These are heady days at VDI zero-client device maker Pano Logic, which has just landed $20 million in a Series C round of financing led by VC firm Mayfield Fund. Flush with money, Pano Logic openly published their hardware specs, and perhaps reeling just a bid with hubris, dared other vendors to remove the kimonos from their own alleged zero client solutions. Shockingly, none did, the cowards.
I like Pano Logic. They're cheeky, and even though they are still not showing up everywhere, it's certainly not because they haven't been out on the stump, shamelessly shilling for themselves.
Understand that we editors face a constant deluge of similar-sounding press releases, so when one from Pano Logic arrives on your electronic desk, you can look forward to rhetoric like "transformed the landscape of endpoint computing" and "demand for desktop virtualization is exploding and Pano Logic will become the chief beneficiary." One more: "Pano Logic joins a long list of groundbreaking technologies such as Compaq, SGI and Citrix that have revolutionized computing."
And, by the way, they claim to have tripled sales in 2009.
Are you buying or selling the Pano Logic story? Could their zero clients help your company? Let me know at [email protected].
Posted by Bruce Hoard on 03/01/2010 at 12:48 PM3 comments
A year ago, Ruben Spruijt and Jeroen van de Kamp started Project Virtual Reality Check (VRC) and released their independent, non-sponsored performance analysis that compared VMware ESX 3.5, Citrix XenServer 5.0 and Microsoft Hyper-V 2008. That comparison was designed to measure how the three hypervisors performed when running Windows XP and Vista virtual machines for Terminal Services and VDI environments.
According to Alessandro Perili of virtualization.info, the test was so valid that Citrix adopted the VRC methodology for measuring its XenDesktop 4 performance.
Spruijt is a Solution Architect and CTO at PQR, and van de Kamp is an Enterprise Architect and CTO at Login Consultants.
Now, the two are back, comparing VMware vSphere 4.0 Update 1, Citrix XenServer 5.5 and Windows Server 2008 R2 Hyper-V against their new workload simulator Virtual Session Indexer (VSI) 2.0.
"The most interesting thing is that all tests were performed on HP hardware equipped with the new Intel Xeon 5500 Series CPUs (codename Nehalem), and compared to Virtual Reality Check 1.0 results obtained on previous generation processors," Perili writes, adding that "Performance is almost doubled with both XenServer and vSphere, and with Hyper-V R2, performance is up 154 percent."
Burton Group Senior Analyst Chris Wolf supports VRC, saying "I'm a big fan of Ruben's work. I haven't seen any major objections to the way he went about assessing the workloads, and I think he's been pretty fair. To me, if you were to pick a standard for benchmarking those workloads, Project VRC is it."
Is Project VRC a threat to virtualization vendors? Send your comments to me at [email protected].
Posted by Bruce Hoard on 02/25/2010 at 12:48 PM6 comments
It was with a certain measure of dismay that I viewed Gartner's January acquisition of The Burton Group. Non-GAAP financial measures aside, I felt like Burton was being marginalized just a little bit because -- even though I'm sure Gartner stressed the importance of Burton remaining objective and independent in its views -- now there is just a slight possibility that Gartner might want to stick its hands in Burton's cookie jar. Sooner or later, it's bound to happen, and when it does, maybe a Burton analyst will quit, followed by a big brouhaha, followed by a return to normalcy, until it happens again. At that point, it won't seem like quite such a big deal, and nobody will get all that exercised. Why bother?
Let's face it: Gartner paid for the Burton Group, and they can do anything they want with it.
It's fashionable to trash Gartner in some industry quarters. Some people think they're too big, too old-school, too inbred to keep a careful watch over what's happening out there -- especially if it involves their clients. These critics don't think Gartner still has the fire in their bellies, or the will to take on the big boys out there in conflict-of-interest land. In the course of my many dealings with them, I have found that they tended to tell it like it is -- or at least how they think it is -- without any obvious taint. I know they get real cranky real quick if you doubt their integrity, and I also know they are more likely to risk upsetting a client than are some other firms I could mention.
This situation is a little like what happens when a two-newspaper town suddenly becomes a one-newspaper town -- you feel a little less informed, a little less looked-after, a little less safe. Here's hoping Gartner lets The Burton Group make or break their own future.
Do you think the big analyst firms get it right more often than not? Do you trust their research? Let me know at [email protected] or comment here.
Posted by Bruce Hoard on 02/18/2010 at 12:48 PM7 comments
Thanks to my colleague Jeff Schwartz for sending me the following interesting and unique VDI item.
A Canadian company named Userful Corporation says that since 2002, it has been offering a Linux desktop virtualization product called User Multiplier, that allows one PC to support up to 10 independent users simultaneously. All the users need are their own monitors, keyboards and mice. The product features automatic configuration and offers multimedia capabilities such as full-screen/full-motion video.
Multiplier is most popular in government, educational and SMB organizations that are running on tight budgets.
Userful touts Multiplier by saying it "turns one PC into 10," and creates "$69 virtual desktops." Multiplier 3.7, the most recent version of the product, expands on the multilingual capabilities of its predecessors by adding new "internationalizations" that make the product useful in more than 100 countries around the world.
Userful tells a very happy, it's-all-good, Multiplier story, declaring, "By using Userful Multiplier in the K-12 classrooms, our customers have reported saving over 50% on their desktop hardware costs, an average of 62% on electricity costs, and additional savings on costly Internet drops, switches, network wiring and other infrastructure and support costs. The multi-seat Linux desktops allow our customers to stretch their limited IT budgets, and use those savings to provide better computer access for all students in their region."
So what's not to like? So little that Userful claims Multiplier has "paved the way" for Microsoft's new Windows MultiPoint Server 2010, which provides the proverbial rich Windows PC experience to students who combine the same hardware devices used by Multiplier with Microsoft's Remote Desktop Services (formerly Terminal Services).
According to a recent blog by Microsoft's Director of Environmental Technology Strategy, Mark Aggar, the likes of Multiplier and MultiPoint Server 2010 are especially appropriate for school districts that have a limited number of laptops for their students, as well as for Internet cafes and libraries.
Aggar describes a demo in which 16 monitors simultaneously play 720P HP video using the processing power of a single PC powered by an Intel Core i7 system, noting "This particular feat was aided by a new feature available in Windows 7 and Windows Server 2008 R2 that allows for full screen video rendering within a remote Terminal Services session. If you have two Windows 7 PCs, you can try this for yourself -- just open up a WMV file from within a remote desktop session on another W7 PC and prepare to be amazed."
Then, of course, there are the green ramifications, which Aggar lists, starting with the reduction of waste due to the presence of far fewer processors, disks, RAM, and additional electronic components. Beyond that, he cites reduced power requirements and says "Not only is there less e-waste to deal with at the end of the day, but it makes it far more feasible (financially and practically) to upgrade the central PC's components (e.g. bigger disks, more RAM) than it would for multiple PCs -- quite often, it's just easier and ultimately cheaper to replace the PCs altogether."
In the end, happy, engaged students meet eco-friendly computing products, and increase their learning power, while grateful school administrators save big bucks and please demanding parents.
Userful can be reached at www.userful.com, or toll-free across North America at 866-873-9008.
Posted by Bruce Hoard on 02/16/2010 at 12:48 PM0 comments
In a new study of 1,500 IT executives and virtualization gurus scheduled to be released this week, VDI is all about a positive user experience, reducing TCO, and finding management products that can look into what's going on with VDI networks. And oh, by the way, most survey respondents agreed that 2010 will be a "watershed year" for VDI. The survey was done by Xangati, which specializes in providing visibility into physical and virtual infrastructures.
The first question to invoke the user experience was "What factors were/will be evaluated to determine success of the VDI pilot?" "End-user experience/satisfaction" topped this list of answers, with an 83 percent response rate among the IT execs. Finishing second at 71.6 percent was "Critical business apps worked as expected."
In response to a query asking "Please rank these network considerations for VDI in order of importance," an overwhelming 67.8 percent selected as their answer "Latency/user experience." The next most popular response "Implementation and support costs," was registered by 28.7 percent of respondents.
When asked "Which of these functions do you expect a management solution to provide in your VDI deployments," 62.7 percent replied "Assess what is adversely affecting end-user experience," followed by 54 percent, who said "Tell me what isn't working." For more on VDI management, check out the Desktop Virtualization category in the 2010 Virtualization Review Buyer's Guide (registration required). Some products to consider there include SysTrack Virtual Machine Planner from Lakeside Software, and Thin Desktop from ThinLaunch Software.
With so many responses targeting a positive user experience, it seemed somewhat ironic that when this group responded to a question asking "What do you see as likely obstacles to a full scale VDI deployment?," the most common answer was "Business/end-user resistance to giving up existing desktops." Which provokes me to ask, "What else is new?" End users have fought every major change that has ever come down the new technology pike, only to end up praising the new products they previously rejected.
That attitude ties in with another survey question that asked "Which parts of your organization are actively involved in the VDI implementation?" Not too many people would be surprised to learn that even though the focus of so many survey responses was on the VDI user experience, the least popular answer here was "Line of business." It's all about aligning business requirements with technology resources, right?
Finally, 65.7 percent of survey respondents agreed that 2010 is the "watershed year" for VDI. I can think of a few vendors who would like that to be the case.
Posted by Bruce Hoard on 02/11/2010 at 12:48 PM3 comments
Nobody can say that Leostream isn't aggressive when it comes to marketing its Connection Broker product, the latest version of which, 6.3, has just been released. CEO Michael Palin likes to paint his company as the champion of desktop virtualization users at large customer companies.
"It's all heterogeneity," Palin declares. "It's all about the maximum use of existing physical infrastructures to make projects less risky and expensive. We're doing this with very complicated environments."
What they're doing is selling a product that offers what Palin calls "a software management layer that ties desktop images in the data center to the appropriate end-user devices -- thin clients, laptops, workstations or web pages -- delivering an end-user experience as good or superior to that of a conventional desktop."
What's interesting is to hear Palin discuss his company's "technical alliance partnerships" with VMware and Citrix, two companies that he told me a few months back basically put up with Leostream, but are not big fans. For example, in discussing VMware, he declares "VMware says, 'We want to rule the world,'" and when it comes to VMware and Citrix selling to the low end, he states, "The channels aren't up to speed on this technology. VMware and Citrix continue to over-promise and under-deliver to the mid market." Which is actually fine with Leostream, because they are looking for companies with 1,000 users or more, anyway.
At any rate, the company bills Connection Broker as a vendor-neutral product that "provides greater flexibility, simpler deployment and more efficient management of hosted virtual desktop infrastructures."
I know there are some people who take a dim view of the entire connection broker concept because it only solves one part of the VDI puzzle, but Leostream seems to be making a buck, so more power to them.
Some highlights of v 6.3 include a new Web client (user access to desktops and apps), increased platform flexibility (support for Xen.org centers), enhanced remote access support for Sun (tight integration with Sun Secure Global Desktop Software), expanded support for Hardware PCoIP (enabling quad-monitor layouts for hardware PCoIP), and an optimized end-user experience (protocol plans to make the hosted VDI "protocol-aware," and registry plans, enabling the setting of registry keys on remote desktops "based on the client device the user logs in from, providing location-based tuning of the end user's experience."
Posted by Bruce Hoard on 02/09/2010 at 12:48 PM1 comments
Initially, Hyper-V was criticized for not offering live migration. It took a while but with the introduction of Windows Server 2008 R2, that capability was added, if not with much gusto, as it is still necessary to live-migrate one VM at a time, which lags behind VMware's ability to perform multiple concurrent migrations.
Does it really matter? Yes and no according to Mark Davis, co-founder of Virsto (as in "virtual storage") Software, which is scheduled to unveil its first product Feb. 16. "It matters," he says, "but people rarely use it. They're still getting used to doing it. It's tedious, slow and more work."
Tedious, slow and hard work are not concepts that Davis admires. The mere fact that he is now on his sixth startup indicates pretty clearly that he likes to get things done and then move on to whatever's next. He has gone from being a tech guy with an eye for the market to being a go-to guy for new ideas and products.
Although he's still mum on revealing exactly what Virsto is unveiling Feb. 16, he does talk freely about how virtualization is "breaking" storage, how people are retrofitting physical storage for use in the virtual world, and how the lifecycle of VMs is different from that of their physical counterparts.
Davis -- who speaks articulately with the energy of an overwound wind-up train -- had a lot more to say at lunch the other day that we should probably keep a lid on until the 16th, but I promise you we will work up a review of version 1.0 as soon as the ribbons are cut.
In the mean time, if you like a good tease, go to virsto.com.
Is live migration happening out there, or not, and if it is, does it matter whether you're moving one of multiple VMs at once? Let me know what you think at [email protected] (preferred) or comment here.
Posted by Bruce Hoard on 02/02/2010 at 12:48 PM5 comments
In a newly released -- and largely gloomy -- Gartner EXP CIO survey that predicts IT budgets will "essentially be flat in 2010," there is good news for virtualization, which is ranked as the No. 1 2010 "Top 10 Technology Priority" for business process improvement, which itself is the No. 1 "Top 10 Business Priority." Talk about cachet.
It gets better. Gartner goes on to laud virtualization's "value-creating productivity," which it shares with No. 2 cloud computing and No. 3 Web 2.0. Specifically, says Gartner, at a time of "multiple budget cuts, delayed spending, and increased demand for services with reduced resources," a technology transition it taking place from an emphasis on "heavy" owner-operated solutions to "lighter-weight services-based, and social media technologies, including virtualization, cloud computing and Web 2.0 social computing." Whoa.
According to Gartner, "These technologies, implemented properly, create the opportunity for IT to change its role and the operational performance of the enterprise. Asymmetric technologies like virtualization, cloud and Web 2.0 enable companies to get out from under a front-loaded, heavy investment model that limits IT's agility and flexibility."
It's nice to see virtualization get the kind of notoriety that comes with being bundled with cloud computing and Web 2.0 -- two industry-wide tech stars and top-of-mind topics. Now, instead of being viewed as pick-and-shovel technology, virtualization may start being viewed as integral to the sleek, lighter-weight new generation of asymmetric computing. Going uptown!
Does virtualization need a new image? E-mail me at [email protected] (preferred) or comment here.
Posted by Bruce Hoard on 01/28/2010 at 12:48 PM1 comments
I must confess that in my blog of last Thursday, I was making a bit of a joke about the relative scarcity of virtualization pros, the validity of maintaining any kinds of statistics on specific virtualization job opportunities, and the overall state of the undersized virtualization job market.
Bill Reynolds of Foote Partners, whom I mentioned, responded to my comments by noting that he did a quick search on Foote's IT salaries and found virtualization skills, responsibilities, knowledge or experience mentioned in 12 of 145 job openings. "For all of these jobs, virtualization work, whether desktop, storage, servers, applications, data center, is a portion of what they do," Reynolds says.
He further confirmed what I jokingly declared when he described how Foote has been surveying full-time virtualization jobs, "but at the moment it's pretty new, and there aren't enough of these around to get any statistical validity."
Ever-vigilant, Foote has created two categories of virtualization skills: certified and non-certified. According to him, employers are definitely paying workers specifically for virtualization skill specializations. "We are tracking premium pay for 424 certs and skills in our IT Skills and Certifications Pay Index, Reynolds states, adding, "It can be part of salary or any number of cash bonuses -- performance, retention, sign on, etcetera."
So hey, there may not be many virtual pros per se out there, but it sounds to me like anybody who knows their way around a VM or a VDI may have a leg up on the competition. How long before we have vice presidents of virtualization?
Question: What workplace advantages to you have because of your virtualization knowledge and/or experience? E-mail your answers to me at [email protected].
Posted by Bruce Hoard on 01/26/2010 at 12:48 PM1 comments
The good folks at Dice.com, who preside over all things IT salary, have issued a press release saying, "After surging 10% last year (Did anybody notice?), virtualization salaries were on average flat year-over-year at $84,777." The release goes on to note that on a national basis, virtualization tech workers are making $78,845. Moreover, it makes the not-so-startling claim that dissatisfaction among IT pros "soared" to 38 percent from 32 percent over the past year. If you allow for a 6 percent margin of error in that computation, the "soared" thing looks sort of weak. However, Dice seems to be making this dubious claim with tongue planted firmly in cheek, adding parenthetically that their PHDs "tell us this is statistically significant!"
Dice also notes that virtualization job postings are up 30 percent from a year ago, which seems at best conclusively doubtful. Could it be that employers figure workers with virtualization backgrounds are more likely to have the knowledge base necessary for other, non-virtualization jobs? I personally think that an alleged 30 percent hike in job postings doesn't mean a heck of a lot in an emerging market such as virtualization, where the overall pool of highly qualified personnel is likely to be pretty small to begin with.
Dice sums up what it is seeing out there by saying "More demand for virtualization + unhappy tech professionals = retention issues." Hmm, I'd put it another way: A statistically arguable growth in virtualization demand plus little change in the same old group of grumpy tech pros who are impossible to please in the first place does little to change the challenge of hanging on to your good people.
On another note, Foote Partners says that virtualization skills remain among those in the greatest demand -- although it is ranked 19th out of the 32 listed in this category. Virtualization is hot on the heels of SAP Quality Management, Unified Comm/Messaging, and SAP Service Management, and just ahead of SANs, Python and Microsoft Sharepoint. You gotta love these kinds of arbitrary rankings -- just don't show them to your boss next time you ask for a raise.
You tell me: How do you know if you're under-paid? I'm waiting to hear from you at [email protected] or comment here.
Posted by Bruce Hoard on 01/21/2010 at 12:48 PM6 comments
I'm curious to know what you think about the following two paragraphs:
At the end of the day, the bulk of the servers that are being virtualized under the crop of current hypervisors don't need hypervisors at all. If analysts are correct, the preponderance of servers that are being stacked up in hypervisor hosting environments are file servers and low-traffic web servers. Consolidating file servers can be accomplished using another virtualization product that gets little mention in the trade press -- something called the file system.
File systems, which are one of nine layers of virtualization commonly seen in contemporary distributed computing platforms, provide the means to consolidate access to multiple physical data repositories using the metaphor of a file folder or library. If a file server is getting long in the tooth, simply move its contents to a file folder bearing the server's name in a larger server system.
Is this simply common sense or is the writer glossing over the facts with superficial simplicity?
Comment here or send your comments to me at [email protected].
Posted by Bruce Hoard on 01/19/2010 at 12:48 PM5 comments
This much we know: HP and Microsoft announced a three-year agreement calling for the two computer industry giants to invest the tidy sum of $250 million in products and projects -- including Microsoft's still-emerging Azure Cloud service -- that will put them high atop the data center stack by the time the dust settles.
Less officially, we also know that the deal aligns HP and Microsoft squarely against the Virtual Computing Environment (VCE) coalition, unveiled this past Nov. 3 and composed of Cisco and its prime-time partners VMware and EMC. They too want to own the data center via extended links to cloud-based customers.
Looking at it solely from the cloud angle, according to the press release, Microsoft and HP will "collaborate on Azure, with HP and Microsoft offering services, and Microsoft continuing to invest in HP hardware for Windows Azure infrastructure."
Cloudwise, VCE partners Cisco and EMC also introduced Acadia, which the two described as "a joint venture focused on accelerating customer buildouts of private cloud infrastructures through an end-to-end enablement service providers and large enterprise customers."
This large-scale, deal-making is by no means a new MO for Microsoft and HP. Last May, they took the wraps off a four-year, $180 million deal calling for the creation and marketing of unified communications products and services that is redolent of the thinking Cisco baked into its Unified Communications System, which turned Cisco into a blade server maker with strong ties to VMware. The May agreement calls for joint product development, professional services and sales and marketing.
While all of this is going down, Oracle is still digesting Sun, and IBM is left on the sidelines to contemplate -- at least for now -- the trials and tribulations of solitary success.
Question: What's in all these giant conglomerations for virtualization users? E-mail me or post comments here.
Posted by Bruce Hoard on 01/14/2010 at 12:48 PM0 comments
Back in early November, I started talking to Citrix about interviewing any VMware defector who was dumping VMware to sign up with Citrix under the aegis of "Project Open Door," which Citrix says offers "advanced virtualization management, along with free support, training and conversion tools to customers switching servers from VMware ESX or vSphere to Citrix XenServer or Microsoft Windows Server 2008 Hyper-V."
Backing up for a second, the Oct. 14 release they sent me announcing Project Open Door included quotes from eight users, six of which never mentioned VMware in their brief comments. Of the remaining two, one said blandly, "It is clear to us, for perhaps the first time there is some stout competition to VMware." The other finally came up with some warmed over beef, declaring, "After careful comparison between XenServer and the the VMware technology we had been using, we found XenServer offered all the features we needed, at a fraction of the price. By decommissioning our VMware servers and replacing them with XenServer, we have not only lowered costs, but also gained capacity to support more users on each server and eased the management of the system."
Eager to interview former VMware customers who would go into more specifics about why they deserted the mother ship, and how Citrix had eased their transition, I contacted Citrix and asked if they could line up such an interview. They enthusiastically agreed to work on it.
November turned into December, and December turned into January, but Citrix was unable to deliver. At one point, I was told that they were working on an interview, and should be able to provide me with contact information "in the next few days." A subsequent e-mail informed me that "The person we need to speak with is unfortunately out with the flu. The last communique came a month ago, when I was told that Citrix was "not sure we will be able to deliver, but will keep you posted."
Since then, they have not delivered or kept me posted, which only leads me to believe that they couldn't get any of these former ESX (?) or vSphere (?) customers to spill the beans about why they went through all the hassle and expense of making the change. If we were able to hear those war stories, we would have gained some truly valuable insights, and Citrix would have looked like a thousand bucks.
Sans such insights, Project Open Door comes off more like Project Closed Door.
Do you think Citrix is doing would-be customers a service by providing only the "good" news about Project Open Door participants? Send me your comments at [email protected].
Posted by Bruce Hoard on 01/12/2010 at 12:48 PM3 comments
Looks like I hit a nerve with "Hyper-V: Taking it on the Chin?" Reader responses were split between supporting and condemning Hyper-V, with very little middle ground, so they made for interesting reading.
Christopher Whitfield started the brouhaha with an in-depth defense of Hyper-V, saying it is "solid...really solid, and once the security folks get into the fray, the battle may go further against VMware."
Rob Shaw took an impassioned shot at Hyper-V, saying Microsoft has "brainwashed" people into believing Hyper-V is a bare metal, type 1 hypervisor, and added that he is an enterprise admin that maintains thousands of servers, who knows the many shortcomings of Hyper-V and "It is not an enterprise-ready hypervisor yet."
Alex Bakman begs to differ with Rob, saying that Hyper-V is "a good enough" platform, and "easier to understand for a typical Windows admin."
Anonymous says he has about 95 percent of his servers virtualized on ESX 3.5 and is moving to vSphere 4, but he has been giving "serious thought" to Hyper-V: "When you also take desktop virtualization into account, Hyper-V with Remote Desktop Services and App-V looks very good. VMware View on the other hand hasn't impressed me."
Anonymous (no. 2) says working with the "inferior" Microsoft products costs more time and money, and that switching to Hyper-V carries a "big cost" that could mean VMware would cost less overall. In support of his claims, he cites a recent blog in InformationWeek, "9 Reasons Enterprises Shouldn't Switch to Hyper-V."
Finally, Vancleave Calif. USA argues that with only about 25 percent of servers virtualized today, Microsoft doesn't have to "convert" VMware users. "It only needs to get a majority of the untapped virtualization market, which is about 75 percent. Given Microsoft's price point and stable product, that shouldn't be hard."
So who's right, and who's wrong? E-mail your comments to me at [email protected].
Posted by Bruce Hoard on 01/07/2010 at 12:48 PM3 comments
Take a read of Jon William Toigo's piece entitled "Au Contraire -- I Beg Not to Differ," just posted to the site. It takes a good hard look at the pros and cons of virtualization that will make you think twice before you virtualize your next server. I look forward to your comments.
Posted by Bruce Hoard on 01/07/2010 at 12:48 PM1 comments