Scott Lowe recently did a feature comparison between Microsoft Hyper-V R2 and VMware vSphere. The comparison is definitely worth taking a look at. Here is a tabular summary of the comparison:
Recently in Microsoft Category
In September 2008, VKernel announced its plans to deliver support for Microsoft Hyper-V in Q1 2009 in VKernel Capacity Analyzer and VKernel Chargeback. Fifteen months after its announcement and nine months after its scheduled delivery date, VKernel finally launched a beta version of only its Capacity Analyzer with support for Hyper-V.
Unlike its first-class support for VMware ESX, where it now faces competition from VMware vCenter CapacityIQ and VMware vCenter Chargeback, VKernel's support for Hyper-V has the following limitations and requirements:
1. Breaking of Virtual Appliance Encapsulation
VKernel Capacity Analyzer cannot work with Hyper-V without a new VKernel Capacity Analyzer Hyper-V Collector agent and a shared Microsoft SQL Server database. Because this agent and the database must run on Microsoft Windows, neither one can be deployed within the Linux-based virtual appliance running VKernel Capacity Analyzer.
2. Microsoft System Center Operations Manager 2007 R2 Requirement
While many Microsoft customers are using Microsoft System Center Operations Manager, making it a system requirement for running a virtual appliance is going to be an issue for some customers.
3. Microsoft System Center Operations Manager must be integrated with Microsoft System Center Virtual Machine Manager
According to the user guide, VKernel Capacity Analyzer not only requires Microsoft System Center Operations Manager R2, but Operations Manager must also be integrated with Microsoft System Center Virtual Machine Manager 2008. Again, this is a feasible configuration but not a trivial requirement for a virtual appliance that should be self-contained.
4. Microsoft SQL Server Requirement
Instead of pulling data into its own database, VKernel Capacity Analyzer now requires Microsoft SQL Server database to be shared between the VKernel Capacity Analyzer and the VKernel Capacity Analyzer Hyper-V Collector agent.
These limitations and requirements raise the following questions:
1. Why do enterprises running Microsoft Hyper-V have to be burdened with additional system requirements for running VKernel Capacity Analyzer compared to enterprises running VMware ESX?
2. Why can't VKernel Capacity Analyzer simply run as a self-contained virtual appliance on Microsoft Hyper-V and collect data directly from Microsoft Hyper-V hosts without additional requirements for systems management and commercial database products?
3. How much additional value would enterprises actually get from VKernel Capacity Analyzer if they are already running Microsoft System Center Operations Manager and Virtual Machine Manager?
On November 10, 2009 Lanamark announced Lanamark Suite 2009 R2. The new release dramatically extends scalability to 50,000 systems and adds support for the latest OS and virtualization platforms, including: Citrix XenServer 5.5, Microsoft Windows Server 2008 R2 with Hyper-V, Microsoft Windows 7, VMware vSphere 4.0 and VMware vCenter. Lanamark also introduces aggressive pricing for virtual machines and enhances the Lanamark Storage Design Module to provide deep insight into current and historical usage of local and networked storage resources.
The new release is a culmination of more than nine months of close collaboration with our alliance and channel partners. Many thanks to everyone who helped us push the envelope of innovation and deliver a world-class product.
As speculation looms around plans from Citrix to release Citrix XenServer as open source, it's worthwhile to analyze how such a move would impact other leading software vendors in the virtualization space.
On February 23, 2009 Citrix announced that it will give away the full version of Citrix XenServer for free. Since Citrix is not generating any revenue from XenServer, open sourcing it seems like a logical step. But how will such a move impact the marketplace? Why would Citrix spend $500M on XenSource and then make Citrix XenServer open source?
As a Microsoft partner, Citrix understands that it's better to cooperate than to compete with the software giant, particularly in the server virtualization space. By open-sourcing Citrix XenServer, Citrix would:
- Expand Citrix XenServer market share and drive additional revenue through virtualization management software such as Citrix Essentials.
- Offer enterprises an open-source alternative to Microsoft Hyper-V with feature parity and high degree of interoperability.
- Increase community-based support for development and maintenance of Citrix XenServer, rather than funding R&D completely.
- Enhance adoption and survivability of Citrix XenServer by getting other software vendors such as Novell and Oracle to support it.
Microsoft
Microsoft benefits the most from this move because there would be an open-source server virtualization alternative that would isolate two other Linux-based virtualization platform vendors: Red Hat and VMware. In other words, Microsoft is squeezing these vendors from one side with Microsoft Windows Server 2008 R2 with Hyper-V and from the other side with the help of Citrix XenServer.
Novell
As a company that already has good relationships with both Citrix and Microsoft, Novell has an opportunity to provide virtualization management capabilities across these two platforms. It already does this with the PlateSpin family of products. Novell may also do a port of Citrix XenServer to Novell SUSE but this is probably not a trivial effort and would take quite a bit of time.
Oracle
Oracle VM is already based on the Xen hypervisor. Whether Oracle decides to adopt Citrix XenServer depends on whether Oracle wants to give away its intellectual property to the open source community or to build dominance in the server virtualization space on its own. However, given its active participation in the Xen community, support for open source development model and antagonism towards Red Hat, Oracle may just throw its weight behind an open source Citrix XenServer.
In a nutshell Citrix, Microsoft, Novell and Oracle have a lot to gain from an open source Citrix XenServer, while Red Hat and VMware have a lot to lose from such a move. Perhaps Citrix will also rename Citrix XenServer back to XenSource Server?!
Update (November 2, 2009)
According to an interview with Simon Crosby, CTO at Citrix, XenServer will be open-sourced but the following components will not be:
- Citrix XenCenter
- Citrix XenConvert
- Drivers for Microsoft Windows
To provide enterprises with virtualization management capabilities, Citrix offers Citrix Essentials for XenServer and Hyper-V in Enterprise and Platinum editions. What's interesting is that the pricing for the Hyper-V version is actually cheaper than it is for the XenServer version. In essence, Citrix is incentivizing customers to go with Hyper-V.
As of October 22, 2009 the per-server pricing is as follows:
- Citrix Essentials for XenServer, Enterprise Edition: $2,750 USD
- Citrix Essentials for Hyper-V, Enterprise Edition: $1,650 USD
- Citrix Essentials for XenServer, Platinum Edition: $5,500 USD
- Citrix Essentials for Hyper-V, Platinum Edition: $3,300 USD
In a nutshell, Citrix Essentials is
- $1,100 more expensive per physical server running XenServer for the Enterprise Edition
- $2,200 more expensive per physical server running XenServer for the Platinum Edition
What's even more interesting is that Citrix even offers a free Citrix Essentials Express Edition for Hyper-V but not for XenServer.
Regardless of the underlying platform selected, Lanamark Suite supports virtual infrastructure solution design (including licensing calculations) for both Citrix XenServer and Microsoft Hyper-V. Citrix Essentials in Enterprise and Platinum Editions as well as Microsoft System Center Virtual Machine Manager can be included in the what-if scenarios presented to enterprise customers by Lanamark partners.
With the launch of Parallels Server Bare Metal, Parallels is expanding its value proposition in the crowded virtualization marketplace. But how is its approach different from other virtualization vendors such as Citrix, Microsoft and VMware?
First, Parallels offers a differentiated approach to virtualization that includes both hardware virtualization with Parallels Server Bare Metal and OS virtualization with Parallels Virtuozzo Containers. When the OS environment is heterogeneous, Parallels Server Bare Metal provides flexibility for hosting workloads with different operating systems on the same physical server. This approach is similar to Citrix XenServer, Microsoft Hyper-V, Oracle VM and VMware vSphere. However when the OS environment is homogeneous, Parallels provides capabilities to consolidate workloads with much lower virtualization overhead and much higher consolidation ratios. This is particularly useful for desktop virtualization.
Second, Parallels is clearly positioning itself for cloud enablement. Changes in messaging from "Automation and virtualization leader" to "Cloud enablement leader" clearly speak to that. And while other vendors are getting ready for cloud adoption, Parallels is already there with major market and mind share from service providers. Starting from its position of strength, Parallels can now go to all its partners using Parallels Virtuozzo Containers and help them expand their value proposition to customers with the addition of Parallels Server Bare Metal.
Finally, Parallels provides Parallels Virtual Automation for comprehensive management of both physical and virtual environments. Because of its strong expertise in enabling services providers, these capabilities push self-service and automation to levels that dramatically reduce the cost of implementing and managing virtual infrastructure.
In the last six years, leading vendors made significant investments to capitalize on opportunities presented by virtualization technologies:
- EMC acquired VMware in 2003 for $635 million
- Citrix acquired XenSource in 2007 for $500 million
- Red Hat acquired Qumranet in 2008 for $107 million
- Oracle acquired Virtual Iron in 2009 and is finalizing acquisition of Sun Microsystems
Now the big question is, who else wants to have a strong play in the virtualization and the cloud space?
Regardless of what happens, Lanamark Suite will enable the IT channel to design and deliver desktop and server virtualization solutions across all the leading virtualization platforms.
Lanamark today announced a partnership with Avnet Technology Solutions, a leading distributor of enterprise computing products, software and services with locations in more than 30 countries. The partnership will enable value-added resellers, system integrators and system builders working with Avnet Technology Solutions to use Lanamark Suite to accelerate design and delivery of desktop virtualisation, server virtualisation and storage solutions to enterprises in EMEA.
The partnership between Avnet Technology Solutions and Lanamark allows IT solution providers to offer real options to customers across virtualization and hardware platforms, rather than limiting them to a fixed combination. Now VARs, system integrators and consultants can mix-and-match:
- Software from vendors such as Citrix, Microsoft, Oracle, Parallels, Quest and VMware
- Hardware from vendors such as EMC, HP, Hitachi, IBM, Fujitsu, IGEL, NetApp, Sun and Wyse
By doing so, solution providers can build solutions that are best for their customers and then purchase all the key components of these solutions from Avnet, all while shortening sales cycles and maintaining control of sales and services opportunities.
As Microsoft gets ready to rollout Windows Server 2008 R2 with Hyper-V R2 on October 22nd, it's clear that a new wave of competition is about to begin between Microsoft and VMware. While VMware still holds a dominant position in the virtualization market, platform feature gaps, such as lack of live migration, are being closed in the R2 release.
With VMware software licensing revenues already declining 20% over the past year, the question is how will the new release from Microsoft affect VMware's ability to drive VMware vSphere sales? Will VMware respond to Microsoft at VMworld 2009 by slashing prices on vSphere or will it continue to try and charge a premium in this challenging macroeconomic climate?
More and more Lanamark partners are being asked by customers to provide side-by-side comparisons across leading virtualization platforms. The Windows Server 2008 R2 release is only going to amplify the need for solution providers to present multiple virtualization platform options to enterprise customers.
With Lanamark Suite, our partners can do just that by offering vendor-agnostic desktop virtualization, server virtualization and storage solutions to customers rather than locking them into specific vendor solutions by using vendor-centric tools such as VMware Capacity Planner.
May 11, 2009
Three Musketeers: Citrix, Microsoft and Novell
With VMware continuing to dominate the marketplace and other competitors emerging, Microsoft is skillfully playing virtualization chess. How can Microsoft build a dominant position in the virtualization marketplace while showing goodwill towards the Linux community and completely isolating its competitors? Here is how
- Provide (selective) support for Linux. Novell SUSE Linux Enterprise Server is the only Linux distribution officially supported by Microsoft Hyper-V.
- Offer an alternative virtualization platform for enterprises using Linux that is interoperable with Hyper-V. This is where Citrix XenServer comes in, partially because it provides much broader support for Linux guest operating systems.
- Build virtualization management applications that span the two. This is where management applications such as Citrix Essentials for XenServer and Hyper-V come in. Microsoft System Center and Novell PlateSpin family of products will also provide cross-platform support.
To maximize its grip over the virtualization marketplace, Microsoft wants customers to choose between a Linux- and a Windows-based hypervisor that it endorses and supports. The strategy code looks like something this:
if customer(running primarily Windows & wants Windows-based hypervisor) then return Microsoft Hyper-V + Microsoft Windows Server
else if customer(running primarily Linux & wants Linux-based hypervisor) then return Citrix XenServer + Novell SUSE Linux Enterprise Server
else return Microsoft Hyper-V + Microsoft Windows Server
This approach gives customers choice and essentially isolates all the other Linux-based virtualization platform vendors: Red Hat, VMware, etc... This approach is also sound from an anti-trust perspective because it would ensure that Microsoft is not perceived as a monopoly in the virtualization space a few years from now.
On Monday, April 20, 2009 Oracle announced that it is going to acquire Sun Microsystems. This acquisition is of vital importance to the virtualization industry for three major reasons:
1. Oracle is already the largest enterprise software company with the brand, products, technology and partnerships to make virtualization a core part of its enterprise solution portfolio.
2. With Sun Microsystems under its wing, Oracle will be able to offer a complete solution stack to customers spanning hardware, software and services.
3. With a robust ISV community building Java-based applications, Oracle has all the necessary ingredients to stimulate development of virtualization management applications.
Today, VMware continues to be the de facto leader in enterprise virtualization deployments. Citrix and Microsoft are challenging VMware's position but both vendors are more likely to succeed in the SMB segment, at least in the short term. In contrast the Oracle/Sun combination has the potential to become a formidable challenger to VMware in the enterprise, especially since Oracle will be able to offer a complete stack across hardware and software.
The big question now is how quickly will Oracle be able to integrate Sun and accelerate its investment in virtualization?
