By now, everyone in our industry has heard a future IT vision where virtual machines (VMs) migrate from one physical server to another for load balancing, disaster recovery, or maintenance windows. Sounds great in theory, but things in IT aren't this simple. Each VM actually represents an operating system and some associated services or applications. When VMs move around, will they maintain their configuration state or need to be reconfigured? Will multi-tiered applications know that one of their peers has moved to a new neighborhood? Will the network recognize the VM as an old friend or will it assume that it is a new entity? These questions need real answers--not PowerPoint slides.
Fortunately, some very smart people are already thinking about how to solve these dicey problems. The good folks at the Distributed Management Task Force recently published a standard called the Open Virtualization Format (OVF). In geek land, OVF is a way to describe the properties of VMs from the network layer up to the application so they can retain "state" as they are created or moved. As an analogy, think of OVF as a virtual machine's passport and visa. As the VM travels around, OVF gives it an identity, some personal information, and a description about what it can and can't do in its new location.
Good--and necessary--stuff. OVF is no fly-by-night effort, rather it is supported by a who's who of virtualization and industry bigwigs including Citrix, Dell, HP, IBM, Intel, Microsoft, Sun, Symantec, and VMware.
It's clear to me and my colleague, Mr. Virtualization, Mark Bowker, that OVF is exactly what the industry needs to push server virtualization toward more dynamic data centers and integration with cloud computing. What's somewhat of a mystery is why more technology vendors either don't know what OVF is or why they aren't supporting it. For example, Cisco's recent UCS announcement was all about taking server virtualization to a new plateau but there was no mention of OVF. When I asked company officials specifically about this, they told me that they aren't using OVF in UCS. To be fair, Cisco is certainly open to using OVF in the future, but I think my question caught them off guard. John Chamber's folks must have thought, "who is this guy and how does he know about OVF?"
Like many standards, my guess is that OVF is such a nerdy topic that few outside a few industry engineers know what the heck it is. To me, OVF is one standard that has tons of potential--if people know about it and use it. The industry has a responsibility to do a better job of communicating about these types of standards before vendors simply usurp the process with their own proprietary alternative. It would be an absolute crime if this happens.
By now you've read numerous blogs, articles, and tweets about the Cisco Unified Computing System (UCS) announcement. While this event may not carry the same weight as the IBM PC, System/360, or VAX, it is probably the most significant server announcement in many years.
Cisco deserves a lot of credit for its industry chutzpah. John Chambers and Co. were willing to risk deep relationships with HP and IBM to enter the server market. In this way, Cisco is adding new innovation to an old market and shaking up the industry as well.
OK, so what about the UCS products? Here is my quick evaluation:
Pluses
Innovative packaging that requires less rack space, power, and cooling than a standard blade server.
Designed for tight integration with server virtualization and the network.
a. Cisco Virtual switch (i.e. VN-Link) replaces VMware switch. This links virtual and physical networking policy and management.
b. Cisco adds extra memory to its server platforms, which enables it to increase the ratio of virtual servers hosted on each physical server.
Cisco manages the entire UCS virtual data center with one management platform. Cisco management can be integrated with other management platforms from vendors like BMC.
The overall strength is in integrating and improving both storage and network I/O. In this regard, Cisco could have a significant performance advantage in large data center deployments.
Minuses
Extremely proprietary architecture. Heck, Cisco is implementing its own version of Ethernet (What is more standard than Ethernet, for heaven's sake?) to consolidate storage and network I/O. The "real" standards won't be in place for another year or two.
This is a brand new arena for Cisco where its market share is 0 percent. With Dell, HP, and IBM well established in this market, expect enterprise CIOs to proceed with extreme caution.
The advantages of this architecture are minimal in a mixed environment. Today, all enterprises have other servers, and heterogeneous server support is not a core feature of this announcement.
Systems management has always been a Cisco weakness. HP and IBM are much better positioned here.
Cisco is aiming for the clouds both figuratively and literally. It is betting that its highly integrated virtual UCS is the best fit for massive data centers and cloud computing. This is probably true as of now, but Dell, HP, and IBM can certainly respond with product enhancements and open standards to bridge this gap. In the meantime, Brocade and Juniper should benefit immensely as server providers look for Cisco alternatives. HP will likely buy Extreme Networks or Force 10 to bolster the high end of its ProCurve networking product offering.
Ten years from now, tech industry historians will remember at least two things about 2009: the economic mess and the Cisco UCS announcement. If nothing else, Cisco just made the industry much more exciting than it was last Friday.
- prev
- 1
- next
