Archive for the ‘Hyper-V’ Category

h1

Quick Take: VirtualBox adds Live Migra… uh, Teleportation

November 30, 2009

Sun announced the 3.1.0 release of its desktop hypervisor – VirtualBox – with their own version of live virtual machine host migration called “Teleporting.” Teleporting, according to the user’s manual, is defined as:

“moving a virtual machine over a network from one VirtualBox host to another, while the virtual machine is running. This works regardless of the host operating system that is running on the hosts: you can teleport virtual machines between Solaris and Mac hosts, for example.”

Teleportation operates like an in-place replacement of a VM’s facilities, requiring that the “target” host has a virtual machine in VirtualBox with exactly the same hardware settings as the “source” VM. The source and target VM’s must also share the same storage, etc. and must use either the same VirtualBox accessible iSCSI targets or some other network storage (NFS or SMB/CIFS) – and no snapshots.

“The hosts must have fairly similar CPUs. While VirtualBox can simulate some CPU features to a degree, this does not always work. Teleporting between Intel and AMD CPUs will probably fail with an error message.”

The recipe for teleportation begins on the target and is given in an example, leveraging VirtualBox’s VBoxManage command syntax:

VBoxManage modifyvm  --teleporter on --teleporterport

On the source, the running virtual machine is modified according to the following:

VBoxManage controlvm  teleport --host  --port

For testing, same-host teleportation is allowed (source and target equal loopback). Obviously a ready and clean-up script would be involved to copy the settings to a target location, provide the teleport maintenance and clean-up the former VM configuration that is obsoleted in the teleportation. In the case of an error, the running VM stays running on the source host, and the target VM fails to initialize.

SOLORI’s Take: This represents the writing on the wall for VMware and vMotion. Perhaps the shift from VMotion to vMotion telegraphs the reduced value VMware already sees in the “now standard” feature. Adding vMotion to vSphere Essentials and Essentials Plus would garner a lot of adoption from the SMB market that is moving quickly to Hyper-V over Citrix and VMware. With VirtualBox’s obvious play in desktop virtualization – where minimalist live migration features would be less of a burden – VMware’s market could quickly become divided in 2010 with some crafty third-party integration along with open VDI. It’s a ways off, but the potential is there…

h1

Quick Take: Red Hat and Microsoft Virtual Inter-Op

October 9, 2009

This week Red Hat and Microsoft announced support of certain of their OSes as guests in their respective hypervisor implementations: Kernel Virtual Machine (KVM) and Hyper-V, respectively. This comes on the heels of Red Hat’s Enterprise Server 5.4 announcement last month.

KVM is Red Hat’s new hypervisor that leverages the Linux kernel to accelerate support for hardware and capabilities. It was Red Hat and AMD that first demonstrated live migration between AMD and Intel-based hypervisors using KVM late last year – then somewhat of a “Holy Grail” of hypervisor feats. With nearly a year of improvements and integration into their Red Hat Enterprise Server and Fedora “free and open source” offerings, Red Hat is almost ready to strike-out in a commercially viable way.

Microsoft now officially supports the following Red Hat guest operating systems in Hyper-V:

Red Hat Enterprise Linux 5.2, 5.3 and 5.4

Red Hat likewise officially supports the following Microsoft quest operating systems in KVM:

Windows Server 2003, 2008 and 2008 R2

The goal of the announcement and associated agreements between Red Hat and Microsoft was to enable a fully supported virtualization infrastructure for enterprises with Red Hat and Microsoft assets. As such, Microsoft and Red Hat are committed to supporting their respective products whether the hypervisor environment is all Red Hat, all Hyper-V or totally heterogeneous – mixing Red Hat KVM and Microsoft Hyper-V as necessary.

“With this announcement, Red Hat and Microsoft are ensuring their customers can resolve any issues related to Microsoft Windows on Red Hat Enterprise Virtualization, and Red Hat Enterprise Linux operating on Microsoft Hyper-V, regardless of whether the problem is related to the operating system or the virtualization implementation.”

Red Hat press release, October 7, 2009

Many in the industry cite Red Hat’s adoption of KVM as a step backwards [from Xen] requiring the re-development of significant amount of support code. However, Red Hat’s use of libvirt as a common management API has allowed the change to happen much more rapidly that critics assumptions had allowed. At Red Hat Summit 2009, key Red Hat officials were keen to point out just how tasty their “dog food” is:

Tim Burke, Red Hat’s vice president of engineering, said that Red Hat already runs much of its own infrastructure, including mail servers and file servers, on KVM, and is working hard to promote KVM with key original equipment manufacturer partners and vendors.

And Red Hat CTO Brian Stevens pointed out in his Summit keynote that with KVM inside the Linux kernel, Red Hat customers will no longer have to choose which applications to virtualize; virtualization will be everywhere and the tools to manage applications will be the same as those used to manage virtualized guests.

Xen vs. KVM, by Pam Derringer, SearchDataCenter.com

For system integrators and virtual infrastructure practices, Red Hat’s play is creating opportunities for differentiation. With a focus on light-weight, high-performance, I/O-driven virtualization applications and no need to support years-old established processes that are dragging on Xen and VMware, KVM stands to leap-frog the competition in the short term.

SOLORI’s Take: This news is good for all Red Hat and Microsoft customers alike. Indeed, it shows that Microsoft realizes that its licenses are being sold into the enterprise whether or not they run on physical hardware. With 20+:1 consolidation ratios now common, that represents a 5:1 license to hardware sale for Microsoft, regardless of the hypervisor. With KVM’s demonstrated CPU agnostic migration capabilities, this opens the door to an even more diverse virtualization infrastructure than ever before.

On the Red Hat side, it demonstrates how rapidly Red Hat has matured its offering following the shift to KVM earlier this year. While KVM is new to Red Hat, it is not new to Linux or aggressive early adopters since being added to the Linux kernel as of 2.6.20 back in September of 2007. With support already in active projects like ConVirt (VM life cycle management), OpenNebula (cloud administration tools), Ganeti, and Enomaly’s Elastic Computing Platform, the game of catch-up for Red Hat and KVM is very likely to be a short one.

h1

Quick Take: Oracle, Sun and Virtual Iron Redux

July 6, 2009

In May, 2009, we presented a Quick Take on the acquisition of Virtual Iron – a company that developed and delivered Xen manager to alternative to Citrix. While Oracle has officially killed the “product” that was Virtual Iron, it has released a roadmap to its incorporation into Oracle’s own OracleVM product: a virtualization platform targeted at enterprises using Oracle products and offered for free (via support model.)

What does this mean for Virtual Iron subscribers? Last month, Oracle stopped providing new licenses for Virtual Iron and released Oracle VM 2.1.5, but Virtual Iron represented less that 1% of the virtualization market. According to Oracle’s Virtual Iron employees (reportedly about 15 in total) are expected to continue with the company – perhaps to shore-up Oracle’s VM Management Pack with the addition of Virtual Iron’ expertise.

While it is unclear when Virtual Iron additions will show-up in Oracle VM, it is clear that customers relying on Virtual Iron will either migrate to an improved Oracle VM or switch vendors altogether. It is also clear that with better virtualization management on the horizon for Oracle VM, Oracle will entrench itself behind Oracle VM for support of Oracle applications in virtual environments. While this makes sense, given the “free” status of Oracle VM and its close ties to Oracle support, it limits enterprise deployment options and cloud-based strategies for Oracle products.

SOLORI’s take: What does this mean for the rest of the market? Oracle’s acquisition or Sun and Virtual Iron show that chosing a virtualization suite from smaller players can be risky. Unless your solution is delivered by the open source leader, the enterprise virtualization leader or “embedded” in the leading server operating system, your solution is at risk in any future technology acquisition. Likewise, Oracle’s position clearly demonstrates a closed eco-system of applications and support: eschewing the general purpose hypervisor suite for a tailor-made application stack for Oracle-only products.

In our original Quick Take on the subject, we predicted that Oracle’s would concentrate on its self-sufficiency needs and show little interest in the “forward thinking” applications of VI-Center’s encorporation of Hyper-V and KVM. With the removal of Virtual Iron and Sun xVM from the market, the likelihood of a new virtualization technology hitting the market is about 0%. In 12 months time, we expect to see only three players in enterprise virtualization: VMware, Microsoft and Red Hat.