Multiple hypervisors? What about multiple SANs?

Some of the cool kids are talking about a multi-hypervisor strategy these days.  Mostly journalists and such who could never truly feel the pain of dealing with two vastly different virtualization management platforms.

As you may recall, Red Hat is attempting to bring their new RHEV product to market by playing the old “don’t get stuck with a single vendor” trick.  Red Hat’s CEO claims:

“…customers don’t want one platform. They want two.”

Let’s save the multi-hypervisor discussion for another day, but shift to the topic of storage diversity.

While there may be a few environments that can standardize on a single storage area network technology, it typically  makes sense to mix and match iSCSI, NFS, or Fibre Channel SANs to optimize for cost and performance.

During my recent foray into the chaotic world of Red Hat Enterprise Virtualization, I encountered an unbelievable storage limitation with their new KVM hypervisor.

“Virtualization diversity… when and where we say”

VMware vSphere customers are free to mix and match supported storage technologies within datacenters, clusters, and even hosts.

I would have thought that a company like Red Hat that is pushing heterogeneous solutions and multiple vendors might feel the same way when it comes to storage.  But that’s not quite how things go in the land of Red Hat Enterprise Virtualization.

With RHEV, a “Data Center” is configured to use a single type of storage;  all clusters and hosts in that Data Center are restricted to that, so choose wisely:

Storage Freedom

VMware vSphere allows administrators to move virtual disks for running VMs from one array to another — even between different types of arrays — with zero downtime.  Storage vMotion is a very powerful feature and it is simply not available from Red Hat – only VMware.

The Best Choice: VMware vSphere

Virtual machines have differing storage requirements — certainly not a one-size-fits-all component of an efficient virtual infrastructure.  The best platform for building your own private cloud is also the one with the broadest support for today’s storage technologies:  VMware vSphere.

Oh, by the way, did you know that VMware is positioned in the Leaders Quadrant of Gartner’s newly-released x86 Server Virtualization Magic Quadrant.  Take a look at the full article — I’ll give a free subscription to the VCritical RSS feed to the first 10 people that spot Red Hat’s position.

Related posts:

  1. What is Red Hat Enterprise Virtualization?
  2. These are not the files you are looking for
  3. Red Hat Enterprise Linux is not Enterprise Virtualization
  4. RHEV Manager — It’s not just a clever name
  5. Idle RHEV Hypervisors save power?

Tags: , ,


  • Share/Bookmark

  1. Jason Ruiz’s avatar

    Seems a bit backwards with what KVM has to offer, but based on your previous articles it doesn’t surprise me.

    Reply

    1. Eric Gray’s avatar

      Keep in mind that KVM is a kernel module that adds virtualization to a Linux host. RHEV is a management platform for such, and subject to the limitations of its designer.

      Open Source KVM can run VMs on any storage you like.

      Reply

  2. Scott Lewis’s avatar

    Forget multiple SANs, what about single SAN? I’ve been in environments where many hosts are loaded up with some 1gbps Ethernet adapters and access the SAN via iSCSI, while other hosts that have larger IO requirements will have a pair of fibre channel cards. VMware doesn’t really care how you attach to SAN storage. Are you telling me that in an emergency (ie: hardware failure), I wouldn’t be able to migrate to an iSCSI host temporarily from a FC host, or vice-versa, because the media type is different?

    Ouch, since now I need FC in all hosts in this scenario, which erases a bit more of the price “advantage”.

    Reply

    1. Eric Gray’s avatar

      That is correct. There would be no straightforward way to do what you describe with Red Hat.

      Reply

    1. Eric Gray’s avatar

      Awesome, Anton! Thanks for your globalization efforts!

      Reply

  3. Vincent’s avatar

    It’s easy bashing a young product. VMWare is doing virtualization for almost 10 years now, KVM is just a few years old. I think it’s normal that it doesn’t have the same feature set then VMWare.

    If RHEV doesn’t fit your needs, don’t use it. Use something that does fit your needs and stop bashing other products. It’s like telling a 5 year old that he can’t sole algebra…

    BTW : http://www.linux-kvm.com/content/qemu-kvm-012-adds-block-migration-feature

    Regards,
    Vincent.

    Reply

  4. Anton Zhbankov’s avatar

    >It’s easy bashing a young product.

    RedHat claims that RHEV is as good as vSphere.

    Reply

  5. Vincent’s avatar

    When staying in the same price range, RHEV is indeed as good as vSphere. It sure is a stable hypervisor.
    When i look at the competitive feature paper on the Red Hat site, i think Vsphere is actually better (more virtual Nics, more vCPU /vm,..). But Red Hat is right when tey say you can virtualize as good as vSphere.

    Reply

    1. Anton Zhbankov’s avatar

      >When staying in the same price range, RHEV is indeed as good as vSphere.

      Really? Looks like Red Hat is kidding. HA depends on single point of failure – physical Windows box. Your whole infrastructure depends on it.

      Reply

  6. Dr. Kenneth Noisewater’s avatar

    I’ve just done a few rounds of evaluating RHEV on modern hardware (Nehalem Xeons) and compared to vSphere… RHEV supports virtio drivers for system/boot disks for Linux, which the latest version of vSphere 4 we have does not (LSI SAS for boot, and pvscsi for data only). RHEV’s virtio drivers for disk and net are built into RHEL5 install, whereas vSphere needs to run guest additions.

    Those are the only advantages that RHEV has, besides pricing. Feature parity with vSphere 4 they’re promising for some time next year.

    Plus, the RHEV-M runs on Windows, which for a Linux company is thunderously retarded. Hell, ganeti is more supportable from a Linux person’s perspective than RHEV-M, and if I could get ganeti working properly with gluster..

    Reply

  7. Alzhy Wziak’s avatar

    We run KVM on RHEL 5.4 as Hypervisor.
    We no need RHEV-M as we manage via script and GUI.
    So who needs RHEV-M?

    But it will now be any day now and RHEV-M will be entirely JBOSS/Linux backend.

    Reply

    1. Eric Gray’s avatar

      Alzhy, that is fine if it works for you. However, most companies don’t have the time or resources to write their own scripts and tools for virtualization management. But thank you for affirming one of my other messages, RHEV is not RHEL + KVM.

      Reply

  8. Dr. Kenneth Noisewater’s avatar

    RH says linux-based RHEV-M is scheduled for next year at the earliest.

    Also, does your KVM solution do clustering and transparent host migration? Hot-add CPU or RAM (which RHEV does _not_ do)? Host consolidation and power control (which RHEV “pretends” to do but actually doesn’t)?

    If it were up to me, I’d consider Ganeti as well, but the features of VMware are QUITE nice..

    Reply