The Register® — Biting the hand that feeds IT

Feeds

Forrester: Fake servers like recessions

Even if you don't

Cloud storage: Lower cost and increase uptime

Ah, there's nothing like a recession to kick IT industry trends into a higher gear - and get those IT analysts out there preaching change and cost cutting.

Today, it was Forrester Research's turn to talk up virtualization on servers and PCs as well as cloud computing as part of its sales pitch for two new reports it has put out casing the climate in data centers these days.

Those reports - called The State Of Emerging Enterprise Hardware Trends: 2008 To 2009 and The State Of Emerging SMB Hardware Trends: 2008 To 2009 - are based on a survey that Forrester did with 2,600 IT managers and other decision makers in the United States and across Europe to gauge their current and future plans with regards to various technologies and strategies.

This is a much large sample than we typically see behind such studies, but you have to bear in mind that this survey was done in the third quarter of 2008, before the global economy went on the fritz in a big way. Moreover, with the studies costing two grand a pop, you would expect a larger survey sample and more details.

According to the tidbits that Frank Gillett, the principal analyst at Forrester who put together the two reports, some 54 per cent of large companies polled have already implemented server virtualization in one form or another on some of their machines or will do so in the next 12 months. The statistic, as it turns out, is nearly the same for small and medium businesses. 53 per cent of SMBs reported they have done the fake server thing already or will do so within the next year.

Now, the fact that a little more than half of the companies polled report that they have monkeyed around with server virtualization in its many forms is not the same thing as saying half the servers at these companies have been virtualized, and it is surely no indication of what percentage of production servers have been virtualized. Test and development took a shining to virtualization early, and given the nature of the job - messing around with lots of software stacks and testing code before putting it into production - this is what you would expect.

Getting web servers and other infrastructure workloads virtualized is also comparatively easy and has a fairly big and immediate payback. But virtualizing the kind of mission-critical applications that tend to run on bigger boxes (application servers, database servers, and such) is much more problematic.

Steps to Take Before Choosing a Business Continuity Partner

Next page: Attach Rate Shrink

Latest Comments

Separating the wheat/SMS from the chaff/WAP

Fun pub game for admins - convince your mates why you think product/technology X is going to be the next SMS or the next WAP. So far, general (partialy-inebriated) consensus is cloud still looks like WAP, but virtualisation has already become the SMS of the server world. Current fave topics for such team-meetings-cum-booze-ups are FCOE (Son of iSCSI?), SSDs (nice but f*ck-a-duck price), and VDI (the rehash of the rehash of the remake of terminals). All debaters welcome, but you get an automatic three-rounds-at-the-bar penalty if you bring a Powerpoint pres!

/the public house is calling!

0
0

@ Mike Laverick

"... Of course the is the 1% of really high-end stuff such as 8-ways with 256GB of RAM... but they are in a very small minority - and this hardware is now regarded as low-spec compared to 16-way box built for virtualization. ..."

Mike, hopefully you're talking about 4-way servers with quad CPU per sockets and not 16 socket servers. The former is the order of the day and with 2-ways, optimal for virtual workloads due to efficient memory scaling (amount of memory and bus bandwidth).

The latter just don't add up from a price-performance perspective, don't scale due to bus limitations and are inflexible for many topologies and workloads.

0
0

Desktop virtualization?

I'm guessing that this means thin clients, i.e. Citrix (other solutions are available :). I can't see any reasons why general purpose desktops would need to run multiple OS instances under a true VM (and it certainly wouldn't reduce costs).

0
0

More from The Register

SCO vs. IBM battle resumes over ownership of Unix
Zombie lawsuit back and wants to suck the brains out of Linux
 breaking news
You don't need phone lines or cable for ANYTHING, says Dish
The satellite-dish man can sort you out with phone and broadband over the air too
 breaking news
What's HP got under wraps? Looks awfully flash and tape shaped
What happens in Vegas won't stay there - we've got the details
Microsoft borks botnet takedown in Citadel snafu
Stupid Redmond kicked over our honeypots, wail white hats
IBM's $1bn layoffs latest: Now axe swings in US, Canada - reports
Union claims 121 storage bods canned after dismal sales
NetApp musters muscular cluster bluster for ONTAP busters
Storage array OS overhauled to juggle more nodes, go down on you, er, less
HP adds 'Haswell' Xeon E3s to entry ProLiant servers
Gussies up MicroServer for SMBs, adds baby switches