I was impressed with the VMware simulcast this morning announcing VSphere, the next iteration of their enterprise virtualization platform, dubbed the first “Cloud OS.” Having deployed and administered VMware products for several years, it’s exciting to see them continue to push the evolution of virtualization, which has now expanded from a single server up to multiple data centers.
It’s also becoming quite apparent that a loose alliance is coalescing between several of the established leaders in the infrastructure space. In particular, VMware continues to align with Cisco, whose recent unveiling of a “Unified Computing System” combined with VSphere offers the promise of a private “cloud in a box.” Other members of this confederation are Intel, whose recent Xeon 5500 Nehalem chip is tailored for VM loads, in addition to EMC, whose updated Symmetrix SAN is optimized for VMware and Microsoft Hyper-V support. Dell appears to be more closely aligned than HP, and has a better position in the SMB market.
And don’t count out Oracle / Sun, one of today’s VSphere demo’s featured Sunfire servers, and when Cisco CEO John Chambers left the stage to congratulate VMware’s lead engineering team, Sun racks were featured quite prominently.
So who’s not joining the party, yet?
Here’s my list –
- HP – not seeing innovation, very quiet these days
- IBM – passed on Sun, noticeably low-key at today’s VSphere event
- Google – how long before they offer a full-blown Cloud service
- Microsoft – no support for Hyper-V in VMware VSphere
- Citrix – falling further behind, no support from EMC Symmetrix, or VSphere
The continued limited inter-operability between major virtualization vendors – VMware, Microsoft, Citrix – and subsequent “vendor lock-in” really makes me wonder about the feasibility and likelihood of a truly Open Cloud platform, given the symbiotic relationship between Virtualization and Cloud computing.
P.S. I still think Cisco should have picked up Sun…
I agree with Sun Microsystems CTO Greg Papadopoulos’ assertion that Open Source has several advantages over proprietary systems relating to cloud computing. After all, current market leader Amazon built their EC2 offering on open source Xen virtualization, and startups especially tend to benefit from the increased freedom of open source licensing compared to Microsoft. MS has an uphill battle to get established with mindshare for cloud computing, and notwithstanding the recent Azure outage, their complex licensing schemes continue to befuddle developers and IT personnel alike. At last year’s Hosting Summit in Redmond, I remember attending a breakout session on licensing changes with Windows 2008 and IIS7 during which several Microsoft staff appeared to openly disagree about new system licensing requirements. Ummm-kay…
And circling back again to Amazon, it seems that load balancing continues to emerge as an important feature currently lacking in EC2. Users are experimenting with various workarounds for load balancing, but more importantly there are relative cost considerations between EC2 and competing solutions. It’s all about who’s in control, and businesses blindly marching down the marketing-induced path to a public cloud without a thorough evaluation of their applications relationship to infrastructure, such as disk-write intensity, or network upstream traffic vs. downstream, are headed for a rude surprise.
My first response to Cisco’s announcement today is measured skepticism. Cisco certainly plays a central role in most modern data centers, dominating arguably the most critical infrastructure component, the network. By consolidating network, compute, storage and virtualization systems, Cisco is essentially offering a “cloud in a box.” Aside from the obvious marketing angle of leverage the current excitement around the cloud, though, it seems that Cisco is realizing they need more to drive sales of the new Nexus enterprise switch platform. However, while VMware and Microsoft are natural partners for virtualization, I’m wary of Cisco’s initial venture into the compute space. After all, a handful of companies with names like IBM, Dell and HP already have substantial experience in delivering enterprise server solutions, and I noticed none of them were listed as partners in the Cisco announcement. This is certainly a stark illustration of the new balance of power in the infrastructure world, where hypervisors and VM’s are taking precedence over bare-metal servers. Very interesting…
This announcement really caught my eye. Essentially, Microsoft and Red Hat have agreed to mutually support each other’s operating systems on their emerging virtualization platforms. Thus, Microsoft Hyper-V will support Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) 5, and Red Hat Enterprise virtualization will support Windows 2003, 2008 and so on. The timing of the announcement, last Monday February 16 which was a national holiday, was probably more than coincidental in order to lower the profile of the partnership. These two companies are not known to be friendly with each other, with Red Hat firmly established as the leading commercial vendor in the Linux market that competes fiercely with Microsoft’s Windows Server offerings. In fact, at SCaLE( Southern California Linux Conference) this past weekend, there was no mention or discussion of this announcement anywhere.
I recall testing an early release of Microsoft’s Virtual Server, the precursor to Hyper-V, several years ago and observing that the only non-Microsoft OS officially supported was SUSE Linux. Given that Red Hat and Ubuntu dominate the lion’s share of the Linux market, with SUSE a distant third, I was less than excited about Microsoft’s “cross-platform” support. Contrast this with VMware’s native support of Ubuntu, RHEL, OpenSUSE, in addition to Windows, Novell and Solaris. VMware’s competitors continue to maneuver for position, including Citrix recently offering the Xen hypervisor for free, along with enhanced coordination with Microsoft. But VMware is still leading the pack, and they’re not sitting still.