Is virtualization is doing more harm than good? That’s what a very good virtualization article from Datamation is asking. The article summarizes a December survey of 137 enterprises and says…
“…companies do much better in improving performance for business-critical applications when they’re in a physical environment, rather than in a virtualized environment. That’s because they lack the adequate tools to do so under virtualization…”
I wasn’t surprised that people still find the tools for managing virtual environments to be insufficient – after all, we’re still fairly early in the game on that front – but I was surprised at the magnitude of the impact from using inadequate tools:
“…the study found that keeping business-critical applications at peak performance may actually be harder in virtualized environments. For example, when using tools to manage business-critical applications in physical environments, 62 percent of the enterprises surveyed … reported improved mean time between repairs (MTBR). That figure dropped to 32 percent in the virtualized environment.
“…enterprises had an 85 percent success rate in identifying performance issues before they impacted end users — but only in setups that relied on a physical environment. The rate for virtualized environments was 37 percent.”
And there’s more in the full article.
The bottom line is that there is a need for better tools to manage virtual environments so that the teeming masses can get great results, not just the A-Team virtualizers (if you’re reading this blog, my informal data shows you just may be one of those, by the way).
The “big picture” management vendors are certainly trying to crack this and all of them are making grandiose announcements lately. But we’ve got a long way to go before the promise in the pipeline becomes tools-in-hand. And I think some of the more nimble, specialize vendors (like Tripwire, of course) will play a major role in this.
Give the article a read and let me know what you think.