The Register® — Biting the hand that feeds IT

Feeds

Plan ahead to make virtualisation work

Head for a better life

SaaS data loss: The problem you didn’t know you had

The road to hell, they say, is paved with good intentions, and never more so than when it comes to virtualisation.

Many companies embark on virtualisation because they think it will make IT better, cheaper and faster. There is no denying that it helps initially, reducing costs through consolidating servers and making other areas such as rebuilds and backup easier.

But our research shows that unless steps are taken early on to manage the shift that accompanies virtualisation, then the outcome can actually be a more complex and fragile infrastructure that doesn’t respond well to change.

A common result is that companies reach a natural plateau where their skills, tools and operational processes are overwhelmed by virtual machine sprawl and unpredictability.

With this in mind, we will focus on some of the key lessons gleaned from those who have already suffered the pain of virtualisation and emerged victorious.

Now’s your chance

For a start, it is important early on to change the footing on which IT projects are planned. In the world of physical systems, hardware and software are usually funded as part of a dedicated project budget.

Virtualisation breaks this dependency and is an opportunity to separate the underlying hardware from the end customer – but unless you take advantage of this shift you risk losing control. Rather than seizing the initiative to provide better services, you may find cost cutting is imposed.

One way to approach this was outlined to me by a CIO who foresaw that virtualisation was the ideal pretext to change the way IT provided services to the business.

Rather than just consolidating the company’s systems, passing the savings back and looking like a hero in the short term, he fought to work the anticipated cost reduction into a business case for investing in something more future-proof.

He proposed the creation of a new virtualised service pool containing servers, storage and networking, with licensing optimised for highly virtualised workloads. All of this was underpinned by integrated management and comprehensive monitoring and reporting.

This enabled him to go back to the application owners knowing what it cost to provide IT services, both physically and virtually.

Dive into the pool

Instead of force-fitting applications onto highly consolidated servers, the IT department gave service owners a choice: they could continue to fund their own projects and systems in the old manner using dedicated kit, or they could run them in the new virtual pool.

The cost difference between the two meant that unless there was some compelling counter argument, most services quickly moved to the new virtual infrastructure, which was more manageable and flexible than the old static one.

Costs and service expectations can become a political hot potato

This highlights two other areas to consider when choosing the virtual infrastructure route. The first is that when things are shared, costs and service expectations can quickly become a political hot potato.

Complete visibility is needed about what is being delivered and what it costs to do so when demonstrating to the business the implications of various requests.

Our research has shown that putting in place at least a basic billing or cost-reporting capability can go a long way towards creating a much better experience all round.

Shared troubles

The second point is that when it comes to service delivery in a virtualised infrastructure, nothing matters more than the experience at the point of consumption.

Whatever service level agreements are in place on individual components of the service, what really needs to be monitored and managed is what is actually being delivered to the business.

We touched on this briefly in the previous article in this series, but few companies have proactive service monitoring in place.

When the service is provided by dedicated physical systems they can be sized reasonably effectively and don’t have to contend all the time for resources to meet targets.

But when things are shared and changed regularly, failure to take ithe potential impact into account can cause real issues for users or customers.

Without timely feedback, it is difficult to see the real service situation until the phone starts ringing. ®

Andrew Buss is service director at Freeform Dynamics

Regcast training : Hyper-V 3.0, VM high availability and disaster recovery

Latest Comments

Don't virtualise on the planning

I’ll declare my interest straight away; I work for a small IT firm that helps businesses virtualise their IT infrastructure. The reason for the declaration is that virtualisation is an area that good IT VARs can genuinely help businesses, because they can bring a unique item to the virtualisation party, experience.

Over the 6 years that we’ve been helping businesses virtualise we’ve seen two key reasons why some virtualisation projects fail.

1. Ineffective project planning

Virtualisation is a beautifully disruptive technology. But we’ve seen projects fail because of poor planning. Application availability, CPU usage and storage volumes and media type have been estimated on best endeavours, and have undermined the project.

2. The business case has been sold on cost savings alone

OK so everything at some point has to come down to cost savings. We even have an online virtualisation calculator that helps small businesses identify potential cost savings from virtualisation:

http://www.abtecnet.com/virtualisation-calculator-c203.aspx

But those cost savings can soon get eaten up by VM sprawl. The biggest benefit of virtualisation is that it helps you build a flexible, agile infrastructure.

Good IT VARs can bring their experience of working with many other businesses to help mitigate project failure.

0
0

This man is on the ball.

Its really sad when companies get converted to the virtualization mantra but only halfway.

Small businesses are really vulnerable to this because usually they can't afford the best sysadmins to help them design a good virtualized infrastructure.

They get sold boxes and start migrating their physical servers to virtual ones (they like this, their running costs decrease and they don't need to buy as many boxes) but the wheels start coming off when hardware failures come knocking.

A customer was horrified when I explained to him that he would have had to buy at least another box with the same specs with the network infrastructure to accompany, to get his servers in a cluster. Apparently he thought that the box handled clustering by itself (!) and provided self redundancy (using faerie magic apparently). Another one was mystified that Vmware includes Vmotion which you can you configure to migrate running VMs to other nodes automatically and in case of failure but only if you pay the license. Seems like sending his plods to Vmware training was not budgeted or considered. If you don't know Vmware please go with Hyper-V. It may not have as many bells and whistles but its simple and plods adapt better to it.

0
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: never seen sizing be reasonably effective

I can wholeheartedly agree with you.

we have a 5 node ESX cluster, with each node consisting of a quad-socket Opteron 6174 (48 core total) and ~96 GB of ram. We have ~80 VMs running on the entire cluster at any given moment. The processors average right around 7%, but memory usage is easily averaging 65-75%. Our systems are running quite nicely, but there's a lot of wasted processor time on these nodes.

anon to protect my paycheck. :)

0
0