Michael Warrilow at Hydrasight makes a strong case for why management tools need to support heterogeneous hypervisors. His strongest argument, in my mind, is the affinity of specific jobs to specific hypervisors. An example is Oracle’s database support only on Oracle’s version of Xen. In the realm of virtual lab management and the application lifecycle, the affinity of specific jobs to hypervisors couples with the natural heterogeneity of the production data center environment to make support for such heterogeneity a key requirement for replicating production application configurations in a virtual lab. We also believe that the ubiquity of Visual Studio as a development environment in the enterprise will result in broad deployment of Windows Server 2008 in development – which will give Hyper-V a strong initial foothold and will create new opportunities for using virtualization in unit, integration and functional testing.
What do you think?
Link: The inevitability of heterogeneous hypervisor management
David Marshall post on his InfoWorld blog regarding VMware’s lifecycle management announcements from VMworld Europe. David questions the fragmented approach taken by VMware and quote’s VMlogix’s Ravi Gururaj and Surgient regarding how we compete at this level with VMware.
I spoke yesterday to Cameron Sturdevant at eWeek regarding virtual labs and Surgient’s upcoming release schedule. One of the topics we got into was the struggle that IT operations teams seem to have reconciling their current chargeback mechanisms with a more dynamic virtualized environment. I suggested that RAM/hour or some other memory capacity-based approach worked best. Cameron wrote about it on his Permit/Deny blog.
Virtual Lab Management Blog 