Server virtualisation beyond the x86 environment
Is the virtual life outside of x86?
Lab Register readers have told us (pdf) that the virtualisation of significant portions of your x86 server estates are major project areas in which you plan to invest both money and, much more importantly, your time.
This is all well and good, but as everyone in IT understands, x86 servers are not the only platforms in town. So what is happening with other server platforms and virtualisation?
Last August we asked you just this question in a mini-survey. The results, as shown in the figure below, make for interesting reading, especially when considering the length of time that the different platforms have been utilised to host essential business applications.
As the figure points out, almost every organisation deploys x86 platforms, and a growing proportion of these servers are already making significant use of virtualisation technologies. It is worthwhile remembering that it is only comparatively recently that organisations have given x86 platforms equal prominence and trust with well established Unix, mainframe and other systems for the hosting of essential business services.
With this in mind it is fascinating to see that the uptake of virtualisation in Unix and other non-x86 systems is lower than in the currently very fashionable x86 space. In order to make sense of the data it is essential to note first that fewer than half of those surveyed actually make use of UNIX systems, meaning that around half of users are utilising the virtualisation facilities on offer on UNIX servers – which is still quite a big number.
We should also remember that the poll results were self-selecting – that is, respondents would tend to have an interest in virtualisation – so the results only really make sense when compared against each other, rather in absolute terms. For example, while the figure above indicates extensive use of virtualisation on x86 servers, we know that in reality the actual percentage of all such systems that run virtualisation software is still way below the halfway mark.
Another factor to bear in mind is that while UNIX platforms have long enjoyed the ability to use a variety of hardware and software based partitioning and virtualisation capabilities, a large number of such servers only run one application, as shown on the chart below. This is especially the case in small and mid-sized organisations where the majority of applications are hosted on Windows machines with perhaps only one or two applications running on UNIX.
This may partly explain the results here, showing that far fewer traditional UNIX servers have been the subject of server consolidation projects than has been the case for x86 systems.
In this light, the fact that take-up is still nowhere near all pervasive is perhaps is not so unusual despite the major UNIX systems, mainframes and other business servers having had the ability to use virtualisation solutions for a long time, certainly far longer than on x86. However, it is still my opinion that the vendors of UNIX systems have not done a particularly good job of highlighting what virtualisation offerings their systems support, and the potential benefits that using such tools can provide.
Do you use, or are you considering virtualisation on non-x86 servers in your environment? As always, we’d be very interested to know your thoughts on how you see virtualisation fitting into the picture for their operations, if at all. Drop us a line in the comments section below.
Not comparable really
Firstly Unix systems never experienced the server sprawl which engulfed x86 shops a few years ago so there aren't the same drivers to virtualise and reign this back in. Secondly a lot of Unix systems are misison critical back end systems. Virtualising these just adds an extra layer to manage and increases the chance of outage.
In addition Unix platforms have always been more receptive to running multiple apps on the same box in the same OS removing a lot of the requirement to virtualise anyway.
What's with the gradients?
The graphs are difficult to read. Simplify, simplify.
We have a fairly large Windows visualized farm on VMWare. A few hundred servers we've migrated over or built on VMWare over the last 3 years or so.
However, in the last 12 months, we've gone from having 2 IFLs to play with, to more than 20, running well in excess of 400 Suse Linux servers on the Mainframe. We expect to at least double that this year, and ANY server that CAN run on Suse is being migrated to Suse.
Windows needs 1 license per virtual server in most cases (OS excluded), where most IBM license is by the processor underneath. A P6+ 4 core processor is 480PVUs worth of license. An IFL is 120PVUs, and can run 4-6 times the number of guest servers.
You can now get a mini-mainframe (Buseinss class z10), with 2 starter IFLs for under $200,000. That can run 40-60 servers easy. The same capacity on a 570 or 590 platform will cost about the same, if not a bit less (we pay about $80 per fully loaded VMWare chassis), and it will also run 40-60 guests. However, licensing costs between them, for things like WebSphere, are about 8 times higher on the VMWare side, and on top of that you need the VMWare licenses themselves, plus the OS. A z10 BC can hold a whole lot of IFLs, a few ZIIPs and ZAAPs too. If you;re visualizing a few hundred web and Java servers, DB2 or PGSQL/MySQL databases, WebSphere or MQ, then z/VM linux on a z10 IFL is by FAR the cheapest way to go. We've also seen cost reductions in Oracle pricing, VRU services, and more.
The single binary image model is far superior to image independent VM guests (patch one system to patch a hundred). Operational issues are lessened by not running Windows, no one writes viruses compiled for OS390X hardware (since you'd actually need access to a mainframe or Hercules VM server to do it), and LPAR replication between 2 chassis is easy (and you don't have to license the second chassis).
If you look at IBM list pricing for the IFLs, ZIIPs, and Chassis, it sounds like a bad deal, but consider, NO ONE pays list price for IBM mainframe hardware (we pay about half).
Is this a solution for an SME, with 30-50 servers? no, but then honestly nether is a true VMWare infrastructure...