Posted on July 13th, 2010 by Steve Cassidy
Why small businesses should care about VMware vSphere 4.1
Today, VMware has released the next version of its hypervisor: vSphere 4.1 is an incremental update to its low-level dedicated virtual host, with roots in the Linux codebase buried deep under man-centuries of coding effort by VMware’s virtualisation gurus. So what is it, and why should you care?
VSphere is the gadget which was offered as bootable from a USB key, so the whole of your host machine’s disk farm was available for guests: look inside an enterprise grade server and you can see the little internal USB sockets for this purpose.
I haven’t seen many setups that bother to go that far: most smaller businesses have trouble steeling themselves for a jump to a complete separation between compute resource and storage resource, so for them it is a relief that vSphere 4.1 can be installed on a single simple regular PC’s one lonely SATA hard drive, just as if it was an old-school operating system. Getting the 60 day free trial for small businesses as a proof of concept in this case doesn’t require a £20,000 Storage Area Network.
As always, you have to chop through the verbiage with the machete of righteous tight-fistedness to see what a small business gains from an update like this. VMware sent Raghu Raghuram over to the UK last week for a pre-release chat and I subjected him to the delights of an early morning breakfast in Smithfield Market, which didn’t faze him at all – we chatted about the usefulness of memory compression and the dubious take up of virtual machine host mobility over the beans and fried bread: I always think that blue-sky conversations about software enhancements to permit the management of 10,000 virtual machines from a single operator console are best done somewhere that real workers are clearly visible doing real work.
While most of our conversation was about the challenges that beset the very highest end of the virtualisation marketplace, I spotted a couple of points that make the small business trial definitely useful to help you understand what’s happening inside a virtual server.
One is that the memory footprint of a guest machine inside a vSphere 4.1 host has been reduced by 25%, by some clever-clogs memory compression by the hypervisor. So a candidate host machine which previously could only fit two guests inside the installed memory now has a fighting chance of hosting a third. The other is that vSphere 4.0 let you see and manipulate how much memory and processor each guest is permitted to monopolise, with little sliders: VSphere 4.1 adds storage bandwidth to that list.
In smaller businesses, I always find that the impact of more and faster storage is always the hardest thing to demo – and yet, it is also the change that has the biggest visible effect on daily operations. Being able to waggle a slider and demonstrate a guest machine job going quick, slow, quick quick slow, has to be a big plus.
I won’t try to delve into every last feature here: there will be more to come. I’d be interested to hear what other people think, though. If you download the trial, feel free to post your thoughts below.
You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.
15 Responses to “ Why small businesses should care about VMware vSphere 4.1 ”
Leave a Reply
Authors
- Barry Collins
- Chris Brennan
- Christine Horton
- Darien Graham-Smith
- Dave Stevenson
- Davey Winder
- David Bayon
- David Fearon
- Ewen Rankin
- Ian Devlin
- Jon Honeyball
- Jonathan Bray
- Kevin Partner
- Mike Jennings
- Nicole Kobie
- Sasha Muller
- Steve Cassidy
- Stewart Mitchell
- Stuart Turton
- Tim Danton
- Tom Arah
Categories
- About the bloggers
- Android App of the Week
- cloud computing
- From Gmail to Hotmail
- Green
- Hardware
- How To
- iPhone App of the Week
- Just in
- Microsoft Office 2010
- Newsdesk
- Online business
- Random
- Rant
- Real World Computing
- Software
- View from the Labs
- Web
- Windows 7
- Windows 8
Archives
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010
- September 2010
- August 2010
- July 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
advertisement


July 13th, 2010 at 4:23 pm
It would be useful to mention the price. The vSphere essentials kit supports 3 servers with up to 2 sockets each for £380 plus vat. That’s enough to virtualise 8-20 servers. The only thing you have to fear is fear itself!
July 13th, 2010 at 4:34 pm
Thankyou, Milligan… I checked back through the press release and 4.1 has no pricing info on it, as yet. If it stays the same then it will be as you say, though 20 servers on 6 sockets would mean that on average each guest had 20/24 or 1.2 of a CPU each… which would be a tad on the tight side, until 8 core dies are more common!
July 14th, 2010 at 10:25 pm
How does 6 (sockets) x 6 (cores) make 24?
Shouldn’t it be 20/36 ratio (1.8 cpu’s each for 20 guests)
July 15th, 2010 at 6:55 am
This looks like a great solution for the small businesses.
And as vSphere 4.1 is only £380 it seems well worth going for vSphere over ESXi.
July 15th, 2010 at 6:55 am
http://store.vmware.com/store/vmware/DisplayProductDetailsPage/ProductID.126843700/Currency.GBP
July 15th, 2010 at 3:13 pm
Consolidation ratios are one of the most contentious issues in virtualisation. Many organisations have very lightly loaded servers, e.g. DNS, AD Backup, the box the accounts group says has to be stand-alone. These consolidate at quite a high ratio onto modern multi-core + Lotsamemory servers.
Virtualisation encourages “single function” machines as they have little hardware cost. However Microsoft Server licencing can become an issue as it’s very easy to create a “free” server in a few minutes.
Virtualisation makes it much easier to “try” Linux -e.g. slipping in a LAMP server or using Linux as a proxy server, SMTP relay or similar.
Virtualisation is also great for skunkworks (IT directors can now start pulling hair) as there is no hardware cost to get approved.
July 18th, 2010 at 8:46 am
the site says “VMware vSphere Essentials Includes license and 1 year of subscription” – so is this USD495 of aboiut GBP330 in perpetuity?
July 23rd, 2010 at 3:39 pm
1.2CPU’s per VM?! Sounds like luxury to me!. I think ours are more like 0.35/VM…
July 24th, 2010 at 12:17 am
Are you about to do the Virtual Yorkshireman Sketch? “When I wuz a lad all we had was linux floppies. Floppies, I tll yer! Luxury! Kids today…”
July 26th, 2010 at 3:49 pm
Floppy? What’s one of those?
Actually, I’m going to boast now… I found some magneto-optical media, the other day! It gave me a warm fuzzy feeling all over.
Re VMWare – I’ve been amazed at how well it copes (within the remit of what we’re doing etc etc) when you start running out of CPUs. Our VM’s don’t all get hammered all at the same time, so at the moment (lots of memory, and some fantastic data-storage) everything runs very smoothly. That’s not to say I haven’t budgetted in some more CPU licenses for next year, though!
August 13th, 2010 at 11:50 am
We’re looking for better management tools on the Vmware site and frankly, I gave up. From having three or four products anda simple set up there’s now a myriad of utter drivel, nothing less than marketting vomit pouring from the thing.
Nonsense such as opex and fopex is useless. All we want is a tool to move our vms from one sotre to another, without being charged £2000 for something so full of BS there’s no sense in what it does.
Half the time you’re trapped in an HTML cul-de-sac where the very simple thing you want to see is deliberately hidden from you.
Am I the only one finding their site deliberately awkward? Why do their sales people start off with the most expensive product? Is it to put you off? Are they trying to be bigger than they are?
We started with ESXi 4 and now I find there are endless iterations of that simple product, most of which cost money. I’m fed up with the verbiage. I really am. Could someone point me toward a simple tool that will allow us to better manage our VMs over the free included vSphere client.
VSphere server apparently doesn’t like my processor. Why, I don’t know. Very seriously, they’re driving potential customers away.
August 13th, 2010 at 11:58 am
Sir needs to read a bit of the Microsoft documentation on licencing, where it advises the consumption of a “strong tuscan red” to help the humble customer make head or tail of the proposed arrangement. And yes, they *do* expect people to mistakenly buy the more expensive version because they list it first. I agree, it’s hardly flattering to the customer. Incidentally; under what circumstances do you find you want to move a guest from one store, to another?
September 28th, 2010 at 4:09 pm
The result of making things seem more expensive and using fluffy waffle doesn’t help them make a sale – it just drives us and our budget – elsewhere. If there was a tool for £200 odd which allowed us to move running VMs around we’d probably buy it, as long as it allowed us to move amongst a large population of systems.
We use our four ESXi servers as development servers – at any one time we’ve between 30-40 or so systems running as test rigs. These on little Proliant ML110s!
Often we’ve looked at consolidating data, backing up or otherwise managing guests better – a test mail server for example may need to be moved between the hosts in the event of downtime or for higher performance during a test run.
Is there something out there that could do this?
September 29th, 2010 at 10:36 am
I don’t think they are trying to be bigger than they are – I think they really are that big! In *theory* you could make an enormous SAN out of more ML110’s, FreeNAS, and a secondhand layer-3 capable switch – but it would be immensely experimental.
September 30th, 2010 at 1:47 pm
Sounds like our whole setup! We looked at FreeNAS and for whatever reason didn’t feel the RAID 5 setup was robust enough.
I know VMware have grown but the tiers they place the products into, the gumph they use to promote seemingly trivial differences deter us more than attract us.
That said though, our setup isn’t typical as each tester has their own host, so we’re using local storage mostly, not a SAN as yet. We’re just looking for a backup system that’s easy to deploy.