Once again, here’s my take a few virtualization-related stories that have passed through my computer in the last few days:
- OK, this first one isn’t technically related to virtualization, but it was too good to pass up. Is there anyone besides me and The Register who thinks NetApp’s new logo is…um…well, not as good as the previous one?
- A new blog war is brewing between VMware and Citrix, and this time I had nothing to do with it: VMware apparently launched the first volley in discussing the value of ESX Server’s memory overcommitment and page sharing functionality; Citrix’s Roger Klorese then responded and Simon Crosby chimed in as well. I would completely agree with Roger’s and Simon’s comments, except for this one statement in Eric’s original post:
We created and powered on 512MB Windows XP VMs running a light workload [emphasis mine] and kept adding them until the server couldn’t take any more.
Since Eric stated the parameters of the test involved lightly loaded workstations, Roger’s comments about heavy workloads don’t apply. Besides, any engineer worth his/her weight isn’t going to overcommit a production workload like that, and this analysis shows that some overcommitment can produce notable financial results.
- CIO Magazine recently published a list of 10 virtualization risks hiding in your company. It’s a pretty interesting list, although it’s worthwhile to note that this list was produced by a VP of Marketing for Embotics and therefore is heavily slanted toward the risks that his company’s products can help mitigate.
- This is interesting and novel, but that’s about it. (UPDATE: The creator of the 37migrations VI plugin, Schley Andrew Kutz, wrote me to state that there is no point in 37migrations; it’s just for fun. So stop trying to find a deeper meaning in it, OK?)
- There’s apparently a problem with using Sysprep in VirtualCenter 2.5 with Windows Server 2003 SP2. A Microsoft hotfix is available.
- Speaking of NetApp, they’ve been generating some buzz around their SnapManager for Virtual Infrastructure (SMVI) product, yet another unreleased product. I echo Duncan’s thoughts about the VC plugin!
- Gabe shares some information he’s gathered about VMsafe, the recently announced security APIs from VMware.
- Alessandro shares his thoughts about Microsoft’s virtualization strategy following the announcement of Microsoft’s purchase of Kidaro. My question is this: was VMware’s announcement of offline VDI functionality at VMworld Europe 2008 because they had an inkling of Microsoft’s moves, or is Microsoft’s purchase a result of VMware’s announcement?
That’s it for today. Join in the discussion by adding your 2 cents in the comments below!
Tags: Citrix, Microsoft, NetApp, Security, Snapshots, Storage, VDI, Virtualization, VMware, Xen
9 comments
Comments feed for this article
Trackback link
http://blog.scottlowe.org/2008/03/14/virtualization-short-take-4/trackback/
Friday, March 14, 2008 at 9:52 am
Marc Farley
Hi Scott, I’m going to miss the old Network Appliance logo. I have a couple postings on my blog site about this along with links to others who have commented. I think The Register has the most amusing comments. My site is http://www.equallogic.com/blog/ for readers that might be interested.
Friday, March 14, 2008 at 8:10 pm
Nick Triantos
Trademark laws allow same logo and name as long as the companies reside in different industries. Register article lacks understanding of trademarks laws and so do I for that matter until I was informed about it.
The plugin vs no plugin for SMVI was a time to market decision. The project has been going on for a while and making changes would have required us to move the release date further out. Having it as a plugin is something under serious consideration and most likely will end up being one in another version. Having said that, there are other much more innovative things we can do to enhance SMVI’s capabilities even further going fwd than have a plugin as a very high priority. Having it as a plugin is “cool”, but it doesn’t enhance value and more importantly it doesn’t prohibit a customer from deploying it.
If as a user were presented with a choice that having it as plugin would have required to postpone a real feature for another release, i’d have taken the feature in a heartbeat.
PS. Scott it’s typical in the industry to announce products before they are released. It’s marketing fluff and everybody does it. Having said that, we’ve tried to keep the announcements within a reasonable release timeframe (60-90 days of release typically) versus 6-9 months others do.
PS2. There’s a REAL good chance I’ll be in Orlando specifically for e-Plus as I don’t care much about Mickey Mouse.
Cheers
Nick
Sunday, March 16, 2008 at 10:16 am
slowe
Hi Nick! I know that the trademark allow the logos to be the same across different industries; that was actually stated in The Register’s article. I didn’t point out the new logo because of trademark issues–I pointed it out because, honestly, I don’t like it. No offense to you or NetApp, of course; I just don’t like it.
As for SMVI and the pre-announcement, you’re right–everyone does it. I pointed that out in my earlier article about the VDI cloning stuff. NetApp is not unusual in that regard.
The plugin vs. feature stuff is also understandable, but consider the comments here to be the beginnings of a petition for a plugin.
Hope to see you in Orlando!
Monday, March 17, 2008 at 3:04 pm
Tony
That new NetApp logo is horrible. It looks like a 5 year old drew a house and forgot to draw the roof….yuk, bad!!!!
Tuesday, March 18, 2008 at 5:00 pm
Nick Triantos
He didn’t forget. He run out of crayons
Next release he’ll add a roof, windows and landscaping.:-)
Tuesday, March 18, 2008 at 8:27 pm
Mike DiPetrillo
VMware has just posted a detailed description of memory overcommit being used in a VDI environment with a real customer. Go here for the details: http://blogs.vmware.com/virtualreality/2008/03/memory-overcomm.html.
Tuesday, March 25, 2008 at 11:19 am
B Krueger
Let the war begin…VMWare is goin down, Parallels is dominating those suckers
Thursday, May 22, 2008 at 1:04 am
Roger Klorese
You note that “since Eric stated the parameters of the test involved lightly loaded workstations, Roger’s comments about heavy workloads don’t apply.”
But in that case, isn’t allocating a 1GB VM (for instance) that you know will never use more than 128MB just a stunt?
Thursday, May 22, 2008 at 7:00 am
slowe
Roger,
Well, not really, because–unless I am mistaken–every other hypervisor on the market statically assigns memory to the guests. Allocating 1GB of RAM to a VM that will never use more than 128MB means that 768MB of RAM is just wasted, and can’t be used elsewhere.
However, I will agree that using lightly loaded workstations in general doesn’t really give us much, and I guess others agreed. So, reference this post:
http://blogs.vmware.com/virtualreality/2008/03/memory-overcomm.html
This shows real-world figures from a customer using Windows XP Workstations in their call center. In this example, the customer is overcommitting memory to the tune of 25GB (89GB vs. 64GB in the server). This kind of functionality wouldn’t be possible if the hypervisor statically assigned memory to the VM and didn’t attempt to reclaim unused pages or share code pages between VMs.
Thanks for reading!