blog.scottlowe.org

Welcome to another installation of Virtualization Short Takes!

• For you Quicksilver lovers out there that also run VMware Fusion, here’s a handy trick to allow you to launch Windows apps to run under Fusion via Quicksilver.
• Duncan of Yellow Bricks points out this VMware Communities Forums thread discussing how to determine which host has a lock on a LUN. This thread also makes brief mention of the new VMFS version, version 3.31, that was released with ESX 3.5, which does a better job of handling SCSI reservations than previous versions. Good find, Duncan!
• Speaking of the new VMFS version, a summary of the information shared in the VMware Communities Forums threads can be found here.
• While we are on a bit of a storage kick, VMware has launched a new VMware Storage blog, and one of the early posts deals with VMFS. The post primarily attacks the notion of VMFS as a “proprietary” file system (which it is) by describing the advantages that VMFS provides. I’m hoping that the new storage blog will get more technical than marketing in the future, but the information is useful nevertheless.
• This link falls more into the “ironic” category than anything else. Do you suppose he got into trouble with Citrix for blogging about how to use a competitor’s product to test ICA performance?
• John Howard gives us an in-depth look at Hyper-V’s handling of virtual NICs in this article. This is particularly important for users who are interested in cloning VMs hosted on Hyper-V; I would assume that SCVMM 2008 will handle this correctly.
• This news emerged several weeks ago via VMblog.com. It’s good to see Leostream getting some recognition; their broker is actually quite good in many respects.
• Sven over at Virtualfuture.info recently blogged about XenServer’s HA functionality and how Marathon’s EverRun products play into that functionality. I actually had a conference call with the folks from Marathon several months ago about EverRun, but never got around to blogging about it. I do like the fact that you can control HA functionality on a per-VM basis, whereas VMware HA is applied to all VMs. (Well, I suppose you could disable HA for the VMs that you don’t want restarted, but it’s not quite the same.) I do agree with both Sven and PeterB’s comments regarding “Continuous Availability”; the sooner that VMware gets this functionality out door, the more of a leg up they’ll have on the competition.
• As has been reported elsewhere as well, Reflex Security has released the Reflex Virtual Security Center (VSC). The full press release is here. Based on what I’ve read thus far, it appears that the idea behind the VSC is to combine the information from multiple instances of their Virtual Security Appliance (VSA) so that users get the “full view” of what’s occurring across the virtual infrastructure. In this regard, it is remarkably similar to Altor Networks’ Virtual Network Security Analyzer (VNSA), which is also designed to provide visibility across the entire virtual infrastructure.

As always, feel free to share other interesting links and news in the comments below. Thank you!

Here’s Virtualization Short Take #12, a collection of links I’ve gathered over the last week or so and my thoughts on them. Enjoy!

• For those that missed it in the Release Notes, VMware added support for Storage VMotion and 10Gb Ethernet with iSCSI SANs, as outlined in this VI Team blog entry. I went back and reviewed the Release Notes and didn’t see this listed anywhere, so this is news to me. Of course, I already knew that Storage VMotion worked just fine with iSCSI, but this added formal support for iSCSI.
• Virtualfuture.info published some good recommendations for running Citrix in a VI3 environment. If you run Citrix Presentation Server…er, XenApp…in a VI3 environment, these tuning tips may prove quite handy.
• VMware’s Virtual Reality blog posted an entry on some of the architectural advantages of VMware Infrastructure in comparison to the two leading competitors, Xen (any Xen-based solution) and Hyper-V. Many of the things listed as advantages by VMware are severe points of contention with the other vendors, such as the direct vs. indirect I/O model. Ultimately, time will tell which model was the best; I honestly don’t know enough about the deep dark internals to really state which is better. One thing I am glad to see pointed out is the true comparison of hypervisor sizes; Microsoft can say all they want that Hyper-V is only 600K in size and therefore is the “thinnest” hypervisor, but the truth of the matter is that Hyper-V can’t run without Windows Server 2008 in the parent partition. As a result, it doesn’t really matter how “thin” Hyper-V is, does it?
• Via Mike Laverick, I learned that Microsoft may have brought up the whole 64-bit hypervisor vs. 32-bit hypervisor argument yet again. Mike used a snippet from this Microsoft Virtualization Team Blog entry; in reading it myself, I don’t get quite the same 64-bit vs. 32-bit that Mike picked up. That’s good, because I didn’t want to have to go there again. Personally, the tone I picked up from the whole article was one of educating people far too accustomed to Virtual Server/VirtualPC and trying to educate them on how Hyper-V is different.
• Virtualization analyst Chris Wolf recently posted an entry in which he questioned if Apple would capitalize on the opportunity that virtualization is creating. It’s an interesting scenario, one that is similar to a scenario that I discussed a couple of years ago in a piece titled “Application Agnosticism.” In that article, I suggested that seamless host-guest interactions with virtualization software (now implemented by VMware as Unity and by Parallels as Coherence) would usher in a new wave of computing. I suggested that Mac OS X was ahead of the curve because of its ability to run native OS X applications, UNIX applications, X11 applications, Windows applications via WINE (or the commercial variant CrossOver Office), and applications from any other operating system via virtualization. Sounds like I may have been a bit ahead of my time!
• Chad continues discussing VMware HA with another post on some additional configuration options for HA. Also check out the comments with links to even more information on HA’s advanced configuration options.
• This VMware KB article has some good information on getting LUN identification information. The breakdown of the command-line output from esxcfg-mpath is particularly helpful (and for that reason I’ve added it to my del.icio.us bookmarks).
• Rich of VM /ETC shares with us a “Doh!” moment he had when he saw this simple method for identifying VMs with snapshots. Sometimes it’s the simplest solutions that evade us the longest. Here’s what I want to know: Aaron, what exactly does “/HEADDESK” mean, anyway?
• This article at SearchNetworking.com brings to light some of the challenges networking professionals face with server virtualization. I do agree with one point made in the article regarding the mapping of applications—what the end users really care about—to the networking infrastructure. VMware’s support for CDP in recent versions of VMware Infrastructure is a step in the right direction, but there is still more work to do for sure. I’m not so sure about the rest of the points in the article, but I may be an exception to the norm; I was a CCNA for a while (on track for CCNP) and have done my fair share of Cisco configurations, so I’m no stranger to the networking world. The use of VLANs to ease configuration in a server virtualization environment seems just second nature to me. Also, I did note that the author indicated that “server administrators sometimes inappropriately configure the switches to create a loop” (referring to vSwitches in ESX). How exactly does that happen? I’ve never seen a way to link two vSwitches together without using a VM.

As always, readers’ thoughts are welcome in the comments!

Yesterday, Brian Madden wrote an interesting editorial about how he thinks that Citrix will drop the Xen hypervisor in favor of Hyper-V, and will essentially “port” XenServer to run on Hyper-V. Keith Ward at Virtualization Review picked up on this in his post titled “The End of Xen?”. Today, Brian posted a follow-up article clarifying that he wasn’t talking about XenServer, but the open source Xen hypervisor.

Architecturally speaking, the commercial XenServer product and the open source Xen hypervisor are inextricably linked to each other. I don’t see how it would even be possible for Citrix to “port” XenServer, which is a Linux dom0/parent partition plus an “enhanced” build of the Xen hypervisor, to run on Windows Server 2008, or even to use Microsoft’s hypervisor. Keith addresses this point in his article:

I’m not sure what Brian’s sources are on that, but I’ve talked to people in the know for both Microsoft and Citrix, and they state that although the two hypervisors interoperate very well, that they are not duplicates, or near duplicates, of each other. They were developed entirely separately, but there is a common perception, in fact, that Hyper-V is based upon Xen. Not true.

It’s probably pertinent to clarify some architectural issues at this point. (Experts and gurus, feel free to correct me if I am wrong.) Both XenServer (and non-commercial Xen implementations) as well as Hyper-V must have the parent partition present in order to function; they cannot function alone. This is because critical functions like networking and storage are routed through the dom0/parent partition. Without dom0 (a Linux instance for XenServer and non-commercial Xen implementations) or the parent partitions (Windows Server 2008 for Hyper-V), the hypervisor has no I/O functionality. This means that Xen is very closely tied to Linux, and Hyper-V is very closely tied to Windows. Making either run with the other would be a monumental task, if it’s even possible. I could be wrong; while these two products share some architectural similarities, they still seem worlds apart to me.

So, in my mind, the idea of Citrix dropping the use of the open source Xen hypervisor—or any commercial variants of the hypervisor—in favor of Hyper-V are so far-fetched so as to be nonexistent.

Now, that’s not to say that Citrix won’t try to provide some enhanced functionality for Hyper-V, such as live migration (what they call XenMotion and what VMware calls VMotion). This is a key feature that is missing from the initial release of Hyper-V. Is this even possible, though? If it is possible, is it worthwhile? Microsoft has already publicly stated on multiple occasions that live migration will come to Hyper-V in a future release. Why spend a great deal of time, money, and development cycles adding functionality that Microsoft is planning on building anyway?

It’s also very possible, even likely, that Citrix will expand their XenDesktop offering to encompass virtual machines hosted on Hyper-V, thus combining their application/desktop delivery expertise with Microsoft’s hypervisor and virtualization management capabilities. Now that’s quite a possibility, in my opinion. This would be just another example of how Citrix has survived over the years by plugging the gaps in Microsoft’s product line, this time offering significant and beneficial desktop virtualization functionality to Hyper-V environments.

I had the opportunity today to spend a few minutes in a one-on-one conversation with Jeff Woolsey, Senior Program Manager for Hyper-V at Microsoft. During our conversation, Jeff and I discussed the Hyper-V architecture, comparisons to other virtualization solutions, and some common competitive arguments for or against Hyper-V. I’d like to publish a summarized version of our conversation here. (Jeff, if you’re reading and I’ve accidentally misquoted you, please be sure to correct me. I don’t want to misrepresent any information. Keep me straight!)

I framed the discussion around a series of questions. Each question is listed below, along with a summary of the discussion resulting from that question.

Question 1: What are the key architectural advantages of Hyper-V as compared to Xen or ESX?

Jeff indicated that Hyper-V and Xen are architecturally very similar. Both use a privileged VM; Microsoft calls it the parent partition, Xen calls it dom0. In both cases, I/O is routed through this privileged partition and only the privileged partition has access to the physical hardware. Microsoft believes the hypervisor should be as thin as possible; Hyper-V is only about 600K worth of code. The networking stack and the storage stack are pushed up into the parent partition to keep drivers out of the hypervisor. Jeff referred me back to his session earlier in the day, where he discussed the need for the parent partition (my summary of that session is here). ESX puts all the drivers in the hypervisor, which means that they have a harder time providing support for new hardware (the example given was 4Gbps Fibre Channel HBAs vs. 8Gbps Fibre Channel HBAs). In talking about the placement of device drivers, our discussion naturally led us to the next question.

Question 2: How would you respond to the concerns about the quality of the device drivers in the parent partition affecting the stability of the hypervisor?

Jeff doesn’t buy into this argument. Unlike desktops or workstations, administrators don’t typically go willy-nilly with drivers on production servers. Drivers are generally provided by the hardware vendors. In addition, because Hyper-V requires the x64 edition of Windows Server 2008, this is even less of an issue; it’s impossible to use unsigned drivers with x64 Windows. This means that any driver that can be used with Hyper-V will be WHQL-tested. Supposedly, this will keep out potentially faulty device drivers. Jeff pointed to the exclusive use of Hyper-V to power the MSDN and TechNet web sites at Microsoft as proof. I can see his point, but I still have to wonder if another level of qualification and validation shouldn’t have been established to ensure that everything works as expected with Hyper-V. It still seems possible to me that organizations stepping outside the “Big 3″ server vendors—Dell, HP, and IBM—could run into issues.

Question 3: How much interoperability is there between Hyper-V and Citrix XenServer?

Jeff admitted that this was outside his comfort area. I was specifically wondering about a Citrix claim of the ability to take a XenServer VM, move it to Hyper-V, and boot it right up. Jeff couldn’t confirm if that was possible. He did indicate that there would be a hypercall adapter that would support paravirtualized Linux kernels designed to run under the Xen hypervisor as well as non-PV Linux kernels. As for interoperability of Integration Components (ICs) or paravirtualized drivers, Jeff wasn’t sure. I should get more information on that soon and will post it here as soon as I receive it.

Question 4: What is your response to complaints about Microsoft’s support policy for third-party virtualization solutions?

This discussion really got Jeff animated. He pointed me to an announcement that I apparently missed from this morning’s keynote regarding the Server Virtualization Validation Program. This was mentioned in the official press release, but I really don’t recall seeing or hearing anything about it this morning. More information and more links about the SVVP, as I like to call it, is found in this Windows Server Division Weblog post. The idea behind the program is providing a framework to enable third-party virtualization solutions to qualify and validate running Windows Server 2008 on their hypervisor as well as providing a process for handling technical support cases, transferring cases between vendors, escalating cases, etc. Jeff tried to compare the idea of the Server Virtualization Validation Program to WHQL, which I can kind of see, but that analogy only goes so far. Without this program, I can certainly see Jeff’s points regarding the complexity of who will be supported, what versions will be supported, how they will handle patches to the supported versions, etc. With this program, other virtualization vendors have a clearly defined process they can follow to get the same support as Hyper-V (or close to it).

In my mind, Microsoft must strike a very delicate balance here. Lots of people—competitors, partners, customers, resellers—see Microsoft’s behavior here as anti-competitive, even if that isn’t the case. Again, I can certainly see the complexities involved; it just seems like Microsoft perhaps should have moved more quickly to address this issue.

Question 5: How would you address competitors’ complaints about how Hyper-V requires a separate LUN for each VM for which Quick Migration functionality is needed?

Jeff admitted that it is true that Hyper-V will require a separate LUN for each VM that needs Quick Migration functionality. Rather than spending time creating a clustered file system, Microsoft chose instead to allow storage partners to create those solutions. He referred me to Sanbolic, whose MelioFS clustered file system and LaScala volume manager will allow Hyper-V deployments to store multiple VMs on a single LUN visible to all hosts, just like VMFS. According to Jeff, this allows organizations to use both, if they so desire, instead of being “locked in.” Using a third-party clustered file system eliminates the “one VM per LUN” limitation imposed when using Quick Migration.

In my opinion, relying on partners to fill certain portions of the solution is certainly a valid approach. Lots of companies do this. In this situation, though, it seems a bit odd. For other areas of their virtualization solution, Microsoft likes to tout the completeness of the solution. Consider the tight integration of the various System Center components with Windows Server 2008 and Hyper-V. But for this they want to rely on a partner? I have to wonder if a clustered file system developed by Microsoft isn’t somewhere on the road map.

And that was the end of our discussion. I’d like to thank Jeff for taking the time to talk with me, answering my questions, and sharing his thoughts on these topics.

Here are some virtualization links I found interesting over the last few days:

• Duncan points out a VMTN thread regarding VMware HA behaviors in “heterogeneous” clusters, i.e., clusters that include 1/2 vCPU VMs as well as 4 vCPU VMs. The recommendation is to move these 4 vCPU VMs into their own cluster to help address this issue. This is similar to the discussions I had here about VMware HA failover capacity calculations, and it goes to further reinforce the fact that planning is needed to fully take advantage of VMware HA’s functionality. It’s not quite “fire and forget” just yet, folks.
• Via a number of different sites, I learned that VMware has released version 2.1 of VDM. More information is available in the Release Notes. Of key interest to me is the defined process for bulk importing individual desktops, which will make it easier for organizations that already have a number of desktop images to bring those VMs into VDM.
• On the VMware performance blog, they’re discussing achieving 100K IOPS with a single ESX server. While some of the readers are taking VMware to task for what they call an “unrealistic” test, I do have to agree with commenter Chad who points out that this exercise wasn’t intended to create a “best practices” configuration. The point was simply to see just how high the IOPS could go—nothing more, nothing less, just a test to see how high they could take the number. Yes, I think we’d all agree that using a cluster without 1:1 VM-to-VMFS mappings would be a realistic test, and personally I’d love to see the results of a test like that as well. Even so, it’s still handy to see that the I/O subsystem of ESX is more than capable of handling even the most demanding workloads.
• It becomes more obvious every day that I really need to take some time to learn PowerShell. With Microsoft embedding PowerShell in all their products and VMware embracing it via the VI Toolkit, it’s becoming ubiquitous. Now VMware is even showing off a series of videos about the VI Toolkit and its functionality. Ugh..I need more hours in a day to keep up with all this stuff.
• Paul Shannon of VM-Aware points out this VMware page describing support for Microsoft products, both from Microsoft as well as from various OEMs. Useful information to have, especially when you need to reassure a concerned customer about their support options. Personally, I think it’s just poor business (or poor ethics, take your pick) for Microsoft to be giving customers a hard time about virtualization support while developing their own virtualization product. Come on, we all know that the day Hyper-V goes RTM, Microsoft will start offering full product support for virtualized instances—well, virtualized instances running on Hyper-V, anyway. Am I wrong?
• Via Ruben at Brian Madden’s site (and thanks to an e-mail from Patrick Rouse himself), I learned about this VDI broker comparison created by Patrick Rouse of Quest/Provision Networks. Right now, it only compares VDM, XenDesktop, and Provision Networks Virtual Access Suite (VAS), but they are open to including additional brokers if enough requests come in.
• Brian Madden delves into an extended discussion of the key problem with VDI solutions: the display protocol. He posits that Citrix is in better shape than VMware because of the ICA protocol, but both suffer from the same problem in that “neither ICA nor RDP can remote all applications.” It’s a good read.
• This may be a bit dated now, but here’s some information on an unattended installation of Windows Server 2008 with Hyper-V.
• InformationWeek recently published an article describing Hyper-V’s “advanced virtualization features.” The two things that are really touted by the article are I/O optimization via driver enlightenments, and support for failover clustering at the host level. Driver enlightenments, unless I am mistaken, are equivalent to Xen’s paravirtualized drivers, VMware’s VMware Tools, and Virtual Iron’s VI Tools; they all accomplish the same thing. I’m not sure how having the same feature as all the other competitors makes it “advanced”. It sounds like a standard feature if you ask me. Host clustering support is nice, but not that different from VMware HA; I believe Citrix is due to introduce a similar feature for XenServer soon as well. (It’s my understanding that Marathon Technologies plans to build their “Continuous Availability”-like product to extend this new XenServer HA functionality.) Not that I’m knocking Hyper-V or these features that are slated to be included in Hyper-V; you just can’t call them “advanced” if pretty much every other virtualization solution on the market also has the same features.

Well, that’s it for now. If you have links that you’d like to share with me or other readers, feel free to add them in the comments below or put them in my del.icio.us inbox. Thanks for reading!

Various sites have reported this morning on the update to the Xen trademark policy, which controls how organizations and companies may or may not use the Xen trademark.

I haven’t yet read the actual Xen Trademark Policy, but I have read what was posted of Citrix’s response to the updated policy. I’m sure it’s just me, but this response sure sounds like “We can use Xen in our product names, but no one else can.” Now tell me, how does this benefit the entire Xen community?

Don’t get me wrong; Xen AB—which I assume to be the legal entity responsible for protecting the Xen trademarks now that XenSource is owned by Citrix—has every right to protect the Xen trademark and Xen logo. There is absolutely no question about that. But shouldn’t trademark restrictions on an open source project apply equally to all organizations, commercial or non-commercial, that utilize that open source project? Why should any one organization, regardless of which organization it is, get preferential treatment?

By the way, all this is a moot point if I am wrong about the ownership of the Xen trademark. If Citrix owns the Xen trademark, which they very well might as a result of the purchase of XenSource, then I suppose they are free to impose whatever restrictions they see fit.

It’s that time again, friends, time for another Virtualization Short Take!

• OpenSolaris on Fusion: As expected, Solaris/OpenSolaris fans are experimenting with OpenSolaris on Fusion. Apparently, it runs rather well.
• Brian Madden had an interesting thought about Thinstall (now ThinApp) plus WINE to eliminate Windows. In the end, Brian feels like many companies will just want to deal with the larger vendors, and won’t be willing to support this kind of “cobbled together” solution. The idea of using ThinApp on WINE on a non-Windows operating system is a pretty cool idea, but it may be a bit early for its time.
• Microsoft Hyper-V made it to RC1, apparently ahead of schedule. I wonder if they will try to make RTM in time for TechEd in Florida in June? In addition, Microsoft also released information about how they are “eating their own dog food” and using Hyper-V for the MSDN and TechNet web sites.
• Citrix has released XenDesktop 2.0, their VDI solution. Alessandro has a fairly complete breakdown of the components involved in the solution and the various editions under which it will be released. A lot of these components are pre-existing products that are being rebundled into XenDesktop; XenApp (Presentation Server) and Provisioning Server (Ardence) are two examples. VMware came out with a competitive response almost immediately, and Gareth dissected that response on DABCC. Having not actually installed XenDesktop yet, I don’t know how integrated—or not integrated—the various components are, so I’ll reserve judgment until later. I have my beefs with VDM; in particular, I don’t like how it mandates VM provisioning in order to use pools. I hope that Leostream’s removal of their P>V product as reported by Alessandro doesn’t portend dark days for Leostream.
• According to Tony Asaro at Virtual Iron, Citrix’s release of XenDesktop signals the beginning of a “shift” in focus from server virtualization to desktop virtualization. One must consider this comment in the context of who is providing the comment; Virtual Iron is, of course, a competitor in the server virtualization market whose product is also based on the Xen hypervisor. Besides, even if that is true, so what? Citrix has made an existence out of focusing on client-side application delivery. This would be completely logical, in my mind, and would allow Citrix to focus on an area where they are strong instead of competing in a market where they are weak.
• Lou Springer brings us a method of connecting to a VM’s console using VNC over SSH from Mac OS X. I’d seen references to using this with VMware Server, but didn’t know that it worked with VI3. Thanks, Lou! (Lou’s trick was based on information from this VMware KB article, by the way.)
• From IPMer, here’s some information on using VMware Converter to assist with VM snapshots. This was picked up by Rich over at VM /ETC and also included in the first-ever VMware Communities Roundtable podcast (which I’ve downloaded but not yet had the opportunity to actually review yet).

That’s it for today. I hope that everyone has a great Memorial Day. Don’t forget to thank a veteran or active serviceman/servicewoman for your freedom!

I received word this morning that Embotics, a maker of software intended to help manage the virtual machine lifecycle, had been selected to participate in the Microsoft Startup Accelerator Program. I’d never heard of this program, but it sounds interesting based on the Embotics press release:

Stewarded by the Emerging
Business Team (EBT) at Microsoft Corp., the program is designed to
connect high-potential startups committed to the Microsoft platform to
an extensive support network. This program provides access to Microsoft
people and programs, guidance on future directions and support to
accelerate their success.

Naturally, I assume this means that Embotics’ flagship product, V-Commander, is going to work well with Hyper-V once it becomes available later this year.

This announcement joins a number of other announcements in recent weeks by other vendors as well in support of Hyper-V, following Microsoft’s release of a release candidate last week. Some might interpret this as the beginning of a sea change in the virtualization market, further bolstered by HP’s integration of XenServer management (more information here as well). Is the tide turning against VMware? As more and more vendors announce support for XenServer and Hyper-V, the landscape for VMware becomes more competitive.

After a brief mention of this topic in Virtualization Short Take #4, the battle between Citrix, Microsoft, and VMware over memory overcommitment has heated up.

The latest round comes from VMware, who provides some real-world statistics on memory overcommitment. In addition, I’ll draw readers’ attention to this comment on VMware’s original article, in which a VMware customer describes the benefits his organization is seeing from memory overcommitment. (BTW, this commenter apparently also started a VMware Communities thread which was, in turn, the basis for this article by Duncan over at Yellow Bricks. My, what a tangled web we weave!)

In any case, VMware’s response uses real data from a customer; only the names have been changed to protect the innocent. In the case study, a 64GB server has been oversubscribed to support VMs requiring 89GB of RAM, and only 20GB of the server’s 64GB is actually in use. So, by reducing the RAM configured in the server, VMware comes up with a way to show that—in this very specific example, at least—it is cheaper to buy VMware than to add RAM to the server. Looks like they called Microsoft’s bluff:

If someone can show me a customer who is running, in production, a VMware VI3 Enterprise system with a 2:1 memory overcommit ratio on all the VMs, where spending the cost of VMware on RAM wouldn’t remove the need to use overcommitment then I’ll give… lets say $270 to their choice of charity.

Apparently, VMware feels they’ve met those criteria:

So, James, the charity of choice is One Laptop Per Child. And just in case you believe that we’ve cherry picked a use case we’ll be more than happy to connect you directly via phone to any one of the numerous customers we have leveraging memory overcommitment in their environment today.

Now things are really getting interesting. Stay tuned!

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!