/cellphone. It gives you the option of running whichever OS you like best, or taking the best of each. For instance, I would love to use the Windows Mobile OS to use Microsoft applications like Word and Excel on my iPhone. I'd use the iPhone OS for everything else, because it absolutely crushes Windows Mobile in all other areas, but being able to use Word on iPhone would be a big deal.
Of course, the other aspect of that is that Microsoft, Apple et al. would have to support the virtualizing of their mobile OSes. How likely is that to happen? Hard to say, but my gut reaction tells me their would be a lot of initial resistance, until the vendors realize the kind of revenue that could be gained by having its OS on potentially every mobile phone in existence.
Another question is whether a typical phone has the resources to handle virtualization. Using even good PC virtualization programs like Parallels Desktop for Mac and VMware Fusion, for example, really slow down my brawny MacBook Pro; I can't imagine what virtualization might do to cellphone performance, given their much less powerful specs.
But ultimately, those are just details. I like the way VMware is thinking ahead on this, and we'll be watching its progress closely.
In the meantime, what's your take on smartphone/cellphone/mobile device virtualization?
Posted by Keith Ward on 11/11/2008 at 12:48 PM1 comments
Buh-bye Terminal Services, hello Remote Desktop Services (RDS). Microsoft has made the
name switch as it continues to evolve its virtual desktop infrastructure (VDI) strategy.
RDS isn't any more interesting as a name, but it is more direct. It's also more comprehensive, since Microsoft needs to move beyond the model of users connecting remotely to one application at a time. What exactly is Microsoft's vision here? The blog entry explains:
"RDS enables a full-fidelity desktop or application experience and efficiently connects remote workers from managed or unmanaged devices. RDS helps keep critical intellectual property secure and simplify regulatory compliance by moving applications and data from the user's access device to the data center."
I like "full-fidelity"; it takes me back to the days of hi-fi stereos. Note that RDS is coming with Windows Server 2008 R2, meaning it'll be available in a couple of years. One of the interesting bits of information in the announcement is that R2 will include the Remote Desktop Connection Broker.
The industry go-to-guy for this stuff is Brian Madden. Here's his less-than-awestruck take on the broker:
"This is also a perfect example of the path that Microsoft usually takes with new products. Other companies invent the product and create / open / prove the market, and then when Microsoft thinks they can enter the arena and be successful, they make a product that is not better than the third-party products, but that's just good enough (and free) that people stop buying the third-party products."
Here's my take on Brian's take: he's absolutely right, but it's still a good thing for customers. The more Microsoft builds this stuff in, the fewer vendors Microsoft shops will have to deal with. It's definitely worth checking out what Leostream, Citrix et al. are doing and what they offer; often, Microsoft's version of features offered by third parties do the job at a very basic level, but don't go much beyond that. However, if your needs are that basic, it's good to know that you'll have built-in functionality. It's very similar to Hyper-V right now -- no, it's not VMware VI, not even close. But for many, it will be good enough.
Posted by Keith Ward on 11/11/2008 at 12:48 PM0 comments
David Marshall
reports that Cisco is increasing its stake in VMware. Not a huge amount -- $13.3 million -- but it is a sign of the companies' growing relationship.
Cisco already had $150 million in VMware, and this just bumps its percentage of stock from 1.6 percent to 1.7 percent. Nothing to write home about, until you consider Cisco's Nexus 1000 virtual switch, which was all the rage at VMworld. The prospect of Cisco buying VMware has been floated before, and although Cisco CEO John Chambers has denied such a desire, one still has to wonder.
VMware just finished a strong quarter, possibly a harbinger of the company pulling out of its swoon. That would make it an attractive target, and it's more clear than ever that Cisco has designs on the virtualization market. Now, note that I am not predicting anything here, nor am I rumor-mongering; I haven't heard that something is in the works. It's just that this confluence of events makes me wonder.
Posted by Keith Ward on 11/04/2008 at 12:48 PM0 comments
Reflex Security is no more; it's been replaced by
Reflex Systems. In an e-mail, President and CEO Pete Privateer said that "security and management are inseparable," and of course he's right.
Broadening its focus beyond straight security is smart, but not without some risk for Reflex. Security definitely needs to be a part of the overall management strategy, and not a separate add-on. The danger is that it's horning its way into an already crowded elevator. There are many, many companies building management products; Reflex needs to make sure it's not white noise. It's got the reputation in security (you may know that Reflex was the first-ever virtual appliance for VMware, and also won a major award at VMworld); will it be able to leverage that strong background to become a main management player? We'll see.
By the way, we're reviewing Reflex Virtual Management Center in our December issue; keep an eye out for it.
Posted by Keith Ward on 11/04/2008 at 12:48 PM0 comments