With a struggling US economy, many IT organizations are facing budget cuts or project delays which is expected to run through the end of 2009. However, many can use free virtualization tools available today to start the virtualization process, reduce data center costs (and your carbon footprint) and then upgrade to a complete solution when budgets are restored.

VMware, Microsoft and Citrix (and many others) all have 'free' solutions on the market, in addition to some low cost upgrades that can get you closer to a 'real' solution. Let's take a look at the contenders:

1 - VMware ESXi - VMware ESXi is a fully capable hypervisor available as a free download and can be installed on a hard drive or a flash drive. ESXi can also be purchased with server hardware, loaded and ready to go. ESXi allows for the easiest transition to a full blown VMware Infrastructure because there is no transition. If at a later time, you should decide to purchase vCenter Server or VMware Infrastructure Enterprise Edition, you can simply add the ESXi hosts to the vCenter farm and your transition is complete. Click here to download VMware ESXi.

2 - VMware Server - VMware Server is a free 'hosted' virtualization product that can run on top of Linux or Windows. This can be used with local or shared storage and can be moved to VMware ESX Server at a later time. Obviously the performance will not be as good as ESX, but it will get you started with virtualization. Click here to download VMware Server.

3 - Microsoft Hyper-V Server - Microsoft has a free version of Hyper-V based on Windows Server 2008 Server Core that can do most of what the full version can do, with some limitations. If you plan to deploy a full Hyper-V architecture, but cannot in 2009, this is a good way to get started. Click here to download Hyper-V Server.

4 - Citrix XenServer Express Edition - Similar to VMware Server and Hyper-V Server, Citrix XenServer Express is a free 'limited functionality' version of XenServer. This makes a lot of sense if you plan to deploy a fee-based XenServer edition in the future. Click here to download Citrix XenServer Express.

Considerations
1 - Make sure your server hardware meets the systems requirements for the free virtualization solution.
2 - Whether you choose to store your virtual machines on local or shared storage, make sure you back these up, and develop a restore plan in the event you have to restore a full virtual machine or individual file data.
3 - Determine the migration path to go from free to fee-based alternatives. Depending on the amount of work required with each solution, you may decide to go down a different path.
4 - If you have Software Assurance on your Windows Server 2003 licenses, you may be able to get Windows Server 2008 with Hyper-V at no additional cost. Check with your CDW licensing specialist to determine eligibility. Also, note that in order to make Hyper-V highly available, you still need to build a Microsoft Cluster.
5 - If you go the free route, realize that you will probably see many limitations when compared to the fee-based versions. As along as you understand the differences and set expectations with your team, your implementation will go smoothly.
6 - As with any virtualization solution, investigate each operating system and application's author to determine licensing and supportability when running in a virtual machine.

Happy Holidays and a Prosperous 2009 to all!

Nathan

Alright, time to talk desktops. Many of our customers are talking about virtualizing and streaming operating systems to desktops, laptops, blades and even thin clients, so this has quickly become a topic we discuss on a daily basis.

In this post, I'll cover what you need to use something like Citrix Provisioning Server to stream a desktop OS down to a PC, as well as how to license properly for centralized VMs.

Streaming a Desktop Operating System
You need Software Assurance (SA) to do this! So, if you want to use something like Citrix Provisioning server to 'stream' a Windows Vista or XP OS down to blades, desktops etc; the rights to do this exist in Vista Enterprise, which you can only get as a part of Software Assurance. For more information:
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/products/windowsvista/enterprise/benefits/licensing.mspx

Virtualize Desktops, connect via a Windows Desktop
If you have a desktop, laptop, or basically a device that is capable of running a Windows Operating system, you need to purchase VECD (Vista Enterprise Centralized Desktop) for Software Assurance from Microsoft. This is an add-on, per desktop subscription license which is termed the same as your Software Assurance.

If you do not have Software Assurance on your desktops, you no longer need to purchase it (if within 90 days of desktop purchase) and then add VECD for SA. You can now purchase VECD for Thin Clients and use it on PCs that do not have SA.

Virtualize Desktops, connect via a Mac
You can purchase a Windows Vista Volume Upgrade License/SA for your Macs, and then install Windows Vista Enterprise via Apple Bootcamp or VECD for SA to access a centralized desktop VMs. You can even PXE boot your Mac to Citrix Provisioning Server due to the benefits of Software Assurance.

Virtualize Desktops, connect via a Thin Client
If you have a thin device that is unable of running a full Windows desktop operating system, you can purchase VECD for Thin Clients. This is subscription-based as well, and is available via Open Value, Select, Enterprise and Campus/Academic agreements.

That should cover almost every option of licensing Windows desktops for virtualized environments and streaming. Just remember that you can't 'move' your OEM licenses that come with PCs; those live and die with the hardware. You can add Software Assurance to them to get Vista Enterprise, diskless benefits etc, and even subscribe to VECD for SA. However, if you throw away that PC, you lose the OEM license and everything that goes with it. You can 'move' your SA to another OEM PC based on the term left, but that can be pretty complex, so you should talk to your CDW Microsoft Licensing Specialist about that.

Hope this helps.

Nathan

I'm hearing all sorts of confusion from partners, customers and manufacturers about Enhanced vMotion (EVC), which debuted in VMware ESX 3.5 Update 2. Here's some facts to set the record straight:

1 - This will not allow you to vMotion between AMD and Intel processors

2 - In the Intel Family, you can only vMotion between Intel Core architecture processors, so 5100 (Woodcrest/Merom), 5300 (Clovertown/Merom), 5200 (Wolfdale/Penryn), 5400 (Harpertown/Penryn), 7200/7300 (Tigerton/Merom) and 7400 (Dunnington).

3 - Of all the processors mentioned above, only the Wolfdale, Harpertown, Tigerton variants (and later) have Intel FlexMigration. This means that when Nehalem (5500, 7500) debuts in early 2009, you will only be able to vMotion from the 5200, 5400, 7200 and 7300 processors (and later) since they have FlexMigration capabilities.

4 - Essentially, to every technology, there is a hardware wave and a software wave. The hardware wave came in the form of Intel FlexMigration (early 2008, with the 5200, 5400, 7200 and 7300 processors) and AMD Extended Migration (Mid 2008, with Barcelona). The software wave then, is VMware supporting this new capability and calling it Enhanced vMotion.

5 - In the AMD space, as long as you are in the Rev E/F space, which has been around for a few years now, you can vMotion back and forth. In fact, even the next two processor releases after Barcelona will be Rev F (Shanghai & Istanbul), which means that you will be able to vMotion with no issues. Its only when we're looking at the next generation platform, where you will need systems with AMD-V Extended Migration to be able to vMotion.

To dive into the root cause of the vMotion issue, the following article will help:

VMware vMotion and CPU Compatibility Guide

VMware Enhanced vMotion (EVC) Processor Support

Happy Reading!

Nathan

PS - If you have older servers (mostly single-core), you will be able to vMotion between Nocona, Irwindale, Dempsey, Potomac, Cranford, Paxville DP/MP and Tulsa since they are all based on Netburst architecture.

With the introduction of the first dual-core processors only a few years ago, you may have noticed that the maximum clock speed of these processors dropped by a couple hundred megahertz. For example, the Intel 'Irwindale' single-core processor topped out at 3.8 Ghz, but when the 'Woodcrest' dual-core became available, the maximum available speed was 3.0 Ghz.

Many began to speculate that applications would then decrease in performance, which logically made sense. However, given that the theory behind multi-core technology was to increase performance while reducing power consumption, did this theory seem logical? Well, maybe.

This was once a hot issue in 2006 but it wasn't until after I read Michael Copeland's article titled 'A Chip Too Far?' till the nostalgia came back. While the article does address some real facts that are plaguing developers, this issue targets desktops, not server farms. This gave me the idea to blog on how this affects servers and thus you are reading this blog.

Most desktop applications have traditionally been single-threaded, which means they can only make use of a single processor. In the server world, most servers have always had multiple processors, and over time, software developers have updated their code to make use of multiple processors, also known as SMP (Symmetrical Multi-Processing). Almost every major ISV today has authored server software that can utilize at least 2 processors, if not more. I'm talking about Microsoft Exchange, SQL, Oracle, PeopleSoft, Baan etc.

So, technically, even though the clock speeds on multi-core processors have decreased, the software is now able to run faster by running multiple threads or tasks at the same time on different processor cores. However, once you get past dual-core and quad-core, and with octo-core now on the horizon, you will find that most applications haven't really been written to handle more than 2 or 4 cores, which instantly becomes a problem. Although this is not so much of a performance issue, the fact that you are now running processors and fans with idle times is.

Virtualization attempts to solve this issue, because it is able to put every core in the server to work, thereby efficiently using all cores in a system. However, if you do have that one application that runs better at faster clock speeds and disregards SMP completely, you will definitely see a downturn in performance. For these types of server software, keep some single-core higher clock speed systems around and talk to your ISV about their development roadmap. In my opinion, if they aren't rewriting their software for multi-core, I suggest rethinking your software strategy with another ISV. I realize that this may be a stretch for most companies, but its worth the investigation.

On the desktop side, things are a little different. Most desktops have always had single processors, which means that most of the software written is single-threaded. This is probably the biggest area of concern, and the issues are highlighted in Copeland's article in Fortune Magazine (link above). With mobile quad-core processors which top out at lower speeds now weeks away from release, this could definitely reduce a computer's performance, if the applications in question does not use SMP. Luckily, most desktop operating systems like Windows Vista and Apple Mac OSX can redirect applications to run on different cores, but the clock speed issue will still affect application performance.

Those most likely to suffer will be single-threaded database and video production applications that rely on clock speed to execute properly. Therefore, until the ISVs rewrite their code (and this is no simple task) to support SMP, end-users will suffer a reduction in performance when they run these applications on their new multi-core systems with lower clock speeds.

Virtualization, again, can help even in the desktop space. With VDI (Virtual Desktop Infrastructure), you can spread hundreds of virtual desktops on a multi-core server (up to 64 cores), and efficiently utilize all the cores. However, if the applications running on those desktops rely on a high clock speed, then again, you will see degraded performance.

The best you can do is contact all your ISVs or research their titles in question in terms of multi-core compatibility. Most ISVs have updated or are in the process of upgrading their software to support multi-core. Also note how many cores they can recognize and actually utilize. Remember that some server software will max out at 2 or 4 cores, which makes your new quad-socket quad-core (16 cores total) server a bit wasteful. Wait till SHT (Symmetrical Hyper-Threading) becomes available, which will allow two threads to be run simultaneously on a single core (not socket).

Nathan

Competition accelerates innovation, and the there is no doubt this has had an affect on VMware, initially with the release of $0 VMware Server, Player and now ESXi. However, one unstoppable force in the market is an ISV's paranoia and the need to control the hypervisor.

Although its inevitable that the hypervisor will be commoditized, we may see a shift in customer adoption if supportability of their software is threatened by the hypervisor it is run on.

Take for example, Microsoft. Today, Hyper-V is available, and if this is your platform of choice, the majority of Microsoft applications are automatically supported by Microsoft. Sure there are third-party support offerings that will give you Microsoft Support while running in a non-Microsoft VM, but that comes with an additional cost, and ultimately may still require that you convert your server back to a physical state or reinstall completely.

Ok, so that may have been old news. However, what if ISVs start picking sides or creating their own hypervisor? Here is where I am being more speculative based on what I think may happen. Let's take Oracle VM for example. Most of us haven't looked or used this technology, and its only a few months old. However, Oracle is claiming better application & database performance with Oracle , and they are providing the hypervisor and operating system (Oracle Unbreakable Linux) at no additional cost, which means the customer only pays for Oracle Applications, Middleware, Databases etc.

So what if all the ISVs follow the Microsoft path, and support their products on their own hypervisor, or they pick sides? Here is where the problem sets in for network admins in the data center of tomorrow:

1 - Applications will be grouped into silos of VM technology
2 - Customers that have ERP or middleware may be managed by a separate hypervisor. For example, a customer that relies on Oracle will use Oracle VM technology because of price, performance and supportability.
3 - Following on the footsteps of Oracle and Microsoft, other ISVs like Citrix, Baan, PeopleSoft, SAP etc. will either develop their own hypervisor or exclusively adopt an existing platform
4 - If a customer doesn't use the ISV's platform, they forgo supportability.
5 - Most hypervisors, if not all, will be provided for free.
6 - Management & automation tools will be able to control multiple hypervisors, thereby allowing customers to use a single interface to manage their VM environments.

The heterogeneous VM Manager race has already begun, with Microsoft at the lead with System Center Virtual Machine Manager 2008. At launch, this management product will able to integrate with VMware VirtualCenter and ESX, Hyper-V, Virtual Server, and Citrix XenServer. Basic functions like initiating 'vMotions' between ESX hosts will also be provided given that VirtualCenter is based on Microsoft .Net technologies and Web Services.

So are we going down the right path?

The simple answer is yes. No matter how complicated the road ahead is, at the end of the day, we're still reducing our carbon footprint, reducing our time-to-market for new applications, reducing migration time and increasing disaster recovery predictability.

Virtualization is the future, perhaps that is an understatement today, but with VMware keeping everyone else on their toe's by constantly being ahead of the game, we're going to see some great innovation from all the leading software firms; we're barely scratching the surface. Stay tuned for more industry insight.

Nathan