The best part of my job is when I get to meet with customers and partners. I always learn something interesting, some of which I get to pass on here.
Virtualization (server, files, storage) has been a hot topic with IT vendors and customers alike for a few years now. And I've begun to notice that the real payoff wasn't what people initially thought.
It's not what you might think
Most people become interested in virtualization as a way to save money. That's true, but there's much more. What it's turning out to be is an great enabler that makes IT far more flexible and responsive.
Being able to move server images, or file systems, or entire storage footprints around, in the middle of the day, without anyone noticing -- is turning out to be the real winner for customers who've deployed the technology.
Storage virtualization -- the real deal?
Take storage virtualization. The pitch seemed to be "save money on storage" -- through pooling, by being able to use cheap commodity storage, and so on. Well, when you run the numbers, "cheap" storage can get pretty expensive when you lash on an external virtualization device -- and besides, a mid-tier array is pretty cost-effective these days and can usually do a lot of virtualization tricks inside the array. And if all you want to do is pool your storage, you don't need a virtualization device to do that, just some decent SRM tools and a bit of foresight in how you lay things out.
But what we found was a very different problem that storage virtualization solved. Take any uber-large IT shop. They've always got large storage footprints moving around: maybe they're refreshing their storage arrays, maybe they're consolidating, maybe they're moving something big from development to production. Being able to move a large storage footprint from anywhere to anywhere safely and non-disruptively is a huge win for them.
Not for everyman, but if you've got that sort of problem, storage virtualization (done in the network using split-path processing, as it should be :-) is a real win.
File virtualization -- something everyone needs?
Another example is file virtualization. Yes, there's a value proposition around consolidating file servers from different vendors into denser, more highly-utilized file server footprints, but the capability to move file systems from place to place without users noticing helps when work moves between locations, or the org structure changes, or people want to move to the latest version of Windows, and so on.
Not having to schedule down time, or send memos to users telling them where their files are now located, is a huge win. Done right (again, in the network using split-path processing) it's turning out to be a huge win.
Yes, and even server virtualization
Same thing seems to apply to server virtualization. Yes, there are huge savings in server utilization, footprint, energy and so on. But you only get that win once -- like compressing data twice, it's a hard trick to repeat. But the ability to dynamically provision a server image, move it around, save it and retrieve it -- all without users being aware of what's going on -- means that IT can be far more responsive to shifting requirements without appearing slow and unresponsive.
When transparency is good
When I went to management training, they made a point of making sure that I understood that transparency is a bad thing. If all you do is pass messages up and down the org chart, well, that's what email is for!
That being said, the best virtualization technology is transparent to users. Years ago, I talked to one of our customers (Eastman Chemical) who told me they had been successful in virtualizing their entire server farm with VMware. Given that this was three or four years ago, I was stunned that they were able to do this.
I asked them how did they get users to agree to use virtual servers? His answer was famous -- he said he never told them what he was doing. For me, this stuck in my mind that separates good virtualization technology from the other kind.
Can't we all just get along?
But there's a challenging side to implementing virtualization technology at scale. As an example, most of the management tools most people use don't understand virtual environments well. They were designed for a physical world of servers, files and storage. So, at the outset, there's some initial complexity while the management tools catch up with the new virtual reality.
One of the reasons that EMC has invested so heavily in all three layers (server, files, storage) with leading technologies is that we see -- ultimately -- these layers will need to work together well. If you're provisioning, you want to provision all the virtual resources at the same time. If you're moving them, you want to move them together. If you're trying to track down a performance problem, you'll want an end-to-end view that understands not only the virtual view, but the physical reality, and so on.
Starting at the end of this year, you'll start to see EMC management products catch up to this new virtual view in a big way. The new version of ControlCenter has a model that's been extended to understand different layers of virtualization, and correlate the server/storage stack intelligently. EMC Smarts will have new features that understand virtual machines (as well as the containers they live in) to better correlate root-cause analysis.
Real virtual advice
So, with all due respect, my advice for virtualization shoppers goes something like this:
- Go after utilizations savings, but understand that they're usually one-shot deals. The real business case should be built on increased flexibility and responsiveness to business needs, and the ability to have IT do the reconfiguration work they need to do without impacting users.
- Don't overlook the management tools -- they'll need to change. And don't simply ask "do you support virtualization?" That leaves far too much wiggle room for vendors. There's a difference between "tolerating" the presence of a virtualization layer, and "exploiting" its unique characteristics and behavior. Drill down here, you'll be glad you did.
- Get the whole team on board. If you virtualize your servers, the storage guys are going to be impacted. If you virtualize storage, the backup and business continuity guys may be impacted. And, regardless, your NOC or centralized support facility will need to understand a bit more complexity than they did before.
Now, don't get me wrong, I'm a big fan of the technology. I believe that virtual entities are better than physical ones: they're more efficient, they can be moved and changed flexibly, and they can do this usually without other layers being aware of what's going on. It's inevitable that we'll all be using this technology going forward, IMHO.
But at the same time, it's easy to overlook the additional implications involved in fully exploiting what virtualization can do.
Besides, living in a virtual world can be much nicer than living in a physical one.
Ask anyone who plays online games :-)
Comments