Data Center Strategies

Thoughts on the VMworld Day 2 Keynote

I was very impressed by the information disseminated in the second VMworld keynote, led by CTO Steve Herrod. Here’s a summary of the thoughts I tweeted during the morning keynote (in chronological order).

• Steve Herrod talked about a "people centric" approach. VMware's technology needs to understand desktop user behavior. The existing offline VDI model (requiring a manual “check-out”) is not people centric.
• VMware’s announcement to OEM RTO Software’s Virtual Profiles was a good move. Burton Group considers profile virtualization a required element of enterprise desktop virtualization architecture.
• VMware’s Steve Herrod and Mike Coleman discussed VMware’s software-based PC-over-IP (PCoIP) protocol. Feedback from Burton Group clients who were early PCoIP beta testers indicates that the protocol’s development is progressing well.
• Herrod showed a picture of "hosted virtualization" for employee owned PCs on a MacBook. Is that a hint of a forthcoming announcement?
• I would like to know if VMware’s Type I CVP client hypervisor will have VMsafe-like support in the 1.0 release. VMware has made few public statements regarding CVP architecture.
• VMware’s CVP demo looked good, but it didn’t reach the “wow factor” achieved by Citrix when Citrix demoed a type I client hypervisor on a Mac at their Synergy conference.
• The Wyse PocketCloud demonstration was impressive. PocketCloud is VMware’s first answer to the Citrix Receiver for iPhone.
• VMware demonstrated the execution of a Google Android application on a Windows Mobile-based smart phone. Many opportunities exist for VMware and Google to collaborate in the user service and application delivery space.
• Burton Group client experience backs VMware’s claims that vSphere 4.0 is a suitable platform for tier 1 applications. We recommend that x86 virtualization be the default platform for all newly deployed x86 applications, unless an application owner can justify why physical hardware is required (e.g., for a proprietary interface that is unsupported by virtualization).
• To support tier 1 application dynamic load balancing, storage and network I/O must be included in the DRS VM placement calculations. It’s good to see that VMware is heading in that direction. DRS will also need to evaluate non-performance metrics such as vShield Zone membership as part of the VM placement metric (no word on this yet).
• I would like to hear more from folks who have tested AppSpeed. Burton Group clients I have spoken with to date have not been impressed.
• The DMTF needs to start doing more to evangelize the role of OVF as it pertains to cloud computing and service manifests.
• I like vSphere’s VMsafe security API, but I want to see tighter integration with external management (exposed via the SDK), and better integration with VMware’s DRS and DPM services.
• VMware talked about Lab Manager as a tool to promote user self-service for server VMs and applications, but I haven’t heard mention of a similar interface for desktop applications (like Citrix Dazzle). A user application service catalog is a missing part of VMware’s current virtual desktop architecture, and will need to be addressed by either VMware or a third party.
• The data center on the show floor running 37,248 VMs on 776 physical servers would be more impressive if VMware disclosed the applications running on the VMs, along with the application workloads. Otherwise, the demonstration is really just a density science project.
• I liked VMware’s coverage of virtual data centers. They are also defined in Burton Group’s internal cloud hardware infrastructure as a service (HIaaS) reference architecture.
• Herrod mentioned forthcoming network L3 improvements that will make it easier to separate location and identity. This is something to follow.
• Both Cisco and F5 are enablers for VMware’s long distance VMotion and are vendors to follow as this technology further matures.
• VMware’s cloud layered architecture is very similar to the architecture defined in the Drue Reeves’ report “Cloud Computing: Transforming IT.”
• Herrod did a great job articulating the importance of SpringSource to the VMware software solution. VMware needs an application platform to have a chance at holding off Microsoft long term, and SpringSource gives them that.

That’s it for my thoughts on day 2. As always, I’d love to hear your feedback. VMworld 2009 was a great conference. I enjoyed my time meeting with Burton Group clients as well as the several conversations that I had with many attendees. See you next year!

VMworld Day 1 Keynote – A Few Thoughts

VMworld got off to a strong start yesterday, with the Paul Maritz keynote setting an early tone for the day’s events. I used twitter to add commentary to the keynote and plan to do the same today for Steve Herrod’s morning keynote. Below is a summary of my thoughts/tweets on the day 1 keynote.

• VMware’s clear goal is to provide a complete platform for cloud-based computing. I’m hopeful that VMware will spend more time helping customers build internal clouds, which focuses on their immediate needs. Public clouds, while intriguing, is a future initiative for most Burton Group clients.
• Paul Maritz and VMware talk about vSphere as an enabler for choice; however, “choice” is a subjective word. To VMware, choice means choice of cloud providers. To others, choice means choice of virtualization platforms.
• vSphere is a foundation for internal cloud, but to keep it in perspective, it’s just the foundation at this point. VMware and its partners need to build the walls. Improvements such as tighter integration between DRS, DPM, orchestration, and security zoning (i.e., vShield Zones) need to be made. vSphere APIs need to further evolve to communicate logical and physical zoning restrictions from either vShield Zones or VMsafe-enabled appliances to management and automation tools.
• I was glad to see Maritz bring up context switching and its impact on x86 virtualizaiton. Many virtualization consolidation planning tools miss analyzing applications with high context switching and don’t consider it when determining VM placement. This oversight in planning tools can cause post-deployment performance problems.
• Martiz clearly demonstrated his command of the VMware product suite and partner integration avenues. He’s a very technical CEO and his knowledge resonates well with the VMware user base.
• The IBM demonstration of vSphere integration with hardware-assisted virtualization active power management was impressive. Many of our clients are looking at exploiting the Enhanced Intel SpeedStep and Enhanced AMD PowerNow! hardware technologies to save on power and cooling costs.
• Maritz highlighted the importance of chargeback and service catalogs in cloud computing, and I agree. I discussed the importance of both of these technologies in the blog post “Cloud and the Wal-Martification of IT.”
• vCenter Chargeback is a good first step, but I think it falls short of giving IT the complete picture of available capacity. Awareness of factors such as security zoning restrictions is required before vCenter Chargeback will accurately forecast available capacity across an enterprise ESX infrastructure.
• Paul Maritz discussed the concept of a virtual data center. Burton Group agrees with this, as we’ve had virtual data centers in our hardware infrastructure as a service (HIaaS) reference architecture for several months. You can learn more about it here.
• VMware’s running tally of more than 1,000 service provider partners is impressive, but I would like to see increased guidance for customers on how to build out internal clouds.
• VMware submitted the vCloud API to the DMTF – a first step toward making the vCloud API an industry standard. That being said, VMware’s competitors would need to adopt the API for it to be a true standard. A standard with one implementation isn’t a true standard, but rather is a proprietary technology, but with good marketing.
• I liked the vCloud Express demo, but would also like to see a service interface on the front end. I like the option of provisioning a server, but would also like to see a demo of the vCloud Express showing an interface that makes sense for the application developer or business professional.
• Rod Johnson did a tremendous job with the SpringSource demo. Giving application owners an interface to provision an app locally, or to an internal or external cloud was spot-on. IT service delivery requires IT operations to give application owners and individual business units interfaces that they understand. Hyperic is also a key part of an integrated VMware cloud stack and is a technology VMware shops should begin working with in their labs.

That’s it for day 1. I’ll post analysis of the Steve Herrod keynote next.

VMware and Microsoft: Can't We all Just Get Along?

Last year, I blogged about Microsoft's stunt at VMworld -- passing out business cards entitled "VMwareCostsWayTooMuch.com" (with a $1 chip from the Venetian, I might add). If you recall, Microsoft contended that they tried to gain additional visibility at the conference through the "normal" sponsorship channels at VMworld (sponsoring lunches, banners, and the like), only to be headed off by VMware.

The blog stated:

"Even if VMware did keep Microsoft's visibility artificially down, this is not the way to get VMware to change their stance (after all -- it is their conference). If anything, it had the opposite effect."

And...

It's obvious there is a need for another vendor-neutral virtualization conference in the market. Microsoft feels constrained, and I know there are others (although to their credit, they didn't pull the same stunt).

Well here we are at VMworld 2009...game on. VMware, in response has placed more restrictions on VMworld sponsorship, including confining competing vendors to a measly 10x10 booth, restricting sponsors to not hold other virtualization events within a 50 mile radius (see Rich Crusco's blog) of VMworld, and inhibiting competing vendors to hold conference rooms at local hotels (see Simon Crosby's blog).

Of course, it's hard to blame VMware. After all, it's their show. VMWorld has always been a VMWare event. If you have any doubt, take a look at the conference sessions. What's the breakdown of VMware vs. non-VMware sessions? Who are the keynote speakers?  So, let's not beat up VMware too much.

Unfortunately, its the virtualization customer who suffers. Customers who want more information regarding hyper-V or XenServer, will simply have to attend additional conferences such as Microsoft's Tech-Ed or Citrix Synergy. While not optimal, it's not VMware, Microsoft or Citrix's fault. It's no one's fault. It's just a competitive reality in our industry. In fact, if you look at other conferences, the owning vendor enacts some of the same restrictions on participating vendors that VMware does at VMworld.

But the question is, what should VMware do? How should VMworld evolve in order to enhance the customer experience and allow the event to grow without giving up messaging and marketing control?

This situation reminds me of what happened to Novell and Networld+Interop. As many of you know, Networld was a Novell-owned show and merged with Interop in an attempt to create a larger industry-wide event. It worked. N+I became extremely popular and eventually became the "networking" show - outgrowing all but the biggest of conference centers. Inevitably, Novell faced the same issues as VMware does with VMworld...competitors where showing up, sporting their wares, making competitive statements and such. At the same time, there was clear demand for a NetWare centric conference. Novell was faced with a dilemma, keep N+I a vendor-neutral conference and start a NetWare specific conference or throw their weight around and make N+I a Novell conference. Kudos to Novell for keeping N+I open... the conference, industry, and attendee benefited greatly. However, Novell eventually created Brainshare, to meet customer demand. Now, it's easy to arm-chair quarterback and say, "Well Novell chose the wrong path". Maybe, maybe not. Brainshare is still a very successful Identity Management event and it's hard to know if Novell's product and strategy message would have been lost on the bigger N+I stage. Certainly, Novell would not have maintained the same level of control.

Based on what I'm seeing this year, VMware is making a clear choice. VMworld is a VMware event...and will remain so. Probably a prudent move by VMware, but I think they could loosen some of the restrictions and enhance the VMworld experience for the attendee -- which will only make the conference grow -- without losing control. And maybe that's the message for VMware...drop some of the restrictions and take the high ground. You're the leader...be the leader. It only hurts the conference in the long run. The message to participating vendors (*cough* Microsoft *cough*): Don't disparage the host...it's not cool and appears a bit desperate.

One thing is clear (as I stated earlier)...there is room in this market for a vendor-neutral virtualization conference. Could VMware help to start this idea?

posted by: Drue Reeves

Cloud and the Wal-Martification of IT

A couple of months ago I started sharing a concept with some colleagues and Burton Group clients that I called The Wal-Martification of IT. With the expectation of a large focus on cloud at next week’s VMworld North America conference, I thought now would be a good time to discuss this concept publicly.

The industry is never short on Wal-Mart metaphors – CIO.com’s Bernard Golden just highlighted his own last week. In his article, Golden does a very nice job discussing IT supply chains as they relate to internal cloud. In my talks with clients I’ve used the Wal-Mart metaphor from a different angle.

At Catalyst, I told a story of two anonymous factory workers – let’s call them Laverne and Shirley. There was a time where many folks could work an entire career at the same factory. In many industrialized nations, that’s no longer the case. Manufacturing jobs have moved overseas and factory workers were left to retrain and launch new careers. If you consider the momentum behind public cloud, the IT worker in the local company data center should see this as a threat that puts him on the same career trajectory of the modern day factory worker.

How does Wal-Mart fit into the equation? Think of public cloud providers as the neighborhood Wal-Mart. In many towns across the US, small businesses were swallowed by Wal-Mart. Many of these businesses were unwilling or unable to change their existing business processes or target markets in the wake of Wal-Mart’s entrance to their community. At the same time, Wal-Mart doesn’t exist in ghost towns. Look around most Wal-Marts and you’ll still see plenty of successful businesses.

That leads us back to public cloud. Like it or not, public cloud as a platform for enterprise IT infrastructure is coming. Issues such as concerns over regulatory and security compliance will keep many public cloud alternatives at bay for the immediate future or limit its use to non-critical applications. However, those concerns will be solved through both technology and policy. By conservative estimates, public cloud will be a viable alternative for most business applications in the next 5-10 years. This means that the clock is ticking.

When a business unit compares the cost of running an application via internal IT to that of running it with a public cloud provider, the costs had better be close. In many cases the internal solution will need to cost 20% less than the outsourced cloud solution in order to be economically viable. If the cost of internal hosting is equal to or higher than that of the external solution, all bets are off.

The days of business units buying physical assets and IT managing those assets are terminal. IT organizations should be motivated to work on cloud-based internal infrastructure like their jobs depend on it, because in my opinion they do.

So what should you do? Here’s some food for thought. If you’re going to VMworld next week, engage the cloud service providers. Yes they’re your enemy, but at the same time your friend. IT organizations can get more efficient by leveraging public cloud resources where the solution fits. At the same time, these cloud providers may one day directly target your individual business units, if they are not already.

Service-oriented delivery of IT infrastructure will require organizations to change many traditional practices. To be a cloud, IT must own the organization’s physical assets. Changing existing business procurement processes may be one of the most painful steps on the path toward internal cloud, but it’s also the most necessary.

IT services and user self-service requires a service catalog. The time is now to rethink the traditional service catalog models and look at the service catalog in business terms (that’s how competing public cloud providers target individual business units). Vendors will be showcasing their service catalog models on the VMworld show floor next week, and it is a good idea to spend some time with them.

Service-oriented IT and internal cloud adoption will also be highly disruptive to your existing billing and chargeback mechanisms. Take some time to evaluate chargeback solutions. Even if you start with “show back” as a means to communicate the cost of IT to internal business units, that’s a good first step toward chargeback.

Business and IT process realignment is never fun and often at the bottom of most folks’ to-do lists. However, it’s not something to continue putting off for a rainy day. Public cloud’s day is coming and Wal-Mart-like cloud providers aren’t far behind. Re-architect for internal cloud and IT service-oriented delivery like your job depends on it. It does.

VMWorld Run Grows

Careful what you wish for. Sometimes when you have an idea, it can spread like wildfire. I'll bet the PR folks at VMware never thought some of the biggest social media play at VMworld would be for the fun run.

 

Count me in that group. When I posted the VMWorld 10k/5k post a few days ago, I thought, ehhhh, no one will read this. Boy, was I wrong. Seems everyone on Twitter is talking about this 5k/10k fun run at VMworld on Monday night at the Golden Gate Bridge.

 

Getting into the spirit of the event, Burton Group marketing mocked up these cool running shirts (wicked like UnderArmor). Here's a peek. As it turns out, we'll have extras. So, if you’d like a shirt, BG will pass out the extras on a first come, first serve basis.

 

 

 

Anyway, hope to see you there.

 

Posted by: Drue Reeves

Burton Group Sessions at VMworld 2009

The Data Center Strategies team will be pretty busy at VMworld this year. In addition to our sessions, Burton Group has a booth in the Solutions Exchange. Feel free to drop by and talk shop with one of our analysts. The booth will be manned with experts that cover virtualization, storage, compute platforms, power and cooling, and management. Burton Group also has four sessions at the conference. If you’re interested, here are the details.

EA2442 - Software Licensing in the Virtual Enterprise: Current Problems and Future Trends (Tuesday, 3:00 PM, Hall E 135)
Virtual environments present new challenges for software license management across an enterprise. In this session, Burton Group senior analyst Chris Wolf breaks down the current state of software licensing and support for both server and desktop virtualization environments, while highlighting the technical elements of the virtual infrastructure that impact product licensing. He will also describe the licensing and support model best suited for modern virtualization platforms, with examples of vendors that provide best-in-class virtualization licensing policies today. All major enterprise application and OS vendors will be covered, including Microsoft, Sun, Red Hat, Novell, Oracle, HP, IBM, CA, SAP, Symantec, and Citrix. The session concludes with guidance on how to leverage RFPs to obtain licensing and software support clarity.

TA2400: Hypervisor Competitive Differences: What the Vendors Aren’t Telling You (Tuesday, 4:00 PM, Espanade 305)
In this session, Chris Wolf and Richard Jones dissect the competitive differences that exist with today’s leading hypervisors, with a special focus on the under-the-hood features that don’t make it onto vendor data sheets. Attendees of this session will see firsthand the differences that exist with all major virtualization hypervisor vendors (e.g. VMware, Microsoft, and Citrix) and will leave with a list of pointed questions to ask prospective hypervisor vendors regarding their current solutions and future plans. Vendor scorecards will also be presented, allowing attendees to see how each major hypervisor ranks against Burton Group’s enterprise production-class hypervisor evaluation criteria. Areas where hypervisors fall short of production readiness will be clearly highlighted as well.

BC2541 - Re-architecting Backup and Recovery for Virtual Environments: Best Practices (Wednesday, 4:00 PM, Espanade 301)
Server virtualization is one of the fundamental building blocks of the dynamic data center and with it brings new management challenges, especially in the area of data protection and recovery. Existing data protection architectures may provide a short term serviceable solution, but lack the scalability to be a mainstay in tomorrow’s data center. Continued data growth is also compounding data protection complexity, as enterprises must accommodate data growth by increasing backup system performance in order to stay within backup windows for data protection. We are at a time where organizations should reevaluate existing data protection practices and leverage new technologies to improve data recovery and lessen or eliminate the performance tax posed by many existing data protection architectures. This session breaks down modern VM data protection solutions, including VMware Consolidated Backup (VCB), array-level snapshots, and third party enterprise backup software solutions. Attendees will be exposed to common data protection pitfalls as well as successful blueprints for modern VMware data protection architectures. Chris Wolf has been architecting data protection solutions for enterprise virtualization environments since 2002 and includes an abundance of lessons learned and best practices drawn from real world implementations in this session.

DV2439 - Breaking Down Desktop Virtualization Alternatives (Thursday, 9:30 AM, Espanade 301)
Numerous methods exist for delivering applications to endpoint devices today: virtual desktop infrastructure (VDI), application streaming, presentation virtualization, and hybrid approaches. The session breaks down the use cases that drive client virtualization choices and highlights future developments such as desktop hypervisors that will likely impact long term client virtualization architectures.

VMWorld 5k/10k Run

All work and no play makes virtualization people very geeky...OK, bad example. But at VMWorld 2009 this year, VMware and several other vendors are going to help us "geeks" have some fun by sponsoring a 10K/5K run at the Golden Gate bridge. The run will take place Monday, August 31, 2009 @ 6:30 PM, (Shuttles will be provided from Moscone Center to the bridge and back), and it only costs $10 bucks (you get a T-shirt).  You can register and get the details here.

Several of the Burton Group folks are participating, including Chris Wolf, Collin Searle and myself. Come join us!

posted by: Drue Reeves

VMworld Europe Day One Thoughts

The VMworld Europe day one keynote featured VMware CEO Paul Maritz outlining VMware’s future vision, with particular attention paid to the cloud.  Maritz’s session is already available online, so I’m not going to write a point-by-point summary of his keynote. Instead, I’ll focus on a few key thought-provoking topics:

• Standards-based vs. proprietary cloud architectures
• Security and compliance in the cloud
• VMware/Intel client hypervisor announcement
• Mega merger in the works?

Standards-based vs. Proprietary Cloud Architectures

Maritz spent time on the need for public and private cloud standards that promote application migration between different cloud platforms or service providers. By migration, I’m not referring to any type of live migration. Instead, interoperability should remove lock-in to a particular cloud provider and provide enterprises with greater negotiating leverage when evaluating service providers or renewing existing contracts. VMware is painting a very nice vision here.

Security and Compliance in the Cloud

A number of cloud providers (terremark, IT Structures, EngineYard, and Logica) took the stage to describe their technology, which is built on VMware infrastructure. In each case, the service provider described an easy-to-use management model, but not one provider talked about the issue of regulatory and security compliance. Our clients have continued to indicate the compliance remains the primary barrier for enterprise cloud adoption, so I was surprised that none of the providers addressed this concern. If providers want enterprises to seriously consider their platforms, then they will have to do a better job articulating a solution to the existing compliance and security concerns around public shared infrastructure. Reading between the lines, I think it’s implied that cloud service providers currently do not have a working solution for compliance validation on shared infrastructure. If a provider does have such a solution, I would like to hear it.

Ideally, I would like to see a DoD-like standard security model for cloud service providers. For example, assume that the following options were available:

• Level A: Dedicated physical and virtual infrastructure, including dedicated server and networked storage assets.
• Level B: Dedicated virtual and physical server infrastructure, shared/logically zoned storage infrastructure (clients receive dedicated LUNs, but data traverses a shared physical SAN).
• Level C: Shared virtual and physical infrastructure, isolation provided by dedicated virtual security appliances (e.g., VM firewalls, IDS, IPS).
• Level D: Shared virtual and physical infrastructure, no appliance-based segmentation and isolation (isolation provided via VLANs).

I like the tiered model because it can be easily consumed by an enterprise’s security auditors. Am I being overly simplistic here? Sure. But we need something. And the time to start defining a cloud security model is now. Until that happens, I expect our enterprise clients to continue rolling their eyes each time public cloud infrastructure  is mentioned in a vendor keynote. My sample model is meant to be just a starting point for discussion. We need something, and a tiered model would work.

VMware/Intel Client Hypervisor Announcement

VMware announced collaboration with Intel on a client hypervisor. This announcement was almost identical to a similar announcement from Citrix and Intel last month. To be honest, I was hoping to hear from VMware that they would be doing a little more than Citrix – i.e. – upping the virtual ante. Instead, my impression that was Intel is treating VMware and Citrix as equal citizens. Nothing in the VMware-Intel announcement shows any more innovation by VMware over Citrix. Still we’re far too early down the client hypervisor road to declare a leader, since neither Citrix nor VMware is shipping a product. In fact, the only vendor shipping a client hypervisor today is Neocleus.

Mega Merger in the Works?

As time continues to pass and VMware looks at its hole in the enterprise management space, I see the question of a merger with a major enterprise management vendor as now being about when and not if. Here’s what I’m thinking – a BMC merger or acquisition with either VMware or one of its major partners (i.e. Cisco) makes sense on a number of levels. VMware needs a management and orchestration stack that addresses the physical infrastructure (and so does Cisco for that matter). If VMware wants to be a major player (and not a role player) in the future data center, it will need an enterprise management solution. If we take this one step further, what would the impact of a VMware-BMC-Cisco-EMC merger be? Alessandro Perilli has done a nice job covering Cisco acquisition rumors on virtualization.info (see here and here). Personally, I don’t see the public mutual respect between VMware, BMC, and Cisco as nothing more than a needed group hug. Is the fact that Bob Beauchamp (BMC CEO) has been predominantly quoted in the recent NY times article on Cisco’s data center plans a coincidence? I doubt it. In fact, I can see a Cisco acquisition of BMC as a real possibility. Stay tuned. The drama that is good enough for a virtualization reality show is only going to intensify in coming months.

Posted by: Chris Wolf

Waiting For The Other Shoe to Drop

This week, Microsoft announced it’s cloud platform Windows Azure and one thing is for sure, it looks nothing like VMware’s Virtual Data Center OS initiative (VDC-OS) announced at last month’s VMworld conference (for reference, see Chris Wolf’s Keynote Blog). The two approaches represent fundamentally different views of how the cloud should be built and what form applications will take.

VMware’s approach is really an evolution of virtual server environment we know today. A cloud data center running VDC-OS will consist of several components:

• Servers - lots of ‘em. Companies are already building giant cloud data centers which hold hundreds of thousands of server and consume megawatts of energy.
• Storage – by the terabyte: Storage will come in a variety of forms and will likely include NAS, SAN and direct attached disk.
• Networks - thousands of ports: Networks tie everything together and connect the cloud the outside world.
• Software layer - virtualize the hardware: Provides a hypervisor, virtual storage plus storage services like thin-provisioning, virtual networks to manage connectivity, provisioning and deployment for virtual machine images.
• Workloads – where the work gets done: At its simplest a workload is simply a virtual machine containing an operating system (i.e. Windows or LINUX) and the application. To handle more complex multi-tier applications (say a web server, database server and a application load balancer) administrators will create workload containers that consist of multiple virtual machines with connectivity, service levels, and other critical information defined for the container.

The beauty of this approach is that it will run anything that you run today, a virtual machine workload could host Exchange, Apache, DB2, etc, so it  provides a relatively simple migration path to the cloud. VMware isn’t the only vendor going down this road, Amazon’s EC2 and 3Tera’s AppLogic platform are other examples of virtual machine-based approach to cloud computing. This VM-based approach is what Drue referred to as “system infrastructure as a service” in his recent blog on defining cloud computing.

Microsoft’s Azure is a bird of a different color and fits Drue’s definition of “platform as a service”. The hardware in the data center of an Azure cloud will look much the same as what you would see in a cloud data center running VDC-OS, the difference is in the software layer, and how applications are built. The software layer for Azure (hopefully they’ll be more details of this later) consists of two pieces:

• Microsoft Azure operating system: This part is responsible for managing all the hardware (servers, storage, networks etc) and creating highly flexible and efficient compute infrastructure. For the record, Microsoft seems to be in two minds about what to call this layer, in their keynote (which Drue covered here) they were very keen not to call this layer an operating system for fear of confusing people about the nature of the platform. Unfortunately, in a presentation they gave to analysts, they described Azure as "An Internet scale cloud services platform hosted in Microsoft data centers, which provides an operating system (my emphasis) and set of developer services that can be used individually or together"
• Microsoft Azure Platform Services: These are relatively high levels services including database, identity management, .NET execution environment, SharePoint document management etc.

Workloads in this cloud will be built using .NET, and will leverage the various platform services to build an application. As such those applications if written correctly will run on standalone Windows servers or in the Azure cloud, so there is no virtual machine in the server virtualization sense. Instead each .NET application running in the cloud will be running in a virtual environment that prevents unplanned interactions between different applications.

Perhaps the best way to understand the difference is to look at an example. Let’s say we want to offer word processing as a cloud application on both platforms. For VDC-OS we could leverage an existing application such OpenOffice and use a virtual desktop approach where each user gets a copy of the word processor along with a minimal operating system (perhaps a stripped down LINUX) running inside a virtual machine. For Azure, the word processor would have to be written as a .NET application from scratch, making use of the Azure Platform Services to handle such things as storing data, ensuring access control and privacy etc. The user interface would be a web browser, and each new user would have a separate instance of the .NET application running in the cloud.

If you’ve been following the “cloud”, then the Microsoft model should sound familiar, it is very similar to Google’s cloud which also offers an application programming interface and key services such as databases. The unanswered question at this point is whether Microsoft’s Azure (which is aimed exclusively at Google) is the only weapon in their armory or will they also announce a platform built around a future version of HyperV to compete with VMware’s VDC-OS? My bet is that they will “drop the other shoe” in 2009 and announce VDC-OS type platform. Stay tuned to see if I’m right!

Posted by: Nik Simpson

The Difference is VMware’s Leadership

Just after the VMware leadership change and at VMworld last week, our team had the opportunity to meet with VMware CEO Paul Maritz. Most of you have been following the blogs Chris Wolf, Drue Reeves and I have been writing about VMware and their challenges ahead as they take on the 800 pound gorilla in the market - Microsoft.  We have made numerous analogies between VMware and Novell in the context of Microsoft’s competitive assault on the x86 virtualization infrastructure leader.

As many of you know, I witnessed firsthand the tactics Microsoft used against Novell during the 1990s when I worked for the once-upon-a-time network operating system leader. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve had déjà-vu experiences while watching Microsoft methodically run the same game plan against VMware’s Virtual Center product with Hyper-V and System Center Virtual Machine Manager.  Integrations, pricing, and marketing tactics are all repeats of the past. 

But before I get into the Paul Maritz meetings, you also need to realize that while I was at Novell, I had met personally with its CEOs: Ray Noorda (1982-1994), Bob Frankenberg (1994-1996), Joe Marengi (1996-1997), Eric Schmidt (1997-2001), and Ron Hovsepian (2006-present).  Note:  I never met with Jack Messman (2001-2006) as he never got out among the employees.

Now that I have met with these CEOs, I can tell you that this is where the analogies between Novell and VMware break down.  Paul Maritz has a keen understanding of his competition, especially since he was closely involved in running the Microsoft play book against Novell during the 1990s.  Paul understands that VMware Virtual Center’s current product position is vulnerable to attack and is making the moves to avoid the onslaught.  As Paul describes, Microsoft drafts behind its competitor and then at the right moment swoops around to take the lead and leave their adversary in the dust.  The trick is for the leader to go into a direction where Microsoft is uncomfortable.  Microsoft tends to follow everyone to some degree, but if they are in an uncomfortable position, they won’t be successful in overtaking the competition unless the competition lets them do so.  During the 1990s, none of the Novell CEOs exhibited vision and a keen understanding of what was happening to their core product in the wake of the Microsoft onslaught.  And now, history is all but written for NetWare.

Drue Reeves on our team blogged about Paul’s direction for VMware in his keynote at VMworld.  Paul had multiple goals that included outlining a direction that would make Microsoft uncomfortable as well as to get Microsoft riled up over that direction.  It appears he has achieved those goals.  The next phase is keen execution on those plans.

Don’t be mistaken, Microsoft’s “good enough” products will erode VMware’s market share, but VMware’s approach is designed to erode Microsoft’s market share in server and desktop operating systems by making them nothing but application libraries.  However, this is where the 800 pound gorilla has more cards to play - applications.  VMware must partner heavily with major applications vendors besides Microsoft to pull this off.

Do you think VMware will repeat history or write its own?

[Posted by Richard Jones]