The session took place at the beginning of Partner Day. The “regular” conference sessions actually begin tomorrow. Today is spent focusing on partner issues and enablement.

The panel for this session included:

• Mark Chuang Group Manager, Product Marketing, VMware, Inc.
• Kenon Owens Staff Systems Engineer, VMware, Inc.

You have to remember that most of the Partners here are not vendors like ScienceLogic, but big and small shops that are selling IT, networking and now virtualization solutions into end-customer environments. For these guys, understanding what virtualization partner programs and tools are at NetApp, for example, is very useful. And many of these companies are already selling Microsoft software and surrounding services for Microsoft products. So if you’re VMware, what’s the message to these partners in the face of the Microsoft juggernaut?

Microsoft to partners: “You may not like to admit it, but you’re probably already in bed with us.”

VMware to partners: “Our hypervisor technology outperforms Hyper-V and Xen, especially at scale. And anyway, it’s not about the battle at the hypervisor. It’s about the V-services on top of the hypervisor – VMotion, Storage VMotion, DRS, etc.”

Interesting and what we all already know, or think we know. The scale issue is an interesting one – too soon for Hyper-V and who uses Xen? But also interestingly enough, no announcement or even talk about extending VMware management tools to other hypervisors. The point, as the VMware product marketing guy made a point of saying, is that the question they needed to answer used to be “Why Virtualization?” and now it’s “Why VMware?”.

One more tidbit – this survey run by VMware asking their customers:

What are the top 6 apps you are running on VMware today

• IIS
• Apache
• Active Directory
• SQL Server
• Sharepoint
• Exchange

That means, 5 of 6 are Microsoft applications. Certainly it makes it even more challenging for VMware to navigate a path here.

The change since 2004 – would have talked about why virtualize. And now why VMware. (Duh.)

Talking to partners – many of which already have a successful Microsoft business. How VMware enhances your existing Microsoft business.

Top 6 apps running on VMware today (5 of 6 are Microsoft applications)

• IIS
• Apache
• AD
• Sql server
• Sharepoint
• Exchange

Source: VMware survey

Esxi - VMware – true thin hypervisor; maximizes resources utilization (over 100% memory commitment – allows avg of 2:1 memory overcommit) – host system memory is usually the resource bottleneck – plus Advanced Scheduler runs VMs better under load and to a greater capacity (hard to show this part); performance acceleration – using binary translation (32bit), para-virtualization and Hardware Assist (for 64-bit)

(rvi – rapid virtualization indexing)

No parent partition that all hypervisors have to go through

Vs ms/xen

Parent partition – dom 0 => potentially problem at scale; i/o that could be a bottleneck

Hyper-v SPECjbb comparison

= 9 vms on VMware and hyper-v hypervisors

Outperform (CPU) by 50% - general purpose scheduler isn’t able to keep up? “got to be”

(cpu only test)

Also used VMmark – to demonstrate again that VMware is performance tuned and designed to run at scale vs Hyper-V

Size Does Matter:

Vmware ESXi: 32MB

Hyper-v – 2.6 GB

Xen – 1.2 GB

Hyper-V uses Microsoft Server Core – so the last two Patch Tuesdays had to make changes to Server Core (nothing to do with Hyper-V) but service interruption for Hyper-V.

VMware VMsafe – “Provides an unprecedented level of security” “virtual is more secure than Real” (uh oh – clearly didn’t read about the

*****************

VMware TEST:512 mb vms on server w/ 4gb ram –

7 vms - xensource (w/no memory overcommit)

6vms – hyper-v before error (w/no memory overcommit)

14vms - w/memory overcommit and management

Running sql io sim – heavy workloads

TCO – not just license; now ESXi is free – so hardware

809 - ESXi

871 – vi3 foundation ($995)

1168- vi3 enterprise ($5750)

1621 – hyper-v – 2x cost because of hw

Xen – 1618

Memory overcommit (89% in production vs. test/dev)

Survey – 37% of respondents at 2:1 RATIO OR HIGHER; real average is around 1.8: 1

*********************

This guy Mark sounds like a used car salesman:

“Always On, On Demand Data Center”

Hypervisor is very important but what is more important are the v-services on top of this. Manage shared, pooled resources. “Value Above the Hypervisor”

How does all this save “your customers” $$?

VMotion – saves cost on planned maintenance: no more overtime, no more time scheduling maintenance windows (see cost framework below)

10 (# of servers) x 6 (@ of updates) x [ (overtime cost 2hrs x $150/hr) + (scheduling downtime # of apps per server 15 x time spend scheduling per app 0.75 hr x $50/hr)] = $58,500

Same thing with using VMware Storage VMotion

Overtime cost + scheduling downtime + planning move + alternative tool cost - $68,750 (2.5 TeraBytes)

The Value of High Availability

- cost of lost business, lost work

- cost of lost productive time

4 hours of downtime x # of users per vm 10 x number of vms per host 15 x cost of user productive time $50/hr x failures per year in 10-host cluster 2 = $60K

(10 servers, 150 vms)

SAVINGS (using enterprise version)

Update management 149,760

HA 60K

DRS, VMotion Storage VMotion 187,250

808,259 – hw, power cooling, etc.

First of all, let’s ground the discussion a bit by translating “smart order routing” to “rule-based message routing” since in this application “smart”  translates to “using rules” and “order” translates to “message”.    Basically, Mark (and other “new on the routing scene” stream processing players) argue that rule-based message routing is CEP.  I will argue that routing is not even close to CEP.  Here is why,

Let’s take a look at a router on the backbone of the global Internet.   A backbone router has very sophisticated software developed over many decades.   These routers run sophisticated, mature algorithms to determine how to route messages (packets) and use these algorithms to build complex routing tables. 

In addition, these routers process messages (packets) from countless sources and route messages (packets) to countless destinations.  Using some of the terms in early posts (above), there is a great “confluence of events” processed by routers.    Futhermore, there are normally quite complex authentication, authorization and other security parameters managed in a router, all in real time.   Routers do much more, but I don’t want to get too deep into routing in this post.

My point is that, without any doubt, global Internet routers process very “cloudy” “confluence of events” with much more sophistication than order routing applications.    However, we do not call Internet routing “CEP”, regardless of how many connections are processed or how much sophisticated processing occurs.  The reason is because the “C” in “CEP” defines a complexity that is at a higher abstraction than messaging and routing.

If you study the literature on CEP, some of which I posted recently, CEP was envisioned to solve complex event processing problems “on top of the routing layer” because the routing layer is a mature technology layer.  We can route, pure and simple.  Of course, we are always seeking faster, more scaleable and more secure routing. 

I admire some of the startups in the CEP/ESP/EP space for working hard to make money and for aggressively positioning their products and attempting to build market share.   However, issues surface when these same companies seem to believe they are the first companies to work in the event processing or message routing space and that they can define whatever they want as “complex event processing” as long as it benefits their sales targets.

There is no doubt that a router does much more sophisticated event processing than the new rule-based stream processing systems running continuous queries across streaming data.  There is no doubt that a router processes a complex “confluence of events”.   However, we don’t call routers “CEP”. 

We do not call routers “CEP” because CEP is about a higher level of knowledge processing.  CEP was created to detect the “complex events” that happen above the mediation and routing layer.     The literature and original examples on CEP are quite clear on this.

You will discern a certain amount of enthusiasm for blocking, and for a “something must be done” approach. However, in coming to their conclusions, they do not, in my view, seem to have listened too hard to the evidence, or sought out expertise elsewhere in the world…

Google/YouTube told them that 10 hours of video was posted every minute, and the amount is increasing. In the oral evidence session an MP helpfully suggested: “That video content is tagged. You do not need to look at every single minute of video content. Surely you could have people who would look at the video content which is tagged with labels which suggest it could be inappropriate.” Of course “happy_slapping.wmv” or “fluffy_bunnies.avi” must always contain exactly what it says on the tin (not!) but unaccountably Google said it was a “fair suggestion”, so perhaps my cynicism is misplaced.

However, back to blocking.

I submitted some evidence of my own, which the committee summarised, reasonably accurately:

Dr Richard Clayton, a researcher in the Security Group of the Computer Laboratory at Cambridge University and author of several academic papers on methods for blocking access to Internet content, pointed out that there was no single blocking method which was both inexpensive and discerning enough to block access to only one part of a large website (such as FaceBook). In his view, the fatal flaw of all network-level blocking schemes was the ease with which they could be overcome, either by encrypting content or by the use of proxy services hosted outside the UK.

The committee’s conclusion, having read this was:

At a time of rapid technological change, it is difficult to judge whether blocking access to Internet content at network level by Internet service providers is likely to become ineffective in the near future. However, this is not a reason for not doing so while it is still effective for the overwhelming majority of users.

which I suppose logically means that the committee thinks that blocking should now be discarded as a policy option — but somehow I think that isn’t their intended meaning.

The Committee should perhaps have a look at this Australian report, which found that ISP level content filtering (and in Australia the politicians want to use ISP level filtering to provide a child-friendly Internet) did work (up to a point) at Tier 3 (the smallest) ISPs. The up-to-a-point is that unlike previous tests the systems didn’t completely wreck the browsing experience by slowing it down. However, the systems blocked only 85-98% of illegal material and similar percentages of material suitable for adults but not for younger children. Interestingly some products were better at different categories.

Getting that many sites wrong is really quite significant, so it’s difficult to see this as a ringing endorsement for blocking the web. Additionally, the Australian report found that the blocking was useless on “non-web” protocols (such as peer-to-peer) and their report specifically didn’t consider cost, or ease of circumvention — so it’s not just UK politicians not wanting to consider evidence on that topic!

Finally, I should note that the Culture Media and Sport Committee has also ignored some rather more recent academic work. The MPs have put into their report that they were horrified to discover that child sexual abuse images took 24 hours to remove in the UK. What (should they ever learn of it) will they make of the recent discovery by Tyler Moore and myself that shows that if the website is hosted abroad then a month is more to be expected?