Starting in 2007, Symantec has been quietly building a virtualization solutions portfolio through a string of acquisitions:

• January 2007: Altiris - application virtualization
• April 2008: AppStream - application virtualization
• August 2008: nSuite - connection broker

In Spring 2009, Symantec plans to release an integrated and enhanced suite of products from its acquisitions in the Symantec Endpoint Virtualization Suite which will compete with:

• Citrix XenDesktop and Citrix XenApp
• Microsoft MED-V and Microsoft App-V
• VMware View and VMware Thinstall

Despite its efforts, Symantec is missing a key component in its offering to take on Citrix, Microsoft and VMware: a virtualization platform with comprehensive management and automation capabilities. Citrix knew the importance of not solely relying on third-party virtualization platforms, acquiring XenSource in 2007. And although $500 million seems like a big investment (it is) strategically Citrix is well-positioned to offer a complete, integrated virtualization stack to enterprise customers with Citrix XenServer, Citrix XenDesktop and Citrix XenApp, accompanied by management applications offered in Citrix Essentials and from Citrix partners such as Marathon Technologies.

So what can Symantec do to bolster its virtualization offering? Will there be a window of opportunity for the software giant to offer customers an end-to-end solution from the desktop to the data center or will it continue to simply partner with Citrix, Microsoft and VMware?

Enter Parallels. While Parallels has taken its time to build a bare-metal hypervisor, the company knew that it could not bring a second rate product to market given the fierce competition. So instead of launching Parallels Server prematurely, Parallels continued to build and refine a virtualization offering that is technologically superior to anything currently available on the market:

• Hybrid OS and hypervisor virtualization solution with integrated management and automation
• Memory over-commit (currently available only in VMware ESX) for higher consolidation ratios
• Live migration for OS containers (no downtime) and virtual machines (short downtime) without shared storage requirement (comparable to VMotion and Storage VMotion from VMware)
• Data protection with live backups and snapshots

There is more...

• Comprehensive storage support for SAN, iSCSI and NAS
• Built on top of high-performance, scalable and proven Parallels Virtuozzo Containers kernel that is deployed on more than 50,000 servers world-wide
• P2V and V2V migration tools with support for converting OS containers to virtual machines
• It also looks like there may be a hardware abstraction layer (similar to VMware ESX) that would allow migrations across heterogeneous servers (not possible with Xen or Hyper-V)

To top this off, Parallels already has market-leading virtualization products for desktops: Parallels Workstation and Parallels Desktop for MAC (with over one million copies sold world-wide).

So why should Symantec (and other vendors such as Oracle) take notice? Because with a single acquisition, it would be possible to obtain superior virtualization technology for desktops and servers with integrated automation and management. Furthermore, while other virtualization vendors are talking about cloud computing, Parallels is probably best positioned to be a leader in this space because it already owns dominant mind and market share in the hosting market. In other words Parallels has leapfrogged all the other vendors.

Parallels may be late to the party with its bare-metal hypervisor but it is going to crash the party once it arrives, and certainly turn some heads. And with Parallels channel partners already using Lanamark Suite for delivering virtualization services to drive Parallels virtualization products to enterprise customers, Parallels will be unstoppable.

Response to Simon Crosby's blog post is here

While most attention has been on IBM and its pursuit of Sun Microsystems, what would HP gain by competing with IBM to acquire Sun? Let's explore the various what-if scenarios for HP and IBM:

IBM acquires Sun Microsystems

Benefits to HP

• No need to worry about Cisco acquiring Sun and attacking core HP server and storage businesses.
• No need to compete with Sun directly.

Downsides for HP

• IBM owning 65 percent of the $17 billion UNIX server market.
• IBM increasing its strength in server, storage and service businesses.

HP acquires Sun Microsystems

Benefits to HP

• No need to worry about Cisco acquiring Sun and attacking core HP server and storage businesses.
• Expanded software and developer tools portfolio that could help HP compete more effectively with IBM.
• MySQL to help HP enter the database market and take on DB2, Oracle and SQL Server.
• Dominant position in the UNIX server market against IBM.

Downsides for HP

• Premium on acquiring Sun Microsystems, especially in light of competition from IBM.
• Consolidation with Sun server and storage businesses due to overlap.

Neither HP nor IBM acquires Sun Microsystems

This could be detrimental to both HP and IBM because Sun would most likely become an acquisition target for Cisco Systems. And if it falls into the hands of Cisco, then Cisco will be in a strong position to attack core server and storage businesses of both companies. IBM has the most to lose if Sun Microsystems falls into the hands of either Cisco or HP because in both cases, it would be facing a stronger competitor across its server, storage, software, database and other core businesses. Hence pursuit of Sun Microsystems is actually a defensive strategy for IBM in an attempt to protect and bolster its core businesses against both Cisco and HP.

If IBM efforts fail due to anti-trust issues, then this may be the catalyst for HP to bid on Sun Microsystems. Of course HP may go after Sun proactively but given its slightly more conservative $10.246 billion position in cash and cash equivalents compared to $12.906 billion for IBM, HP may sit this one out. Furthermore, HP may want to conserve its cash resources and go after Egenera after IBM spends its cash on Sun Microsystems.

Ultimately Cisco is in the best financial position to go after Sun Microsystems and block both HP and IBM. Cisco has $29.531 billion in cash and cash equivalents as of December 31, 2008 so as long as it is willing to bid north of $8 billion for Sun, it may put both HP and IBM out of contention.

Regardless of what happens, Lanamark software already supports data center analysis and design services with servers and storage from Dell, HP, IBM and Sun, and virtualization platforms from Citrix, Microsoft, Parallels, Virtual Iron and VMware. Support for Cisco UCS is coming in 2009Q2.

On March 16, 2009 Cisco unvealed its Unified Computing System, positioning itself to broaden its reach across the data center beyond network infrastructure. The Cisco Unified Computing System unites computing, network, storage and virtualization resources in the data center, making IT infrastructure more efficient and less complex.

Cisco's move is quite brilliant - instead of competing head-on with Dell, HP and IBM in the saturated server and storage market, Cisco is offering a highly integrated blade platform which would allow it to offer all data center components in a unified form factor. This approach is highly differentiated and will certainly cause Dell, HP and IBM to consider defensive strategies.

IBM is already pursuing an acquisition with Sun Microsystems in a possible attempt to prevent Cisco Systems from gaining a complete stack and attacking its server, storage and other core businesses. IBM acquisition of Sun Microsystems would actually benefit Dell and HP because it would preclude Cisco Systems from competing with their core businesses since both vendors are already competing successfully with IBM on these fronts. But if Sun Microsystems is acquired by Cisco Systems, then how should Dell, HP and IBM respond?

One possible approach would be to acquire Egenera which provides the closest possible alternative to the Cisco Unified Computing System. Dell already has an OEM agreement with Egenera so it would be no surprise if Dell fires the first shot and pursues an acqusition. But with $12.906 billion and $10.246 billion in cash and cash equivalents IBM and HP have respectively, both companies are in a stronger financial position to go after Egenera than Dell.

Regardless of what happens, Lanamark software already supports data center analysis and design services with servers and storage from Dell, HP, IBM and Sun, and virtualization platforms from Citrix, Microsoft, Parallels, Virtual Iron and VMware. Support for Cisco UCS is coming in 2009Q2.

Two days after Cisco unveiled its Cisco Unified Computing System, the Sun Microsystems stock jumps more than 75% and there is a rumor that IBM is bidding to acquire Sun. The article on Forbes provides some context around why Sun is a good fit for IBM but there is also something interesting about the Cisco Unified Computing System.

Sun Microsystems is absent from Cisco's launch announcement but did it have a hand in building the Cisco Unified Computing System? By taking a close look at the two images below, it's evident that there are design similarities between the Cisco UCS blade platform and the servers designed by Sun Microsystems:

 

Could Sun Microsystems be unoficially behind the Cisco Unified Computing System and is Cisco possibly competing with IBM to acquire Sun Microsystems?

Although there has been speculation that Cisco is getting ready to acquire VMware or possibly its parent company EMC, Sun Microsystems is probably a more interesting acquisition target for Cisco because Sun has a complete stack which includes servers, storage and even thin clients. Both companies have headquarters in California and would probably have a very good culture fit. With Sun Microsystems under its wing, Cisco would have a broad portfolio of data center solutions for enterprises of all sizes and put it in direct competition with Dell, HP and IBM.

In contrast, IBM has a significant amount of overlap with Sun and could face anti-trust scruitiny because the merger would give IBM 65 percent of the $17 billion UNIX server market. As of December 31, 2008 IBM had $12.907 billion in cash, cash equivalents and short-term investments compared to $29.531 billion for Cisco Systems. Hence IBM is also in a more constrained cash position to acquire Sun Microsystems which has a market capitalization of $6.03 billion. Should a bidding war errupt, the valuation of Sun Microsystems could jump by another 50%.

Regardless of what happens, Lanamark software already supports data center analysis and design services with servers and storage from Dell, HP, IBM and Sun, and virtualization platforms from Citrix, Microsoft, Parallels, Virtual Iron and VMware.

As most of you know, the VMware ESX EULA explicitly prohibits publishing of performance test results without its approval:

"You may use the Software to conduct internal performance testing and benchmarking studies, the results of which you (and not unauthorized third parties) may publish or publicly disseminate; provided that VMware has reviewed and approved of the methodology, assumptions and other parameters of the study."

However, the brave Virtualization Review team published a performance comparison of the three hypervisors and came to the following conclusions:

• VMware ESX is optimized for a large number of less-intensive workload virtual machines.
• For intensive workloads Microsoft Hyper-V and Citrix XenServer should be considered-even if this means adding another hypervisor into the data center.

The reality is that all three hypervisors are enterprise-grade and the performance differences of choosing one versus another are negligible. The following factors are more critical in selecting a hypervisor than performance factors alone:

• Cost-performance Ratio: all other things being equal, the cost is a key factor in selecting a virtualization platform. For example, in a recent Citrix XenServer vs. VMware Infrastructure price comparison, it is evident that Citrix is a much more cost effective alternative (as long as HA and DRS are not must-have).
• Management Applications: without management applications, the value of a hypervisor is marginal, regardless of its performance. VMware offers the richest set of management applications by a significant margin. Citrix offers a number of management applications such as LabManager and StageManager through partners such as VMLogix.
• Enterprise Features: VMware currently leads the way in offering enterprise features such as VMotion, Dynamic Resource Scheduler (DRS) and High Availability (HA). Citrix also offers HA for Citrix XenServer through Marathon Technologies and XenMotion. Microsoft is planning to release live migration in Windows Server 2008 R2.

Regardless of which virtualization platform is chosen, proper capacity planning and virtual infrastructure design are vital for avoiding under- and over-provisioning of target systems. Products such as Lanamark Suite make it possible to efficiently analyze existing physical infrastructure and design virtual infrastructure that optimizes performance and maximizes return on investment regardless of virtualization platform selected.

Last week Citrix announced that it will make Citrix XenServer Enterprise available at no charge to customers. How does its offering compare to that of VMware? To answer this question, it is essential to compare Citrix XenServer Enterprise to a VMware bundle that closely matches Citrix XenServer Enterprise features.

Which VMware bundle should Citrix XenServer Enterprise be compared to?

Since Citrix XenServer Enterprise does not have High Availability (HA) and Dynamic Resource Scheduler (DRS), the most accurate comparison would be versus

• VMware Infrastructure Foundation ($995) with VMotion add-on ($3,495) per 2 CPUs or
• VMware Infrastructure Foundation Acceleration Kit, which includes licenses for VMware Infrastructure Foundation and VMware vCenter Foundation ($2,995) for 6 CPUs, with VMotion add-on ($3,495) per 2 CPUs

Note: VMware Infrastructure Standard Edition includes HA and hence it would not be valid to compare it to Citrix XenServer Enterprise.

Multi-server Management

• Citrix is giving away XenCenter for free to allow enterprises to manage multiple hosts.
• The equivalent VMware vCenter Server offering is priced at $4,995 for an unlimited number servers or $1,495 for VMware vCenter Foundation limited to 3 servers
• Delta: $4,995 or $1,495 for 3 servers

Live Migration

• XenMotion is included with Citrix XenServer Enterprise
• VMware sells VMotion and Storage VMotion as an add-on starting at $3,495
• Delta: $3,495 per two-way server

 

Price Comparison

• 1 two-way server: $2,490
• VMware Infrastructure Foundation: $995
• VMware vCenter Foundation: $1,495
• No need for VMotion
• 2 two-way servers: $9,985
• VMware Infrastructure Foundation Acceleration Kit: $2,995
• VMware vCenter Foundation: included
• VMotion: $3,495 x 2 = $6,990  

• 3 two-way servers: $13,480
• VMware Infrastructure Foundation Acceleration Kit: $2,995
• VMware vCenter Foundation: included
• VMotion: $3,495 x 3 = $10,485 

• N two-way servers (N > 3): $4,995 + N x $4,490
• VMware Infrastructure Foundation: $995 x N
• VMware vCenter Server: $4,995 
• VMotion: $3,495 x N

When 4 or more servers are required, a simple rule of thumb is to multiply $5,000 by N +1 servers. For example if 10 servers are required then the price difference would be $5,000 x (10 + 1) = $55,000.

Citrix XenServer Enterprise with Citrix Essentials for XenServer Enterprise Edition vs. VMware Infrastructure Enterprise Edition comparison can be found here.

Notes:

• Support and Subscription (SnS) entitlements for VMware MUST be purchased separately
• XenMotion does not include storage migration available in the VMware VMotion + Storage VMotion bundle.

According to a recent session at VMworld Europe 2009 on how VMware uses VMware ESX internally, VMware Capacity Planner remains one of a handful of services not yet virtualized by VMware. However, VMware is planning to run VMware Capacity Planner in a virtual machine by mid-2009.

This is interesting because a number of VMware Authorized Consultant (VAC) partners are already frustrated with the performance of the VMware Capacity Planner Dashboard. Unless the target virtual machine is going to provide more resources to VMware Capacity Planner than it has on the physical machine, the performance is not likely to improve.

There are several other challenges in performing analysis and reporting with VMware Capacity Planner online:

• If there is no Internet connection, then there is no way to access VMware Capacity Planner. And since most consultants spend quite a bit of time on the road, offline access to customer data is extremely valuable.
• Some customers are not thrilled about sensitive data about their data centers being accessed online.

Products such as Lanamark Suite address the above issues by

• Allowing analysis, reporting and design to be performed offline.
• Never allowing access to data center metrics online (data must be downloaded and the consultant must be authenticated).
• Giving customers the option to send data directly to solution providers.

Learn about other capacity planning tools for VMware ESX