Industry


Ads by TechWords

See your link here


Kiss VMware's rump good-bye

A perfect storm is brewing ahead and, like a fishing captain who doesn't get that a plummeting barometer means stay at port, VMware is persisting in sailing into disaster.

Yes, I know, VMware as recently as last fall owned the virtualization market. Then, 85% of all virtualization users were running VMWare. So what. I'm sure there was a company that had 85% of the buggy-whip market... just before Henry Ford decided that Americans wanted a cheap, dependable car in any color they wanted so long as it was black.

Here are my reasons why VMware's future looks just as bright as the buggy whip manufacturers.

First, there's the meta-problem that VMware faces. Everyone who's a player in the virtualization space, and I mean everyone, is either offering a free as in beer virtualization program or they're baking it for me into their chip sets or operating systems.

VMware offers its low-end offerings for free, but it makes it money exclusively from selling high-end virtualization and virtualization management software. What happens to that model when you can get a virtualization solution every bit as good for free? I'll tell you what happens to it, it dies.

Let's look more closely at this shall we?

Number one with a bullet, Microsoft is about to roll out its Hyper-V virtualization in Server 2008 this August. I am no friend to Microsoft, but every now and again, as they did with Excel, the boys from Redmond get something right. I've used beta of Hyper-V on Server 2008. In a word, it's 'impressive.' And, it will come to Windows shops ready to go in the server.

That will spell the end of VMware for businesses that believe they can do no wrong so long as they buy Microsoft.

Some people think that will lead to big trouble for IT because they'll be presented with a choice between incompatible virtualization systems. Yeah, right, you really think the Microsoft club members are going to shell out cash for VMware when they can use Hyper-V for 'free?' I don't think so.

Next, there's the idiot assumption, beloved by VMware that "We have never believed that the hypervisor would be commoditized. To imply that it's a commodity would imply that there's no differentiation," said Ben Matheson, director of marketing at VMware. Sorry Ben, we're getting to the point where there's no differentiation. Oh I can tell you in painful detail about the differences between virtualization and para-virtualization, but all an IT guy cares about is getting as many virtual machines running right on as few processors as possible.

Indeed, Red Hat's new virtualization plan is to use KVM, Linux's new built-in virtualization, to make virtualization completely and, I mean completely, generic. As far as Red Hat is concerned, virtualization is going to be like refrigerators. That is to say, 'everyone has to have one, but no one really thinks that much about their exact specifications.' And, oh yes, Red Hat executives know darn well that if they're successful with this approach, VMware is going to be wrecked.

But, it's not just Red Hat. Microsoft is partnering up with Novell and Citrix to use Xen to deliver cheaper virtualization. Even kids, well the people who run Sesame Street anyway, can figure it out. As Noah Broadwater, vice president of information services for Sesame Street Workshop, said in explaining why they went with Novell's Xen package. "VMware has a great solution, it's just very expensive."

Isn't it though?

Worse still, if you're a VMware share holder, there are purely open-source virtualization programs, like ProxMox that does all the heavy lifting for a would-be virtualization user. I can set up KVM and/or Xen from bare-metal. Most IT people can set them, or Hyper-V, up with the operating systems, such as RHEL (Red Hat Enterprise Linux), SLES (SUSE Linux Enterprise Server) or Windows Server 2008, that support them.

ProxMox, funny name and all doesn't really add anything new to the VMware's challengers, it just takes the best of the open-source virtualization programs, cleans them up, and turns them into a CD that makes setting up VMs (virtual machines) a snap. I've been working with virtualization since not long after IBM released VM/370 for mainframes. ProxMox, while it still has teething problems, is already the easiest way I've ever seen to setup and run VMs. Oh, and it's free both as in speech and as in beer.

If you really think a company built around a proprietary and pricey program is going to be able to handle getting stormed with low-cost and free software from both the proprietary world-Microsoft--and the open-source world, Red Hat, Novell, and non-commercial offerings to boot... well would you cash this $800,000.00 US dollars bank draft for me since I'm now in Paraguay?

What People Are Saying

The Article Pertains to VMware's Future

The article we are commenting on pertains to VMware's future. Netscape did not disappear overnight, but it was eventually mothballed. VMware is headed for a similar destiny. This may be a few years out, but the writing is on the wall. The article is not about who makes a better product today. The article is simply stating that VMware will become the Netscape of virtualization. As soon as free implementations of KVM and/or Xen offer live VM migration (Vmotion) and some of the other advanced features found in today's VMware product, the enterprise testing will begin in earnest. Nothing short of a wholesale paradigm shift and a marketing miracle will be able to save VMware.

Proxmox not for everyone

Steven,
You mention Proxmox. There is a small problem. They *will not* support 32bit CPU's. either Intel or AMD, just the 64bit flavor. For those of us on the rump of the hardware curve, having not a single 64bit box in the house, Proxmox is a non-starter.
Their support guys say that it is because of the lack of the high end virtual o/s support instructions.
-Former Big Iron Guy

VMWARE demise

ESX is a wonderful product but their pricing is expensive ($7000+ for a simple ESX w/vmotion, admin apps). If MS manages to eventually get the same feature set as VMware then it should be interesting because there is no longer this hypervisor penalty price.

MS needs to try to focus on vmotion and iscsi/san storage if they really want to compete. They also have to realize that the future of the data center is in arrays of diskless servers connected to shared storage via FC/iscsi.

MS has a lot of catch up to do. In the meantime, I'll keep using ESX.

Oracle

MySQL is free/open source, and there's Microsoft SQL Server for people who want to go all-MSFT -- so why is Oracle still there?

Xen is ready

If you want to use Xen and still have the mature management capabilities of VMware you should check out http://www.provisionnetworks.com.

It's not free but it will also not break the bank like VMware. Supports hyper-v and ESX and Xen.

um, no

First thing that comes to mind when reading your article, have you ever used VMWare in the enterprise space? Were a Microsoft shop, but we use and will continue to use, ESX server by VMWare. Theirs a number of reasons for this, most have to do with Hyper-V having huge gaps in it's feature set as of 1.0.

HyperV missing functionality making it unusable in anything but small business:
-No hot swap for virtual machines. Thats right, your server goes down, you're hosed, no VMotion for automated recovery and movement.
-No Hot Plug support for virtual machines. You can't add most hardware to a virtual machine thats live, memory, storage, cpu pooling, none of it is supported on a live virtual machine. ESX on the other hand, has all of that.
-It only supports 16 logical cores per server. This sounds like a lot today at least. Until you think about how hard were pushing into multi-core, pretty soon you'll hit that limit in 1 or 2 cpu's. Yet this is supposed to be future proof and better?

Hyper-V is not enterprise capable. VMWare is.

Next you say as an 'IT Guy' all I care about is consolidation of resources on as small a resource pool as possible (i like my wording more than yours), this is not the case. I care about management, recovery and balancing of load so I can have maximum quality of service and can maintain that quality of service even in disaster. Running as many VM's on the smallest amount of hardware is not in my top reasons for virtualization.

You talk about Xen, but you don't mention anything it's actually capable of or usability. I've used Xen, we wanted to use it at remote locations because it's cheap. Xen is not enterprise ready yet, it has potential, a lot more than Hyper-V does at this point, but it's not quite there yet. Mostly due to management of media. Anyone who's dived into Xen can probably relate to the pain of setting up your libraries and pools. Once it's setup it's great, but it really can not be used without a NAS of some kind attached. It requires a far higher learning curve for new users than VMWare or Hyper-V and is not approachable by the average windows centric "IT Guy".

VirtualPC has been free in the consumer space for years, I use Parallels/Virtuoso and VMWare Workstation for my development boxes. They're both payware, they're both the best you can get.

Xen has promise, not there.
Hyper-V is currently about 5yr's behind everyone else.

The rest, they're not real hypervisors they're not type 1.

Rat own, rat own, rat own

ESX server

(a) rides on top of Linux. Do you REALLY want multiple critical systems dependent on whether or not any Windows product can run for months without rebooting or locking up?

(b) lets you create all of the machines you want without getting all chicken **** about it how many CPU's are involved. That's a nasty taste with which MS feels the need to taint any product they sell.

I work for a shop that, a couple of years ago, would have gone with MS, right or wrong. Thanks to aggressive promotion of FOSS and other manufacturers with better solutions, I believe VMWare has a permanent home with us now, no matter what imitation the Redmond gang throws out there.

I have zip love for Microsoft

But, I have used Hyper-V and ESX.Sorry, but Hyper-V is for real. Every now and again, Microsoft gets its right. This time they got it right. And, yes, I am thinking enterprise right, not SMB or cheerful bleeding edge fan right.

Damn it.

Steven

Almost forgot!

Hyper-V isn't really scalable and free :)

They limit the number of VM's that can be created depending on SKU of server you select with Hyper-V support unless you pay additional licensing fee's.

http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2008/en/us/compare-specs.aspx

You can see the number of VM's allowed under Virtual Image Use Rights.

Sorry, but you wrong. It's

Sorry, but you wrong.

It's scales and it's a free offering part of Windows Server 2008 licenses.

You can create and run over 128 vm's with Windows Server 2008 Standard Edition. Just only one VM is already normaly licensed. all others need additional licenses...

Same on ESX every VM runns Windows needs a license.. but you still pay $$$$ for the Hypervisor...

Buy 2 x Datacenter Proc. License and run unlimited VM properly licensed. on Hyper-V or ES or Xen... but with Hyper-V you not pay extra for virtualization...

Regards
Markus