RHEV Wrap-Up

August 9, 2010 in Virtualizationism by Eric Gray | No comments

The time has come to wrap up the VCritical series on Red Hat Enterprise Virtualization (RHEV).  After having an opportunity to experience that new product firsthand, I felt some of Red Hat’s claims warranted scrutiny.  Just take a look at the rhetoric from the Red Hat CEO to see what I mean.

Welcome Discussion

The virtualization community certainly responded to the various RHEV articles, and it was great to hear from some new voices as well as the usual suspects in the interesting discussions that ensued.  One new commentator in particular, using a pseudonym, provided valuable technical affirmation based on obvious stick-time with RHEV.

Unfortunately, some of the commentators did not disclose their affiliation.  I was particularly disappointed to see Red Hat employees — or people connecting from Red Hat IP address space — commenting without disclosure.

Several opposition voices lost sight of the fact that RHEV is not merely a synonym for open source virtualization, nor is it even equivalent to Red Hat Enterprise Linux running the KVM hypervisor.  The discussion did go off on a few other tangents, but overall the conversation remained civil.

Correcting the Record

The RHEV website has been recently toned down, featuring not-quite-as-misleading marketing buzzwords and no longer making the bold claim that RHEV is “best in class” as seen in this screenshot of the previous version:

Red Hat even removed the “Competition” page entirely, throwing a 404 error now instead.  Whether or not those corrections were a result of this article series is open to debate.

But wait… there’s more

Franky, I have a whole queue of topics left to cover — but the opportunity cost is too high to spend any more effort correcting the range of misleading RHEV claims.  Perhaps I will revisit this series with the release of RHEV 3 or RHEV 4 if the accompanying rhetoric warrants it.

Don’t forget to check out the RHEV summary page for a quick overview of the whole series.

Thanks for reading.

Tags:

Microsoft seeks to stem Azure exodus with huge appliance

July 12, 2010 in Virtualizationism by Eric Gray | 14 comments

How big is an appliance, anyway?

Before today, a refrigerator is probably the largest appliance you or I have encountered.  But today, Microsoft announced an Azure appliance that consists of hundreds of servers — a “cloud-in-a-box” that is managed by Microsoft but hosted in a customer datacenter.

Why would Microsoft go through the trouble of creating and managing numerous miniature Azures?  One possible explanation is that customers are trying the proprietary platform to see what the fuss is all about, but not sticking with it — kind of like garlic ice cream at the Gilroy Garlic Festival.  It could just be that Azure is not taking off as everyone imagined.

Customers leaving Azure in droves?

I recently acquired an email from Microsoft, desperately seeking to address an apparent exodus of customers from Windows Azure:

My team is working to understand why some of our valued customers have stopped using their Windows Azure platform subscription(s). I am emailing today to ask you to complete a short survey on why you have stopped using our service.

We will use this information to improve our platform and address issues that may have led you to stop using your subscription. We take your feedback seriously and it will lead to direct action.

Whatever the reason for this sudden shift may be, the most succinct take on the announcement goes to Om Malik, who concluded in this GigaOM article:

Microsoft, it seems, is merely following what is en vogue these days.

Interesting strategy shift:  If customers won’t come to your proprietary platform, see if you can trap them inside a box right in their own own datacenter.  Cloud computing at its finest.

Tags: ,

These are not the files you are looking for

June 21, 2010 in Virtualizationism by Eric Gray | 31 comments

If you have been following along on my Red Hat Enterprise Virtualization series, you may have noticed that the RHEV marketing hasn’t matched reality. Red Hat’s claims about being best in class and equivalent to VMware vSphere are dishonest.  As much as I’d enjoy writing about something more interesting, I do have a few more important realities to share with the virtualization community about this latecomer.

RHEV Comparison Whitepaper

Red Hat published a PDF comparing RHEV to VMware vSphere and Hyper-V.  Here is one of the entries on virtual storage:

Okay, so far so good.  Apparently, as with vSphere, virtual disks are simply files and can be stored on any of the various storage domains.  If you missed the last post on how RHEV Data Centers are limited to a single storage technology, please be sure to check it out — it’s not like vSphere.

As it turns out, the fact checkers were off the day Red Hat released that handy comparison whitepaper.  Because if you actually went through the effort to set up RHEV and create virtual machines, you would never find anything resembling a virtual disk file on the host. Read the rest of this entry »

Tags: ,

Multiple hypervisors? What about multiple SANs?

June 15, 2010 in Virtualizationism by Eric Gray | 15 comments

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.

Tags: , ,

Idle RHEV Hypervisors save power?

May 7, 2010 in Virtualizationism by Eric Gray | 15 comments

Quick datacenter power consumption quiz:

Q: How much power does an idle server consume?

A: Way more than a powered-off server.

VMware vSphere saves energy — and money — in your datacenter by powering off unused hosts during off-peak periods.  Take a look at this new technical paper on VMware DPM that covers the technology in-depth.

Despite competitor claims, this powerful capability is unique to VMware vSphere.

Imitation: The highest form of flattery

Red Hat Enterprise Virtualization has a seemingly-similar feature called Power Saver that also consolidates virtual machines onto fewer hosts.  However, the RHEV solution stops there — hypervisor hosts simply sit idle with no running VMs; they are not powered off.  No word yet on what the moon and stars in this diagram have to do with an idle host:

Red Hat claims that an idle host requires just 10-15% of the power required for a host with running VMs.  That sounds very generous if you ask me.  Frankly, from the looks of my HP C7000 BladeSystem Onboard Administrator power summaries, it seems quite false.

Update: Bob Plankers actually measured the power consumption of a Dell server in a few different scenarios and found that idle systems still draw significant amps.

Red Hat claims their new virtualization product is “best in class.”  Really?  Which class?

Tags: ,

« Older entries § Newer entries »