The runaway costs that some allude to (which we can also see from the chart) are at least partly due to unanticipated management requirements, though other cost related factors that surfaced during our workshop included the need to upgrade network and storage infrastructure, and unintended impacts and complexity around software licensing.
But let’s not get hung up on the notion that these gotchas are major blockers. For every person that reported a challenge in each area, two or more said they hadn’t experienced the issue. In some cases, this may be because they have not arrived far enough down the virtualization road to discover some of the problems, but the general spirit we are picking up is that the pros far outweigh the cons however far you push things. With this in mind, it is not surprising that commitment to maintain or increase the use of virtualization technology is close to unanimous:
So, while the view of server virtualization is generally very positive, as things stand it is certainly not yet plain sailing. IT professionals would do well to acknowledge some of the problems others have encountered and be prepared to deal with them should they crop up as activity progresses. With a lot of work still clearly to be done, the old adage ‘forewarned is forearmed’ is particularly relevant.
Fewer VMs on UNIX boxes?
"The first cause that springs to mind concerns the traditional dependencies that have existed between applications and the platforms upon which they sit. A familiar challenge is how each application requires the underlying systems stack to be configured in a particular way, which is typically different to other applications."
I think this --^ is also the reason why the x86 use of VMs is higher than the "proprietary UNIX" use -- I'm sure there are exceptions, but in general UNIX apps interact with the underlying OS cleanly, they don't require OS modifications, and have other mechanisms (chroot jails and such) to seperate the per-app environment if needed without resorting to an entire OS for each.
Anyway, I find virtualization to be an interesting topic, keep up the good articles on it!
Good to know that virtualization seems to be delivering on this particular point on the majority. I'm guessing this is because most VMs will still be running Windows Server 2003 or non windows stuff. The required RAM for even a lightly used Server 2008 is a bit high...
What what was so wrong with the Motorola 68nnn processors? They had much more umph than the Intel chip! An ARM is better than an Intel chip!