Comments on: Layers and Layers of FUD http://www.vcritical.com/2009/11/layers-and-layers-of-fud/ Informed Virtualization Criticism Sat, 04 Feb 2012 19:14:33 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: Eric Gray http://www.vcritical.com/2009/11/layers-and-layers-of-fud/#comment-10826 Eric Gray Tue, 04 May 2010 03:32:17 +0000 http://www.vcritical.com/?p=1893#comment-10826 Thanks, Jim! Thanks, Jim!

]]> By: Jim W. http://www.vcritical.com/2009/11/layers-and-layers-of-fud/#comment-10823 Jim W. Sat, 01 May 2010 23:38:33 +0000 http://www.vcritical.com/?p=1893#comment-10823 Excellent post! Microsoft really can't approach the thinness of VMware ESX virtualization. It's a shame that the FUD that M$ spreads is so effective. To your point about whether virtualization is hardware or software, it really depends on your vantage point. From above (viewing from the client OS) it appears to be hardware. From below (at the hardware layer) it appears to be software. It really is both. Either way, the virtualization layer should be optimized for one purpose: to facilitate the servicing of client requests. Microsoft's solution is much too big and fat for that purpose. Perhaps, in time, they'll revisit their kernel and build a real virtualization kernel. Right now, it's just a kludge that tries to push a general-purpose operation system into the role of a virtualization I/O tool. Leave it to Microsoft to repurpose their same bloated kernel again and again. Excellent post! Microsoft really can’t approach the thinness of VMware ESX virtualization. It’s a shame that the FUD that M$ spreads is so effective.

To your point about whether virtualization is hardware or software, it really depends on your vantage point. From above (viewing from the client OS) it appears to be hardware. From below (at the hardware layer) it appears to be software. It really is both. Either way, the virtualization layer should be optimized for one purpose: to facilitate the servicing of client requests.

Microsoft’s solution is much too big and fat for that purpose. Perhaps, in time, they’ll revisit their kernel and build a real virtualization kernel. Right now, it’s just a kludge that tries to push a general-purpose operation system into the role of a virtualization I/O tool.

Leave it to Microsoft to repurpose their same bloated kernel again and again.

]]> By: latoga labs | Virtualization Round Up 20091120 http://www.vcritical.com/2009/11/layers-and-layers-of-fud/#comment-9732 latoga labs | Virtualization Round Up 20091120 Sun, 07 Mar 2010 14:29:48 +0000 http://www.vcritical.com/?p=1893#comment-9732 [...] As Microsoft heats up their battle with VMware, I think we’ll all be more Layers and Layers of FUD… [...] [...] As Microsoft heats up their battle with VMware, I think we’ll all be more Layers and Layers of FUD… [...]

]]> By: Anton Zhbankov http://www.vcritical.com/2009/11/layers-and-layers-of-fud/#comment-9694 Anton Zhbankov Fri, 19 Feb 2010 15:24:41 +0000 http://www.vcritical.com/?p=1893#comment-9694 SAN and virtualization hosts of course SAN and virtualization hosts of course

]]> By: Anton Zhbankov http://www.vcritical.com/2009/11/layers-and-layers-of-fud/#comment-9693 Anton Zhbankov Fri, 19 Feb 2010 15:23:58 +0000 http://www.vcritical.com/?p=1893#comment-9693 >it is real world closer to $25K for VMWare and about $21K for MS Add SAN, storage and networking. Would be closer to $225k and $221k. >it is real world closer to $25K for VMWare and about $21K for MS

Add SAN, storage and networking. Would be closer to $225k and $221k.

]]> By: Mark http://www.vcritical.com/2009/11/layers-and-layers-of-fud/#comment-9692 Mark Fri, 19 Feb 2010 14:03:43 +0000 http://www.vcritical.com/?p=1893#comment-9692 OK, so yes, MS screwed up on the marketing. What else is new? However, it is only screwed up when you look at it strictly from the architecture view point. As is almost ALWAYS the case with MS, most of their marketing is aimed at one thing: licensing costs. They often are only telling the licensing costs story. And, in that case, that "missing layer" is accurate. The point of that corrected slide (showing the virtulization layer in the right spot) is really aimed at saying "with MS, you don't have to pay for all of those additional windows licenses." Even that is now a different story, since MS allows you to buy the datacenter license on any hyper-visor. So, as long as we are not talking about the "free" hyper-visor versions of VMWare and MS, then you do have an extra layer in VMWare that does not exist in MS: additional OS you have to buy, as the Hyper-Visor comes with the MS OS. As for the cost analysis, I have done plenty of those. My favorite slide in the world to poke fun at is the MS slide that shows a 5 host configuration that costs $60K for VMWare and only $20K for MS. HA!!!! When we ran the real numbers, and looked at all of the Datacenter editions both for Windows and System Center (the whole suite), it is real world closer to $25K for VMWare and about $21K for MS. Pretty close to even in my book. OK, so yes, MS screwed up on the marketing. What else is new? However, it is only screwed up when you look at it strictly from the architecture view point. As is almost ALWAYS the case with MS, most of their marketing is aimed at one thing: licensing costs. They often are only telling the licensing costs story. And, in that case, that “missing layer” is accurate. The point of that corrected slide (showing the virtulization layer in the right spot) is really aimed at saying “with MS, you don’t have to pay for all of those additional windows licenses.” Even that is now a different story, since MS allows you to buy the datacenter license on any hyper-visor. So, as long as we are not talking about the “free” hyper-visor versions of VMWare and MS, then you do have an extra layer in VMWare that does not exist in MS: additional OS you have to buy, as the Hyper-Visor comes with the MS OS.

As for the cost analysis, I have done plenty of those. My favorite slide in the world to poke fun at is the MS slide that shows a 5 host configuration that costs $60K for VMWare and only $20K for MS. HA!!!! When we ran the real numbers, and looked at all of the Datacenter editions both for Windows and System Center (the whole suite), it is real world closer to $25K for VMWare and about $21K for MS. Pretty close to even in my book.

]]> By: Run Linux applications directly on Windows with Hyper-V! | VCritical http://www.vcritical.com/2009/11/layers-and-layers-of-fud/#comment-9667 Run Linux applications directly on Windows with Hyper-V! | VCritical Wed, 17 Feb 2010 12:11:13 +0000 http://www.vcritical.com/?p=1893#comment-9667 [...] it's that same brochure [...] [...] it's that same brochure [...]

]]> By: La gratuité d’Hyper-V est un (très) mauvais argument - Hypervisor.fr http://www.vcritical.com/2009/11/layers-and-layers-of-fud/#comment-9405 La gratuité d’Hyper-V est un (très) mauvais argument - Hypervisor.fr Wed, 30 Dec 2009 15:40:41 +0000 http://www.vcritical.com/?p=1893#comment-9405 [...] Merci à Anton de nous avoir fait partager son étude. [...] [...] Merci à Anton de nous avoir fait partager son étude. [...]

]]> By: NiTRo http://www.vcritical.com/2009/11/layers-and-layers-of-fud/#comment-9404 NiTRo Wed, 30 Dec 2009 14:44:36 +0000 http://www.vcritical.com/?p=1893#comment-9404 Anton, thanks a lot. It's a really impressive work ! Anton, thanks a lot. It’s a really impressive work !

]]> By: Eric Gray http://www.vcritical.com/2009/11/layers-and-layers-of-fud/#comment-9403 Eric Gray Wed, 30 Dec 2009 14:32:53 +0000 http://www.vcritical.com/?p=1893#comment-9403 That's awesome, Anton! That’s awesome, Anton!

]]>