X86 virtualization lacks maturity of mainframe virtualization, analyst firm says.
If you thought server virtualization was easy, think again. The limitations of today’s tools could result in management headaches, says analyst firm Saugatuck Technology.
IT managers well-versed in mainframe virtualization might expect smooth sailing when implementing virtualization tools for x86-based servers. But they’re quickly finding unexpected challenges because x86 virtualization is nowhere near as mature as the mainframe virtualization tools that evolved over the past four decades, says a Saugatuck Technology analyst who is researching virtualization.
“The large shops start with the impression that it will be easy, because they think they know what they’re doing,” says Charlie Burns, whose report – The Many Faces of Virtualization: Understanding a New IT Reality – was published this week. “The problem is it’s different. They start to find out pretty quick that the things handled automatically by the virtualization mechanisms in the mainframe either aren’t there, or are less mature and robust.”
Virtualized servers are in some ways harder to manage than the traditional environment in which each server hosts a single application, because they contain a layer of abstraction between the operating system and hardware. When something goes wrong, this layer of abstraction makes it difficult to identify malfunctioning devices, according to Burns.
Beyond troubleshooting limitations, Burns says IT departments will run into difficult management challenges if they attempt to run more than about five operating system images on a single server. Mainframe virtualization tools can comfortably run hundreds of virtual servers on a single piece of hardware, Burns says.
But hypervisor software used for x86 servers today falls short of mainframe virtualization when it comes to balancing the requirements of workloads vs. performance, he says.
IT managers Burns interviewed while doing his research have discovered that there are different rules and best practices for operating virtualized x86-based servers compared to “real” physical servers. If you want a physical server to run faster, you give it more memory, Burns says. But this isn’t always the right move with virtual servers.
“In a virtualized environment, you might get the exact opposite effect,” Burns says. “If you increase the size of the virtual storage amount in that virtual image, you might cause the whole thing to slow down. There are things you relearn for a new server environment.”
The popularity of server virtualization has increased dramatically over the past few years as IT executives place a bigger focus on increasing server utilization rates. The tools have gotten better, too, but Burns thinks it will take another three to five years to sort out the problems in today’s technology.
Intel and AMD are building virtualization into the chip level, and customers can expect software improvements from hypervisor makers such as VMware, the Citrix-owned XenSource, and SWsoft (now Parallels), he says. Virtualization will be mature and robust enough within a few years to greatly increase the utilization rates of non-mainframe servers, he says.
For now, he says customers should stick with the basics: create a plan that meets clearly defined objectives, research existing tools and use the best, most updated virtualization technology available.
Burns’s report covered the whole realm of IT virtualization – including virtualization of applications, desktops and storage – to identify the impacts today and the future of these technologies.
By the end of 2010, at least 30% of non-desktop IT infrastructure pieces will be virtualized, up from 5% today, Saugatuck found. Cisco, VMware and XenSource will dominate IT virtualization, providing the tools for 60% of new deployments through 2010, the report predicts.
But use of virtualization will be limited over the next half-decade by several key factors, such as IT processes and expertise, and the services and management tools available to customers, Saugatuck states.
Server virtualization is actually maturing faster than mainframe virtualization did in its infancy 40 years ago, Burns’s Saugatuck report states. But there’s another key factor that could impede the growth of x86 server virtualization. With the mainframe, most system components came from the same vendor (IBM). With x86 server virtualization, the microprocessor, server platform, storage, hypervisor and operating systems typically come from multiple vendors.
“These vendors may have conflicting objectives,” Burns writes.
