Sounds good so far, right? Well, there are a few things Red Hat neglected to mention in that press release. First, there’s this sentence buried in the Red Hat Enterprise Virtualization data sheet, about the system requirements for management servers:

“Windows Server 2008 not supported.”

Isn’t that kinda like coming out with a hot new car and saying, “unleaded gasoline not supported”?

In our recent “Virtualization Decisions 2009 Purchasing Intentions Survey,” 51% of respondents said they have Windows Server 2008 installed, and 36% said they use Windows Server 2008 for mission-critical applications. It was the second most popular server OS, behind Windows Server 2003.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux was the third most popular server OS among our survey respondents, with a 36% installed base and 29% use for mission-critical applications. And here’s the kicker: Red Hat Enterprise Virtualization for Servers won’t support that OS either!

The data sheet doesn’t explicitly say there’s no RHEL support, like it does for Windows Server 2008, but the management server requirements specifically say that you need an x86 server with the U.S. English language version of Windows Server 2003 R2 SP2, .NET 3.5 or later with the Application Server role installed.

Red Hat is trying to become a bigger player in the virtualization market. The company has taken a different approach, embracing the KVM hypervisor over Xen. And this new Red Hat Enterprise Virtualization for Servers platform is its most ambitious attempt yet.

But by not supporting management servers that run Windows Server 2008 or RHEL (or any other OS besides Windows Server 2003), Red Hat cuts out a huge chunk of potential customers and makes its uphill climb in the market even steeper.

Hat tip to @nickyp, who pointed out the Windows Server 2003 requirement on Twitter.

But things had quieted down lately, and a lot of the more recent trash talk just rehashed old criticisms and insults. That is, until VMware issued its “Competitive News Flash” about Hyper-V R2, which compares “Microsoft myths” to “VMware realities.” (Hmm, where have we heard that before?)

The four-page document, marked “confidential,” is to help VMware resellers “understand VMware’s positioning in regards to Microsoft’s virtualization offerings and to respond to customer questions about Hyper-V R2.”

Much of the myth-busting relies on comparing Hyper-V’s features to VMware’s, or debunking stats that Microsoft has used to promote its own cause. But there are still some good barbs in there, none better than this one:

• Myth: Hyper-V is the “Windows you know.”
  Virtualization is a function of a general purpose operating system — a function of Windows.
• Reality: A hypervisor based on Windows is not a good idea.
  Have you tried using Windows Server Core with Hyper-V? Instead of the “Windows you know,” it’s more like the DOS you used to know.

VMware also highlights its role in the shift to cloud computing — a model that Microsoft is reluctant to adopt, the document says, because of its dominance in on-premise software:

Microsoft is heavily vested in preserving the status quo, protecting its enormous Windows-based revenue stream derived from its dominance in the old client/server mode, and has little interest in helping organizations embrace and benefit from virtualization-based cloud computing.

Here is how I see the rack vs. blades debate: No solution is right all the time! There are situations in which racks are better, and there are situations where blades are better.

Before I go into the use cases, let me clarify one or two points for both architectures:

• Everyone’s prices are different based on a million different factors. No one pays list. Cost comparisons must be made on a customer-by-customer, situation-by-situation basis. That being said, from my experience, blades will be cheaper overall once you meet a break-even point — usually in the five- or six-blade range.
• Power can be difficult to understand, but the following statement always holds true: The more blades you have in the chassis, the more power-efficient it will be. Blade chassis power supplies are designed to be at least 90% efficient; most rack servers are 75% at best. (See part one and part two of my articles on the calculations involved.)
• Management of BIOS and firmwares: With the exception of the Cisco UCS platform, both racks and blades are still flashed in pretty much the same way. There isn’t a huge advantage to either platform. Cisco UCS and its stateless model really changes the game and should serve as a model to all other server vendors.

Racks are better under the following conditions:

• Small number of servers: If you are only buying a small number of servers (three or four, maybe), the savings brought by blades are negligible.
• Power constraints: Some older data centers and many co-los don’t like or can’t support 208V power.
• High I/O requirements: I see this going away as 10G and converged fabrics come into play, but sometimes you need so many I/O cards that a blade solution is not appropriate.

Blades are better under the following conditions:

• Consolidation of the chassis and one-time setup: Install the chassis in the rack, and you have consolidated cable runs for KVM, power, networking and FC.  This reduces the costs of wiring everything up every time a server is added and saves time.
• I/O Virtualization: All major blade systems (HP, IBM, Cisco) can now virtualize the MAC address and FC WWPNs. This leads to a true “wire-it-once” solution.  There’s no need to involve the SAN and network teams to redo VLANs or LUN masking because of a blade hardware change.
• Power efficiency: As I covered above, blades will always be more power efficient above a certain number of blades.

• Virtualization platforms
• Virtualization management
• Virtualization security
• Hardware for virtualization
• Backup and storage for virtualization
• Desktop virtualization

The call for entries is open now through Nov. 13, 2009. Products qualify if they were released between Nov. 1, 2008, and Nov. 1, 2009 (including beta). Click here for deadlines, details and criteria on Products of the Year. And click here for the direct link to our form.

RingCube Technologies was out in full force at TechTarget’s VMworld 2009 event (pictured here with TechTarget editor Jo Maitland).

Brian Madden and others at TechTarget’s VMworld 2009 party.

Jo Maitland and fellow TechTarget editors Lauren Horwitz and Colin Steele wind down on Tuesday night.

Sean Matthews and Peter Larkin of the Data Center and Virtualization group at the TechTarget VMworld party.

TechTarget editors Jo Maitland, Jan Stafford and Dan Mondello relax after Tuesday’s sessions.

Editor Jo Maitland happened upon Angus Young of AC/DC on Second Street. He was signing autographs!

Case in point: Citrix, which has taken its message to the streets. Literally. On taxi cabs.

As you can see, Citrix has taken out taxi-top advertisements here in San Francisco. This one says, “Virtualization: It’s a free world now,” and I saw another this morning that said, “Virtualization: It’s an open world now.”

Sure, ads on cabs aren’t as beneficial as showing off XenServer 5.5 on the VMworld floor would have been. But for Citrix, they’re better than nothing.

The session, called “VMware View – Evangelizing the Value Proposition,” was a hands-on workshop using 46 Wyse thin client desktops running VMware View. The point of the session was to let attendees run the Web-based VMware TCO/ROI Calculator using VMware View, so we could see how much money desktop virtualization can save while experiencing VMware View at the same time.

Unfortunately, the bandwidth in that room was less than adequate, and thus, so was the performance. For instance, the TCO/ROI calculator prompts for your company name, type, location, etc. After entering the data, the system took a minute or more to process it, and moving from one page to the next was agonizingly slow. Not good.

As we all sat waiting for our systems to process simple requests, the poor session host, VMware’s Director of Enterprise Marketing, Bob Stephens, had to present on the benefits of desktop virtualization, such as reduced administration costs, better security, easier management and higher availability than traditional PCs. Stephens reiterated that the bandwidth in the room was “horrible” and said the performance was not indicative of what VMware View is actually like.

Later on I chatted with David Bieneman, the CEO and Founder of Liquidware Labs, which offers desktop virtualization diagnostic tools. I told him about the snafu during that session, and he said a safe bet for bandwidth is 200 kbits per user and under 200 milliseconds of latency. The sad performance could also have been due to a bandwidth connection issue to or from VMware’s ROI/CTO Calculator Tool server, he said.

Unfortunately, the session was full of potential customers who now have a bad taste in their mouth about desktop virtualization. By a show of hands, all the attendees in the room said they use VMware, but only one or two use desktop virtualization already. The IT administrator from a University sitting beside me wasn’t using desktop virtualization, and was less than impressed with what he saw. From what I could tell, other attendees felt the same way.

The takeaway here is that if you don’t have the right networking infrastructure for virtualized desktops, your end users will notice a difference, and they will complain. What’s worse, the time they spend waiting for their systems to respond translates into lower productivity, and it takes away from the savings you could gain in other areas.

Sure, they will follow the show rules; Microsoft Corp. will have a 10-by-10 booth on the show floor and they won’t demonstrate the new features and capabilities in Hyper-V, which will be available in Windows Server 2008 R2 in October. But will they talk to attendees about Hyper-V and undermine VMware’s Stalin-esque policy of keeping the opposition out? You bet.

“When we saw the clause we called [VMware] to check on what we could do. We are only allowed to show products that complement VMware, so we won’t be doing any product demos,” said David Greschler, director of virtualization and management marketing. “But we will be there at the sessions at VMworld and we will be twittering (@MS_Virt) during the show, which is no longer an industry show. It is a VMware show.”

At VMworld 2008 in Las Vegas, Microsoft did some guerrilla marketing to promote Hyper-V 1.0 by handing out poker chips with negative messages about VMware. I’m sure we’ll see more of the same at the Moscone Center next week.

In fact, Microsoft has already started. On Thursday, the company put out a press release listing more than a dozen companies that saved over six-figures by moving from VMware to Windows Server 2008 Hyper-V and other Microsoft virtualization products.

Microsoft’s cost savings case studies will probably catch some attention, especially in a poor economy. But VMware has about a 10-year head start in the virtualization market and companies that invested in VMware won’t abandon that investment.

Knowing that, Microsoft included in Windows Server 2008 R2 Systems Center Virtual Machine Manager the ability to manage VMware ESX, VSphere and Hyper-V - eliminating a big reason VMware users might not try Hyper-V.

Microsoft is also playing the “easy” card. Greschler said adding VMware onto a Windows Server system, which already has Hyper-V built in, “is like having a car with GPS in it, but going out and buying a separate GPS system, and having to learn about that separate system. Hyper-V doesn’t require a separate layer.”

But whether the next version of Hyper-V with live migration and its other management features will be good enough to wow VMware users remains to be seen. At the very least, VMware customers will have another option, and will be able to use Hyper-V as leverage when negotiating prices with VMware.

The release comes a month after the Hyper-V R2 RTM. Microsoft has been stressing that the biggest Hyper-V R2 benefits will come when used in conjunction with Virtual Machine Manager (VMM) 2008 R2, and this release shows that the two products are roughly on the same track. (VMM 2008 R2 will hit general availability Oct. 1, and Hyper-V R2 is expected to do so sometime in September.)

But it’s important to note that Microsoft isn’t targeting just Hyper-V users with VMM 2008 R2. The software will also support VMware vSphere 4.