blog.scottlowe.org

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!

My offhand comment about Leostream dropping their P>V product in Virtualization Short Take #8 got the attention of Leostream themselves, who provided this information as an update on the company’s motivations behind the drop of new licenses for P>V:

Hi Scott,
Quick update on Leostream. We posted a response to Alessandro’s blog post on Monday. The decision to “remove” P2V, in reality, is based on a decision we have taken to support fully our Connection Broker product (formerly the Virtual Machine Controller). There has been such great interest in the Leostream Connection Broker that it made sense to commit fully to its development. We currently have more than 100 Connection Broker customers, some of which include Avaya, Bell Canada, Commerzbank, and the United States Patent and Trademark Office. We were, until recently, customer-funded and as a result, have a highly motivated team. Our decision to raise Series A funding was taken purposely to build out marketing, sales and support to meet this growing demand in the marketplace. We are 100% committed to Connection Broker. As for P2V: while we will not be selling new licenses, we stand behind P2V and will continue to provide support for existing P2V customers.

I’ve stated before that I like the Leostream Connection Broker, so I’m glad to hear about Leostream’s decision to put all their resources into the development of the broker.

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 just finished the last session of Partner Exchange 2008 here in San Diego, CA, and wanted to post some thoughts and information from the event. There is quite a bit of information that I can’t discuss because it is under NDA, but I wanted to at least share what information I could.

First, Site Recovery Manager (SRM) looks to be a very interesting product. I had the opportunity to participate in a hands-on lab with SRM, as well as to participate in a business continuity/disaster recovery (BC/DR) design workshop that incorporated SRM as well. SRM will definitely have an impact on VI architectural designs (more on that in a moment), so VMware architects need to be sure to consider the possible addition of SRM at a later date when designing solutions for customers. I’m looking forward to the final release of SRM and I hope to have more to say about that product after its final release.

As a side note, I’m glad to see VMware using the VI client plug-in architecture to support SRM, something I’d wish they’d do for products like Stage Manager and Lifecycle Manager.

I also had the opportuntity to spend some time with VDM 2.0, VMware’s desktop broker for VDI solutions. I haven’t yet decided whether I like VDM better than Leostream’s broker; VDM is definitely more focused around pool provisioning and pool management but seems—upon initial review, at least—to lack some of the flexibility that Leostream offers with regards to managing desktop sessions. I need more time with VDM to make sure that I fully understand the product before I can make any calls as to which desktop broker I really prefer.

The design workshops, one for BC/DR and one for VI architecture, were very entertaining and rather helpful. My team didn’t win for BC/DR, but did win for VI architecture (sweet!). I did not, unfortunately, have time to participate in the VDI design workshop. It was helpful getting into a huddle with some other senior engineers and solutions architects, sharing information, hammering out a design, and then presenting that design to a panel and to our peers. This was also a great way to get people thinking about VCDX and the requirements for that advanced certification, which include presenting and defending a design. I’m thinking that I’d like to adapt that format into some internal workshops within our own company and I’m hoping that I can get approval to do so.

Overall, the conference was pretty good. The choice of venue wasn’t the greatest in the world; having to walk back and forth constantly from one tower to the other was a bit tedious. I’m sure that it’s difficult to find the right venue for events given all the criteria involved, but I’d recommend to VMware that a slightly larger venue would be very beneficial next year.

That’s it from my end. If you happened to be at Partner Exchange this year, feel free to add your thoughts and impressions in the comments.

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!

From an e-mail I received regarding the announcement:

This morning Microsoft announced their intent to purchase Kidaro, a leading provider of desktop virtualization solutions for enterprises.

This is a significant announcement for both Microsoft and Kidaro with the potential to enable valuable new scenarios for customers leveraging the virtualization capabilities in the Microsoft Desktop Optimization Pack. The acquisition will allow Kidaro’s desktop virtualization technology to be added to the Microsoft Desktop Optimization Pack Microsoft (MDOP), allowing IT professionals to optimize their desktop infrastructure by providing management capabilities for Virtual PCs, streamlining OS deployments, and easing application compatibility issues. This is a key step in Microsoft’s strategy for delivering Dynamic IT virtualization capabilities from the desktop to the data center.

More information is available in this press release.

A friend of mine at Network Appliance was one of the presenters last year at VMworld 2007 for the now-famous presentation that showed a solution from Network Appliance where 100 VMs are created in just a couple of minutes. It’s great technology that is extremely useful in exactly those kinds of situations. I love it.

The video is so popular that it’s even been posted to YouTube. (By the way, did you know I’m on YouTube? My kids think that’s the greatest thing in the world, but I’m not so convinced.)

And, according to Manlio, it appears that they are showing off this kind of thing again at VMworld Europe 2008.

But it’s technology that’s not available yet.

Yep, that’s right. It’s not available yet. It’s based on new functionality, related to their existing FlexClone functionality (which I’ve blogged about before), that is due to be released very soon. Combine this new functionality with NFS on a NetApp storage system and you’ll be able to do exactly what NetApp is demonstrating. But not today…not until these new features are made available to the public.

That bothers me. I suppose it shouldn’t; I mean, you’ve got all sorts of vendors talking about their products and what their products can do when those products aren’t yet available. Microsoft Hyper-V is one example—it’s not available yet, won’t be until later this year, and yet Microsoft is showing it off. VMware is doing the same thing with the Continuous HA stuff they demo’ed at VMworld 2007. Likewise, VMware’s done the same thing this year with offline VDI and scalable virtual image technology.

So, if you’re thinking about a huge VDI deployment and planning on putting that on NetApp storage, that’s fine because there are plenty of other reasons to use Network Appliance—deduplication, anyone? But don’t plan on being able to take advantage of some of this highly touted functionality until it is publicly released.

UPDATE: Another colleague of mine at NetApp wrote me to clarify that the file-level cloning functionality demonstrated in the video is not, technically speaking, related to FlexClone functionality since FlexClone operates on a per-volume basis. I might argue that they both appear to exploit the same underlying functionality in WAFL, but I don’t know that for certain and at that point we’re splitting hairs anyway.

Back in 2006, I speculated that one day VMware would allow hosted virtual desktops to be “checked out” and used offline. Lo and behold, one of the announcements that has come out of VMworld Europe 2008 is just that very thing (quoting from VMware’s web site):

Offline Virtual Desktop Infrastructure previews how a single virtual desktop infrastructure platform may be able to support all enterprise PCs in the future. Let end users “check out” personalized virtual desktops running on VMware virtual desktop infrastructure to a notebook computer for use offline and then “check back in” to the same desktop running in their virtual desktop infrastructure environment.

Also coming out of VMworld Europe 2008 is the announcement of linked clones technology on the VI platform:

Scalable Virtual Image technology delivers lower operational costs through simple and scalable desktop image management and reduces storage requirements up to 90 percent for virtual desktop infrastructure environments. Quickly deploy, update, and publish desktop images to thousands of virtual machines.

This is powerful stuff. The offline VDI stuff really enables an entirely new way of thinking about VDI; it’s no longer about just hosting desktops at the datacenter. Now it’s about providing a “golden image” that users can run on the local machine when they’re not in the office and on the server farm when they are in the office.

Likewise, the scalable virtual image stuff addresses what is, in my mind, the #1 problem with VDI deployments: storage requirements. Vendors like Network Appliance have attempted to address this through their technologies like FlexClone (like described here); competitors such as Citrix have attempted to address this problem through technologies like Citrix Provisioning Server (formerly Ardence).

With these announcements, it’s now much clearer that VMware sees the desktop virtualization market is a very strategic market, and they are taking the steps to control that market.

My final article in the virtual desktop infrastructure (VDI) series at SearchVMware.com has been published!

From the article, “Networks, host OSes strained by VMware VDI deployments”:

Deploying Virtual Desktop Infrastructure (VDI) on VMware Infrastructure 3 (VI3) can have a considerable impact on your network design and hosted operating system (OS) instances.

The article goes on to discuss specific ways in which the network and the guest operating systems have to be architected in a VDI deployment. I hope you find the information useful!

The fine folks over at SearchVMware.com have published another of my VDI articles, this one focusing on the connection broker’s integration into Active Directory:

The broker’s integration with a back-end directory service can play a significant role in many of the decisions regarding how a virtual desktop infrastructure (VDI) environment is deployed in VMware Infrastructure 3 (VI3). In this tip, we’ll examine the integration between the connection broker and a commonly-used back-end directory service, Microsoft Active Directory.

Please go read the full article!