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 the 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!

A colleague at work just turned me on to the news that Brocade will be buying Foundry for $3 billion. This sets the stage for Brocade to compete even more directly with Cisco, not only in storage networking but now also in Ethernet networking.

Thanks for the heads-up, Greg!

Here’s the latest installation of Virtualization Short Takes, my occasionally-weekly view on various virtualization news, reviews, and other happenings. Hopefully I can share something interesting with you!

• Via VMblog.com, I saw that Transitive Corporation is supporting the use of QuickTransit within Hyper-V virtual machines. This is interesting because it extends the ability of Hyper-V to help customers consolidate applications. QuickTransit, in case you aren’t aware, allows applications written for Solaris/SPARC environments to run in Linux/x86 environments. It was also the technology behind Apple’s Rosetta, which allowed Mac users to run PowerPC apps on Intel Macs. Does anyone know if QuickTransit is supported within VMware VMs, or is this specific to Hyper-V?
• This one was quite interesting to me. Question #2 is particularly applicable: why is a reboot required, anyway? (Yes, yes, I know—there is a workaround that does not require a reboot. It’s the principle of the matter.)
• Via various sources on the Internet, I learned about the release of ESX Manager. This looks like quite an interesting tool, although I have not yet had the opportunity to install or try it yet. Anyone out there tried this and have some feedback for us?
• Every now and then, something comes up about Citrix XenServer and Xen and it makes me wonder about the relationship between Citrix and the open source Xen community. The latest thing is what appears to be an offhand comment by Simon Crosby of Citrix where he says, “Because we own the hypervisor, we can do much more integration and development around it” (read it in context here). What does that mean? What does “ownership” of the Xen hypervisor mean? And if the Xen hypervisor is licensed under an open source license (GNU GPL v2, according to this page), how can Citrix make proprietary extensions to the hypervisor without being forced to release those extensions back to the community? I guess I just don’t understand the relationship there and how it works. This is where the murky waters of a commercial entity “owning” an open source project come into play, in my mind.
• I ran across this very useful tip for creating a vSwitch with a specific number of ports. It looks like Dwight Hubbard, the maintainer of the site, also has some other interesting posts. Might be worth adding his feed to your RSS reader.
• Nick Triantos discusses NetApp’s Site Recovery Adapter (SRA) and its role with VMware Site Recovery Manager (SRM). Anyone have any links to similar discussions of the SRAs for other storage vendors?
• John Howard provides a great breakdown of how Hyper-V generates dynamic MAC addresses and how Hyper-V attempts to protect against MAC collisions in some circumstances.
• The VI3 Security Hardening Guide has been updated, which is good because some people felt it just didn’t go far enough.
• VMware re-iterated their stance on being storage protocol agnostic, and in the article included a very useful table that summarizes the various products and technologies and which are supported with which storage protocols. While the rest of the post is helpful, that summary of supported features is probably the most helpful.
• Interesting in trying out Hyper-V, but don’t have shared storage? Take a look at this blog post. I think you’ll find it helpful.

I’m always on the lookout for other interesting or useful virtualization news, tips, and tricks, so feel free to share with me and other readers in the comments.

I just wanted to provide a quick update on some articles I have in the works to be (hopefully) published soon.

• I’m working on an article discussing when to use various NIC teaming configurations with VMware ESX. There are some significant repercussions here for a variety of network configurations, but especially so for configurations involving IP-based storage (iSCSI or NFS).
• I’m finally wrapping up an article on the Xsigo I/O Director. I’ve been working a Xsigo VP780 in the lab for quite some time, and this article will provide a brief overview along with some tips and tricks.
• I received word from HP that I should be getting a ProCurve switch in my lab soon, so that means I can provide a ProCurve-oriented version of this NIC teaming and VLAN trunking article.
• I have some notes on using NetApp Open Systems SnapVault (OSSV) in conjunction with VMware ESX that I plan to post here as well.

New versions of the Linux and Solaris AD integration articles are on the way as well, starting with an update of the Solaris instructions to accommodate Solaris 10 Update 5 and Windows Server 2008.

If there’s anything else you’re interested in seeing, let me know in the comments. Thanks for reading!

UPDATE: The NIC utilization article is available here.

My Virtualization Short Take series seems to be reasonably popular, so I thought I’d expand into another area that interests me: storage. Here is Storage Short Take #1! If this proves helpful or useful to readers, I’ll continue the series on an irregular basis.

• If you’re new to SnapMirror, especially synchronous SnapMirror, this synchronous SnapMirror configuration guide may prove very helpful to you.
• Good friend Nick Triantos discusses NetApp’s Storage Recovery Adapter (SRA) for VMware Site Recovery Manager (SRM). While the discussion is specific to NetApp, it’s a good example of how the storage vendors are responsible for implementing vendor-specific functionality in the SRA. The other storage vendors supporting SRM are responsible for the same things for their storage arrays and storage array functionality.
• Isn’t this the truth—everyone and their brother has “storage virtualization” functionality built into their products these days. Frankly, I’m tired of hearing about it.
• If you’re running VMs on NFS on NetApp storage, you’ll want to note this knowledge base article (NOW login required). It notes that a SCSI disk timeout increase may need to be set in order to accommodate cluster failover times.
• I recently came across this white paper from Emulex and Cisco regarding the use of N_Port ID Virtualization (NPIV) in a VMware environment. Personally, I found it to be a bit light on the technical details and a bit heavy on the marketing side, but otherwise useful.
• This tool from NetApp (NOW login required) can help with approximating storage I/O. It’s not perfect, but it might help provide some rough estimates. I’m sure other vendors have similar tools; readers are encouraged to share links to those tools in the comments.

Well, that’s it for now. I’d love to hear feedback (good or bad) from readers as to whether this is even remotely useful or interesting.

Sanbolic, whose Melio FS product I discussed a short while ago, announced today the availability of their Kayo file system. The official press release is here in PDF format. Quoting from the press release:

Sanbolic today announced that Windows Server 2008 Hyper-V virtual machines can now be stored on a single shared storage area network (SAN) storage volume using Sanbolic Kayo File System. The virtual machines can then be moved independently between physical host servers using Quick Migration because all host servers have shared access to the virtual machines files. Kayo FS will be price at $299 per host server and sold in a 5 license bundle.

Kayo FS is described as “VMFS for Hyper-V,” providing file level shared access to a shared SAN volume. This is distinguished from Sanbolic’s advanced file system, Melio FS, which provides byte-range locking and can provide concurrent access to application data on a SAN. The use of either Kayo FS or Melio FS resolves a key problem with Hyper-V deployments that want to take advantage of Quick Migration functionality, and that is that each VM would require its own LUN.

The introduction of Kayo FS also removes the key objection to the use of Melio FS for Hyper-V deployments: price. Kayo FS will be priced much lower than Melio FS; this means organizations adopting Hyper-V will be much more likely to swallow the cost of Kayo FS vs. Melio FS.

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!

Like everyone else in the virtualization world (except for perhaps the folks in Palo Alto, CA), there’s a lot of Hyper-V stuff crossing in front of me.

This time it’s an article on storage options for Hyper-V, written by Jose Barreto. (You’ll recall that I referenced Jose’s clustering article a few days ago.) Out of the wide variety of blogs coming out of Microsoft, Jose’s is one that I have really, truly found informative and helpful. The home page for his blog is here.

Jose also wrote a follow-up article on Hyper-V’s storage options where he discussed booting from iSCSI.

Great work, Jose! Keep it coming.

Here in Virtualization Short Take #11, I offer to you a collection of virtualization-related news and tidbits and my thoughts on them.

• I seem to be on a bit of kick reading Ryan Arneson’s stuff these days. This time is actually an older post of Ryan’s on using the COMSTAR stuff from Sun with ESX. It’s an interesting read. I’m quite fascinated by the myriad things that Sun is doing with storage, and I hope that some of these actually get backed with good execution. I’ve guess I’ve heard the saying “Sun is where storage goes to die” from too many Sun veterans.
• I was notified of this post by Chris Barclay of Virtual Iron regarding a comparison of Virtual Iron Virtualization Manager and Citrix XenCenter. This is an interesting comparison considering that both products are built on the same underlying hypervisor (Xen). In this case, Chris makes the argument that management is the piece that sets one virtualization solution apart from other solutions, and that in this particular case Virtual Iron’s management capabilities far exceeds those provided by XenCenter. I don’t have any direct experience with either of these products, so I can’t attest as to the accuracy of his claims. While I don’t necessarily agree that the hypervisor is being commoditized, I do agree that management is increasingly becoming the factor that distinguishes solutions. In this regard Microsoft has an early lead, in my opinion, with cross-platform VM management inside Virtual Machine Manager 2008. Will other vendors follow suit?
• Last week the new VMware Networking blog posted a notice about a new whitepaper jointly authored by VMware and Cisco. Duncan over at Yellow Bricks also picked this up, but from a different source; the whitepaper, however, appears to be the same from both sources. I haven’t had the opportunity to fully review it yet, but I do plan to do so and will highlight any notable recommendations here.
• Chad Sakac, the “VMware Guru” for EMC, published an entry on stretched ESX clusters. This article was picked up by a number of other bloggers (here or here, for example), so I won’t rehash it all here again. The timing on the article was helpful; he wrote that and not more than two days later I had a customer asking about doing this very thing. Personally, I agree with Chad that it’s generally a bad idea, and so it was handy to be able to point the customer to this article as further support. One other thing I did get out of Chad’s post—how many of you picked up that up to 10 different isolation addresses can be configured? Is that in the documentation somewhere and I just missed it?
• Continuing on with Chad, it appears that an old VMware HA article of mine is useful in helping to understand how the VMware HA admittance algorithm works. Chad’s article provides excellent details on the key concepts to understand.
• Most readers have probably seen the article describing how to access the ESXi command line. This article also shows you how to enable SSH access to that CLI. I found this information so handy that I added it to my del.icio.us bookmarks. As ESXi gains broader adoption, this kind of stuff will be very useful.
• With the release of Hyper-V, comparisons of Hyper-V vs. ESX will become much, much more common. Here’s another one for review as well. I’ll echo the comments in this article regarding the comparisons: it’s not about the brand, or the technology, it’s about the solution.
• I’ll have to partially disagree with the sentiment behind this article regarding the use of virtualization as a DR tool. The article intends to present 5 things that should be considered when using virtualization for DR, but does not, IMHO, accurately present some of the challenges around virtualization for DR. How are the VMs being replicated over to the DR site? Replication technologies need to be properly coordinated with the virtualization software so that the data being replicated is consistent and useable. If this is synchronous replication it’s not as much of an issue, but it’s definitely an issue with asynchronous replication. What about registering VMs on the DR site? How does one handle VirtualCenter in this kind of scenario? Is testing failover really that easy? My experience indicates that while virtualization can certainly assist in creating a good DR plan, it’s only one part of an overall DR solution, and it can create its own unique challenges. Again, the timing of this is interesting; I just came across the article after finishing up a presentation about the use of virtualization in disaster recovery solutions.
• Anyone working in the VDI environment has almost certainly had more than their fair share of discussions about remote display protocols. This article on x86virtualization.com provides a decent overview of VNC, RDP, ICA, and Net2Display. Seems like I recall seeing something somewhere about VMware assisting in the development of Net2Display; anyone know anything more about that?

I guess that about does it for this round. Thanks for reading, and feel free to share your thoughts in the comments.

A lot of virtualization-related articles were published while I was in Orlando at Microsoft Tech-Ed 2008. Here are a few that caught my attention over that time period as well as in the last few days.

• Rich Brambley over at VM /ETC is on a roll with a couple of good articles, one on VMFS storage sizing for performance and one on downgrading the VM HAL after P2V. The title for that second article was “How to P2V Multi-processor servers to Uni-processor VMs”, and I was hoping that it was a new trick with VMware Converter or some other P2V tool that would actually take care of the HAL for me. Alas, not this time. Rich’s article is useful information nevertheless, don’t get me wrong. I am curious, though, as to the source of Rich’s storage sizing recommendations. Rich, can you share where you derived those recommendations?
• Ryan Arneson shares some of his experiences in using an X4500 with ZFS as an NFS datastore for ESX. Ryan’s post reminds readers of the some of the requirements for using NFS with ESX, so readers new to that sort of configuration may find it helpful.
• Gabe brings us, courtesy of this VMware Communities thread, some information on getting DRS VMotion information from the VC database. That’s handy. In an earlier article, Gabe also weighed in on storage sizing as well. This seems to be getting quite a bit of attention recently (gee, I can’t imagine why). Readers, I’d love to hear your thoughts on storage sizing approaches, algorithms, etc. Please share them in the comments!
• I found this article discussing NFS vs. CIFS for VMware. At first I was a bit baffled, but then I realized the author must have been talking about VMware’s hosted products like VMware Server not ESX. Anyone else tried this?
• Rick Blythe aka VMwareWolf posted an article about VM customization failing after VC 2.5 upgrade. Fortunately, the fix is easy; just download and install the correct version of the Sysprep tools and put them in the right location on the VC server. The details are all provided at his site, so check that out.
• The VMware Fusion Team announced support for running Mac OS X Leopard Server in Fusion 2.0 back during the WWDC, but it seems that Parallels may have beaten them to the punch with an actually shipping product.
• Schley Andrew Kutz has released a version of the VI Toolkit for .NET that supports mocking. More information on mocking the VI Toolkit is available here. I haven’t seen any sample taunts yet. (You’ll get that in a few minutes.)

In addition, as a follow-up to my Tech-Ed coverage of the Microsoft Assessment and Planning (MAP) toolkit, I found these two articles in my list of “things to blog about”:

Microsoft Assessment and Planning How-To Series: Part 1 (Server Virtualization Candidacy Reporting)
[VIDEO] Microsoft Assessment and Planning How-To Series: Part 1 (Server Virtualization Candidacy Reporting)

Note also that the beta program for MAP 3.1 is already running; this version will add support for Hyper-V. More information here. (I couldn’t remember if I stated anything about this my Tech-Ed session liveblogs.)

That about does it this time around. Thanks for reading!