Virtualization reality check

Cisco Systems' Unified Computing System announcement last week seemed to lift the whole industry out of its recession gloom.

All of a sudden, it seemed like massive virtual data centers and cloud computing were just around the corner. Cisco even talked about the fact that its new server platform supports massive amounts of memory so that large organizations can host hundreds of virtual machines on each physical server.

No one I know is more visionary about server virtualization than Mark Bowker, my colleague and Enterprise Strategy Group's virtualization guru, so I asked him what I should make of all of this virtualization gaga. Surprisingly, Bowker said that the industry is getting way ahead of itself and thinks it is time for a virtual reality check. Here are a few data points from ESG Research to back up Bowker's thoughts:

• The average number of virtual machines per physical server is between 5 and 10. This data was gathered from a survey of over 200 enterprise organizations (i.e. organizations with 1,000 employees or more).

• On average, enterprises have about 225 physical servers running server virtualization.

• The main reason why enterprises are deploying server virtualization is to consolidate Windows server workloads.

• Based upon qualitative research, Bowker believes that users are slow-rolling server virtualization because of systems management issues, security concerns, lack of virtualization skills in the IT organization, and I/O bottlenecks.

With this data, it is safe to assume that large organizations are taking a prudent approach to server virtualization. They are using the technology to improve server utilization, rationalize the number of physical devices, and lower costs. They are not building massive virtual data centers and cloud-based compute infrastructure--at least not yet.

In a few years, we will likely see hardware enclosures supporting virtual compute, storage, and networking "bricks." Plug in any brick and it can be utilized by any other brick in dynamic fashion. That said, we are miles away from this vision. Bowker reminds us all that we should judge virtualization technology based upon current deployment activities and near-term requirements, rather than on long-term blue-sky concepts.

[Flyinverted]

5 to 10 systems per host seems LOW by all accounts of what's happening in the real world. My environment consists of over 2,000 virtual machines with a 20:1 ratio or better for all hosts. SQL, Exchange, IIS, AD, etc have been virtualized on dual quad core systems. Alas, 5-10 systems per host is still better than 1:1.

[MadLyb]

I'm with @FlyInverted in this one, even 5:1 reduction is a significant reduction in physical overhead and 10:1 would be spectacular.

I do agree that there are still considerable issues to address, but that is the way technology works. We identify the next bottleneck and move on to solving it.

[Zsoldier]

5-10 is really low, but that really depends on the kind of hardware it's hosted on. I've got a ratio of about 21:1 w/ a hypothetical max of 60:1 on my current hardware. Cost-wise when broken down we only pay about $600 to $1500 per VM depending on it's requirements. Enterprises getting ahead of themselves? HA! Virtualization is about to explode if it has not already.

[wilsonrcraig]

Brocade CEO Mike Klako comments on this here: http://www.youtube.com/brocadevideo