If your company is buying into the virtualization game, you may want to consider Virtuozzo 4.0.
I work in a VMware shop (one of these days I’ll post on my 3.5 experiences) but I follow the virtualization market, and since SWsoft/Parallels released Virtuozzo 4.0, I think there’s room for Parallels in the market.
Right now, SWsoft Parallels/Virtuozzo owns virtualization in the Web-hosting provider space. Their other products have a lot of traction in that space too (think Plesk and SiteBuilder). And of course, there’s the Mac virtualization product to beat – Parallels Desktop, the gold-medal standard that runs a few laps around poor Fusion, and the forthcoming Parallels Server which will let people virtualize OS X Server (as long as it’s all on Mac hardware!).
From their recent market moves, the company seems to be trying to take on Citrix’s Xen and Microsoft’s Virtual Server, perhaps even make a run on some of VMware’s market share by making some bold moves in the virtualization space. Once again, they are touting their OS-encapsulation variation on virtualization with Virtuozzo, which just released version 4.o.
From the Parallels blog:
Parallels Virtuozzo Containers is different because is virtualizes the OPERATING SYSTEM, not the hardware. This means that you can install an OS (Windows or Linux) and then run workloads off that single kernel in isolated execution environments that we call “containers.” Because all of the containers are working in direct contact with real hardware and are all working off that one OS install, performance is exceptional…about 97-99% of native, regardless of how many containers are running. And, container footprints are tiny – only 10 MB of RAM and 45 MB of disk space required at the bare minimum.
From a product feature view, you get many of the same features that one finds in other high-end products like VMware and XenServer:
- Management Interface – Groups virtualized systems logically making them easier to manage. You can also assign role-based administrative and reporting rights to users.
- P2V Tool – Allows you to migration from your old virtualization platform of choice to Virtuozzo. Allows for upgrading of Win2K servers to Win2K3 as part of the migration!
- Backup – Allows you to take a virtual machine and make a backup while the machine is running, and then stores the backup on another host.
- Templates – Allows you to install a virtual machine, make it into a template, and deploy new machines based on that template.
- CPU restriction – Since this is not a true virtual machine, the guests typically see all of the CPUs. This can now be restricted on Windows systems so that guests see only a set number of processors.
Some problematic areas in the past were with OS-level clustering and network load balancing in the virtual machines (now called “virtual environments,” since they really aren’t seperate machines).
The new version appears to address these issues and improves upon the handling of multi-NIC hosts and how particular virtual environments see and use those NICs (as well as other devices such as USB external drives, USB product key fobs, etc.). Virtuozzo containers, like most virtualization products, support both 32-bit and 64-bit virtual environments.
In a Web-hosting environment, this is a great tool because of the massive number of sites that can be provided to clients. Considering that the average corporate data center is not entirely different from a hosting provider (especially when you start talking about chargeback), Virtuozzo may work out well, but the cons and pros must both be considered.
Virtuozzo won’t do much in file/print or in in Terminal Services, but in putting out Web-based applications to users, or even standard client-server apps, Virtuozzo has a lot of the same advantages of VMware, Xen, Virtual Server, VirtualBox and so on in regards to server consolidation and controlling hardware growth.
I wouldn’t count on the thousands-to-one ratio often touted in the Web-hosting space because of the very small footprint required per Web site, but there is undoubtedly a much higher container-per-host ratio than traditional hypervisor-based virtualization. There is a risk of failure if something hoses on the operating system (kernel panic on a Linux box, BSOD on a Windows box, driver dropout on either, etc.,) because that OS runs the entire show – but that’s the same on any platform: lose the host OS, lose all the guests.
The risk may be higher on Virtuozzo hosts because of the difficulties of a single-OS that gets put into a container – things like “DLL hell,” missing dependencies, etc. that are less pervasive in hypervisor hosts (but that remains to be seen).
Also, one Virtuozzo server of a given operating system can run only other servers of that same operating system (or in the case of Linux, of that exact same kernel). Lastly, there is more risk involved if your hardware isn’t redundant, and this is where the business models differ:
- Traditional Hypervisor: Cheaper (commodity) hardware front-end, expensive storage, smaller ratio of virtualized machines.
- Container Virtualization: Expensive (clustered commodity or other redundant HW) front end, expensive storage, higher ratio of virtualized machines.
A good analysis of a virtualization project proposal will include Virtuozzo as a candidate not only for the features, but because it is important to review the overall costs. As a simplified example (one that I deliberately am making equal out so as not to show any bias) without any licensing networking, operations, and soft-costs included may look like this:
Proposal 1: Virtuozzo – Virtualize 100 servers
- 2 x (Passive-Active) Clustered Server: $50,000
- 1 x New SAN: $100,000
- Total: $150,000
Proposal 2: VMware / Xen / Etc. – Virtualize 100 servers
- 10 x Generic Server: $50,000
- 1 x New SAN: $100,000
- Total: $150,000
Bearing all of this in mind, it’s time to add Virtuozzo to the watchlists when virtualization comes up.
I read an article here on SSV entitled “Virtualization and Staffing” the other day, and decided I had to add my two cents in and comment. I was going to do a sound-off and comment on the actual page, but I decided that this may be a better forum for the length of my response. It’s a great article, and it hits the major point of staffing and the virtualized data center well, although I partially disagree with the statement that:
“Virtualization does not reduce the number of logical servers; it only changes their location and nature. Staff is still needed to manage every virtual machine instance, associated application and database. So while the skills required to manage the servers change, the actual workload doesn’t necessarily decline.”
I agree with the last sentence 50% – while I beleive that the skills do change, I also have seen that the workload does go down, quite dramatically. The workload is reduced, particularly in lage data centers, for hardware technicians. There are less JBODs and DADs to fail, less processors to burn out, less RAM sticks to go bad, less motherboards to fail, etc. etc. Where these are handled in-house with onsite staff, the needs for this kind of work are reduced (not eliminated). When these hardware support services are handled by an outside agency (as is often the case), the reduced staff required to manage hardware failures are often translated differently – contracts are often summed up as “client pays X dollars per group of X machines”. This price reflects the vendors estimates on having to staff for the average failure rates of the hardware being supported. Thus, as the hardware count goes down, the contracts are renewed for fewer machines, the client pays less, and the vendor needs fewer staff. Somewhere, there will be a cost reduction through workforce reduction.
Then there is the often overlooked area of lights-on indirect support. I remember well the change control meetings where every meeting started off with a rubber stamp on “Clean data center – vacuum server spaces, vacuum rack tops, vacuum floor”. There were also the frequent “Wire new racks xxx, yyy, zzz for Ethernet, power, cooling, fibre, KVM.” With less need to rack up new servers, there’s less need for electricians, cablers, HVAC techs, cleaning staff, etc.
Overall, great article – it gets the point when it comes to programmers, server admins, and other computer-focussed jobs that aren’t going away, and may even go up as sprawl increases. That said, we can’t overlook the savings on the other side – the operations behind the operating systems.
There is a a product called the G.HO.ST Desktop that has been in alpha for some time. What this is, in a nutshell, is a desktop operating system (OS) that loads in the browser using Flash. It gives you 3 GB of space that are accessible not only through the GUI, but also via FTP. It includes a groupware application (Zimbra-based) that allows you to access your POP email, a Web broswer, and an IM client. It has integration with ZoHo and other tools for office-suite functionality. It can play your MP3s. It can do flickr. It can… well… make soup for you! No, not really.
Granted, it’s one of many competing projects that are out there (check Wikipedia and mashable for others), but it’s by far the most advanced and the most integrated product so far, and it bears watching for where this interesting turn in the desktop will take IT over the next few years. Coupled with the upcoming AIR from Adobe and decent application virtualization there can be some real winning opportunities here. As an alpha, it could use a performance tweak and more integration (Citrix and/or 2X client, anyone?), but for a first view, it’s great.
Another Web-desktop that I was playing with is ZK Desktop (aka Zero Kelvin Desktop). This one’s interesting because it’s locally hostable, meaning that you can load it inside your network and run it on your servers without traversing the firewall to the big-bad Internet. The demo is literally a click-to-run app that I loaded on my XP Pro machine. That said, I already had the Java SDK installed and path environment variables defined, so don’t forget to download the Java SDK if you don’t have it before you launch the demo (the readme file will tell you this!). Once it loaded up (in nine seconds), I used their browser to check my mail, do some more work, and edit a short document that became this post. Easy as pie. Still no shell though… although one could be added without much difficulty.
In the same vein is the popular EyeOS, also a locally hostable Web-desktop, and one with quite a bit of contributor support. The photo below is me, editing this blog, looking at the config page of my OpenFiler NAS/SAN box, and using SSHTerm to get into a remote linux box.
In each case, I was able to log in, work via web-apps or native apps, and maintain some decent level of productivity. For the typical knowlege worker, say a marketing or finance person, this sort of Web-desktop can be ideal provided that the right applications can be run. In fact, if I may be so bold, this may be the actual future of desktop virtualization – it will have less to do with hosting a complete desktop on a virtualized piece of hardware and more about hosting a desktop on a Web server (perhaps on a virtual guest).
Hurdles? Lots. Security, client-server apps, a Windows-Centric World, etc. Opportunities? Lots. Cross-platform application virtualization, Web-based application growth, etc.
I am blogging from the first annual Technosium 2008 Global Conference and Expo in Santa Clara, Calif., where I have gotten some clarification on regulatory compliance, a topic that perplexes me and other virtualization managers and administrators I know.
Have we bent the rules of regulatory compliance to get virtualized systems online? With the configuration involved in putting systems on DMZ networks, Internet-facing networks, and customer or vendor networks that handle regulatory-sensitive material (like HIPAA, Sarbanes-Oxley and others) on virtualized systems, we may have created a compliance issue.
After talking to consultants and vendors, I came to the conclusion that it may be time to check and double check the regulatory compliance aspects of any work on our virtualized implementations. There’s the possibility that, from a compliance perspective, we may not have segmented all of our regulatory-protected systems adequately.
Naturally, vendors have seen the problem rearing its head and are offering automated tools. At the show today, for instance, I met with Joao Ambra, security product manager for Modulo, which specializes in IT governance, risk and compliance management. Modulo’s Risk Manager Software product assesses regulatory compliance as well as risk assessment and audit services for organizations.
Besides describing Modulo’s product, Ambra gave advice on four key areas for determining if regulatory compliance is met:
Technology: This includes the infrastructure components as the network environment, databases, servers, computers and other physical elements.
Processes: Procedures such as backup, restore, disaster recovery, password policies and internal change control management make up a processes assessment.
People: Staff training levels on the technologies used and regulations applicable to the organization are important parts of the employee inventory.
Environment: The environment consists of physical access, facilities and risks associated with physical presence of computing resources (and protected data).
According to Ambra, the key strategy to collecting data for compliance-measurable items includes identifying where virtualization fits into the components. When a virtualized system hosts critical elements or regulatory-sensitive material such as databases, access to protected healthcare data, or fixed asset systems, the virtual host and all of its elements are subject to the same scrutiny as the underlying systems. This includes the hardware, database and security configurations for the virtual environment.
Virtualization, in principle, protects from server systems running too many roles while accessing protected data. However, this is all contingent upon the implementation of the virtual environment.
Today at the Technosium Global Conference and Expo in Santa Clara, Calif., I saw a cool demonstration of FastScale Composer at work deploying virtual (and physical) servers.
FastScale Technologies Inc., maker of Composer, is a VMware alliance partner. FastScale Composer is a tool that facilitiates building physical and virtual servers from bare metal with a configurable inventory of operating systems, applications and updates. FastScale Composer is suited for data centers with 250 servers or more.
I met with FastScale CEO Lynn LeBlanc and Richard Offer, vice president of engineering, who discussed FastScale Composer’s key feature: a software component repository that contains operating system binaries, software packages, updates and user-configurable material available for systems.
Within the Composer interface, systems are allocated with your configured inventory to be used when they boot. The underlying technology for arriving new systems is a pre-boot execution (PXE) environment that will have the configuration for the system delivered. Composer excels at this step because the package that arrives to the new system is just what’s needed. For example, in a demo I saw, a base Linux install for a Red Hat system arrived to the system as only an 8 MB image via PXE. While that is not an entire installation, the full inventory is made available to the servers via the respository.
What impressed me is this: Should any element of the system need something from the repository, it is automatically retrieved. Also, servers can be built without the need to retrieve from the repository if you want everything available locally or the repository not be available.
FastScale also has an interface into VMware. While you can perform traditional PXE builds on virtual systems as you would on physical systems, FastScale Composer’s Virtual Manager plug-in will populate new servers directly to VMware ESX. The Virtual Manager option to Composer will allow a virtual machine to be created as VMDK files and imported to ESX or VMware server. A small agent is required on at least one ESX server to receive the VMDK from Composer.
LeBlanc and Offer told me that a new version of FastScale Composer, coming soon, will incorporate Microsft Windows version support and an improved interface. For more information or to arrange a demo, visit the FastScale web site.
I am blogging from the inaugural Technosium Global Conference and Expo at the Santa Clara Convention Center. I’ll be signing on intermittently to provide you with everything I consider beneficial to the virtualization space.
First off is storage business continuity. I had an opportunity to attend a breakout hosted by Eric Herzog, the vice president of operations for Asempra Technologies. While business continuity is a topic we all are familiar with, attendees had the chance to look at the building blocks of a successful strategy for continuity, and how it applies to storage for virtualized systems. What I took away from this breakout was that there needs to be clearly defined goals that the business requirements define the following within an organization’s service level agreement (SLA):
- Ability to measure availability and uptime
- Data loss tolerance for your business needs (financial and operational)
- Disaster recovery time frames made specific to your environment
- Solutions that reduce costs with combination of technologies with reduced complexity
- Ensuring that the SLA leverages the existing infrastructure (hardware, software, networks) as much as possible
- Ensuring that there will be usable data on first recovery
Traditional approaches to data continuity to virtualization systems tend to respond with multiple technologies, various products, limited manageability and control, increased costs and expense, and a cumbersome process that limits successful execution of the SLA. While each storage business continuity strategy has positives and negatives, the right solution will depend on your virtualization availability requirements. Among the newer storage technologies are drive snapshots, data deduplication, and remote replication. Some solutions address actual virtual machines, where some address the shared storage systems that host virtual environments. Remote replication provides the fastest recovery time for a virtualized storage system, but also at the highest expense.
In summary, the business continuity strategy for virtualized systems needs to resolve primarily around the technology behind the storage systems in use. The other challenge to virtualization management is to define the goals of virtualization continuity via an SLA.
Despite VMware Inc.’s having missed analysts’ estimates for the fourth quarter of 2007 — which sent shares into an after-hours free-fall on Monday (trading was at $61 a share at 6:00 p.m. Eastern Standard Time, down from $83 at the market’s close) — the company’s CEO Diane Greene maintained that the company will not lower product pricing in 2008. “We do think we can maintain our pricing,” Greene said on an earnings call with investors. “We anticipate continuing our pricing over the course of the year.”
Greene also said that while customers (of which there are now reportedly more than 100,000) are investigating Hyper-V, thus far the company hasn’t seen an impact from Microsoft’s forthcoming virtualization platform. “Our customers have evaluated it and told us they saw no reason to switch,” Greene said, pointing to an InfoWorld report that compared Hyper-V to VMware Server 1.0, “but not as polished.”
Of course, Wall Street is rarely satisfied. During Q407, VMware increased its revenue 80% to $412 million, profits more than doubled, and the company is on a run rate of $1.6 billion. But the ongoing shift in revenue from licensing to services (support, subscription and professional services), as well slower U.S. growth relative to international markets has worried investors, who responded by depressing the stock price to levels not seen since mid-August, days after the IPO.
Looking forward, Greene told investors that in 2008 the company plans to unveil new products for security and virtual desktops and will “preview a major new Virtual Infrastructure suite.”
Test-and-development environments that want to see how software runs on Citrix Systems Inc.’s XenServer virtual machines can now do so, thanks to VMLogix, which has added Citrix XenServer to the list of platforms supported by its LabManager offering.
Citrix XenServer joins a comprehensive list of virtualization platforms supported by VMLogix, including VMware ESX Server, VMware Server, and Microsoft Virtual Server; support for Oracle VM and Sun xVM is also forthcoming, said CEO Sameer Dholokia. For the time being, Dholokia said, the company has seen “a fair bit of interest in testing VMLogix on Citrix XenServer.”
The VMLogix offering competes directly with VMware’s Lab Manager and conceivably with the newly announced Stage Manager. In fact, Dholokia claims that VMLogix’s offering already includes much of the functionality included in Stage Manager and said that VMware customers may not understand the distinction between the Lab and Stage Manager products. “It will be interesting to see how they manage the confusion factor: ‘When do I use [VMware] Lab Manager, when do I use Stage Manager?'” Dholokia said.
Pricing for VMLogix LabManager is $25,000, plus a $2,500 agent fee per two-CPU server.
ivi (pronounced eve-e) stands for Java Virtual Interface, and it is a project that aims to create a single, graphical, management interface for all the major virtualization products.
Implemented in Java+Swing, ivi is truly portable. Currently ivi uses the VMware Virtual Infrastructure 3 (VI3) software development kit (SDK) to communicate with VI servers and the XenApi to talk to Xen servers. Future plans include adding support for libvirt to allow communication with KVM and OpenVZ and, eventually, support for the Common Information Model (CIM) as a way to talk with VMware, Xen, and Microsoft all through one interface.
The number one barrier to a properly utilized datacenter is the lack of a single management tool to control a heterogeneous environment. The idea behind ivi is to create a single management application that can be used to control all of your datacenter’s virtualization solutions. With so many virtualization products available, using so many different types of architectures, it is more important than ever to possess a management tool that can provide IT professionals a single point of management.
You can read more about ivi at http://www.lostcreations.com/code/wiki/ivi.
Since 2.0 is almost out, I imagine this will need a follow-up at some point. (Good…it’ll keep me focussed on blogging.) In the meantime, I decided to give the 64-bit world a whirl, as we’re evaluating moving to Exchange 2k7.
With my box racked up and plugged in, I grabbed the ISO for CentOS 5.1 and gave it a whirl. On a side note, it installed perfectly on a Dell PowerEdge 1950 w/ SAS disks in a RAID 5 array on a PERC5 card. In spite of some people having problems related to the RAID setup, mine went through flawlessly. (Apparently there is a known issue with multiple arrays on a single card and GRUB’s placement on the wrong array.)
After getting the OS up and running, I gave it a whirl using a FAQ I found at Nixcraft to install VMware server.
I did it once on a fully-updated install, complete with the updated kernel packages, and it bombed out. Going back, and using an updated kernel worked flawlessly. To sum up the process, here’s what to do:
- Install CentOS. Make sure you have your gcc packages installed (under the Development trees during setup).
- Grab the latest rpm from VMware and install:
# rpm -ivh VMware-server-<version>.rpm
- Install some more needed libraries:
yum install libXtst-devel libXrender-devel
- Install xinetd:
# yum install xinetd
- Run your config: