The Virtualization Room:

February, 2012

PREV  NEXT

Feb 29 2012   10:27PM GMT

Red Hat: The T-Mobile of virtualization?



Posted by: Keith Kessinger
server virtualization, Red Hat, T-Mobile, IT vendors

Red Hat hit a milestone, posting $1 billion in revenue for the fiscal year. Not bad for a company that originally made money by selling telephone support for an upstart open source operating system. Despite this success, Red Hat has floundered in the virtualization market. By most estimations, it’s battling Oracle for fourth place, behind VMware, Microsoft and Citrix Systems, respectively. In many ways, Red Hat is the T-Mobile of virtualization.

Looking beyond their positions in their respective markets, both Red Hat and T-Mobile share a number of similarities.

In a recent interview with Ars Technica, Red Hat CEO Jim Whitehurst admitted that VMware virtualization is ahead of his company’s offering – which isn’t much of a shocker. Red Hat Enterprise Virtualization 3.0 does some nifty stuff, but it still lags behind vSphere 5 in a number of areas, including storage live migration and the amount of RAM you can assign to VMs.

The same argument can be made for T-Mobile: It’s playing catch-up with the competition. For starters, T-Mobile hasn’t deployed a true 4G network. Unlike AT&T and Verizon, which are rolling out nationwide LTE networks, or Sprint, which uses WiMAX, T-Mobile uses HSPA+ to deliver faster wireless speeds, but that technology is still considered 3G. (For all the nerds out there, I understand that LTE isn’t theoretically 4G. But that’s a discussion for a different day.) Also, T-Mobile’s selection of handsets leaves much to be desired. For goodness’ sake, it’s the only U.S. carrier that doesn’t offer the iPhone!

But the Red Hat and T-Mobile comparisons extend beyond both companies’ shortcomings. They provide a cost-effective and viable alternative to their competition. For example, a RHEV subscription nets you enterprise-grade features, such as high availability and distributed resource scheduling, for a fraction of VMware’s price. For organizations that are just beginning to virtualize or looking to add a second hypervisor, it’s hard to ignore the allure of a cheap and stable virtualization platform. (Although, I wonder if those IT shops would prefer Hyper-V, which comes with Windows Server.)

T-Mobile, for its part, offers dirt-cheap voice and data plans. When I look at its Classic Unlimited Plus plan, I’m ashamed of my monthly AT&T iPhone bill. T-Mobile makes sense for people who don’t want to fork over $100 a month for a smartphone. Ultimately, it’s great for customers and the wireless market, as a whole.

The U.S. Department of Justice and the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) seem to agree. They recently opposed a $39 billion merger between AT&T and T-Mobile for antitrust reasons. The FCC even said that T-Mobile was a “disruptive force” that keeps wireless carriers from raising pricing.

I won’t go as far as calling Red Hat a disruptive force in the virtualization market. But the capitalist in me believes that competition is good for buyers and sellers. And T-Mobile and Red Hat promote greater competition and apply pressure on their respective market leaders.

Feb 21 2012   7:04PM GMT

Veeam users, prospects unfazed by Symantec litigation



Posted by: Beth Pariseau

Symantec Corp. is locked in a court battle with virtual backup vendor Veeam Software over patent infringement, but Veeam customers don’t expect the suit to affect them. Some prospective users also say it won’t stop their evaluations of Veeam’s product.

Symantec accuses Veeam as well as another competitor, Acronis, Inc. of doing “irreparable harm” in its lawsuits, and the security and storage software company seeks monetary damages. It is also attempting to stop Veeam and Acronis from using certain technology in their products.

Symantec claims that Veeam infringed on patents for “Disaster Recovery and Backup Using Virtual Machines,” “Computer Restoration Systems and Methods,” “Method and System of Providing Replication,” and “Selective File and Folder Snapshot Creation.”

Users considering a move to Veeam are undeterred. “Isn’t that what every backup vendor does?” said Femi Adegoke, IT Director at the West Gastroenterology Medical Group in Los Angeles, Calif., of the alleged areas of infringement. “[The lawsuit] doesn’t bother me — Symantec’s product has a lot of moving parts and legacy stuff involved. I prefer to go with some of the newer guard [in Veeam].”

Current Veeam shops were blase about the news. “It doesn’t concern us — we don’t work for them,” said Kevin Stephens, infrastructure specialist for the Ohio Department of Developmental Disabilities (DoDD), which uses Veeam’s Backup and Replication software. “We use both Symantec and Veeam products.”

One Veeam customer that uses Veeam’s full suite of software, including Backup and Replication and Reporter said he’s not concerned, either – “at least, not yet.” “We live in a litigious society, so you never know how it will work out,” said Barry Blakely, infrastructure architect for Mazda N.A.

Some in the market see the suit as ‘patent trolling’ on Symantec’s part, brought on by competitive products’ popularity, but it’s more likely a prelude to some form of partnership or even acquisition, said Greg Schulz, founder and analyst with the StorageIO Group.

“Maybe the outcome down the road is some cross-licensing or a partnership between Veeam and Symantec,” he said. “We’ve seen a long list of things like this eventually get settled out of court.”


PREV  NEXT