Mark Vaughn's Weblog

Weblog of Mark Vaughn, and IT professional and vExpert specializing in Enterprise Architecture, virtualization, web architecture and general technology evangelism

Page 4 of 7

vSphere 5 Licensing Thoughts

VMware added over 130 new features to the next version of their flagship hypervisor, vSphere 5. Due to be released in Q3 of 2011, vSphere 5 will see the next step in the evolution of virtualization, enabling a number of new technologies and providing a solid infrastructure for cloud computing. Along with improved features, VMware is also introducing a new licensing model meant to prepare vSphere for the future.

Processors are changing. VMware has acknowledged that the current emphasis on licensing by processor, with restrictions on the number of cores, will not match up to where CPU capabilities are going. With vSphere 4, CPU licenses had core limitations that varied between either 6 cores or 12 cores, based on edition.

Processors with 8 and 12 cores are becoming more common, and will soon be the standard. To accomodate this, VMware has removed all limitations based on processor cores from its vSphere 5 licensing model. However, as new servers with two twelve core processors and high memory capacities become more common, VMware has placed a new emphasis on memory in its licensing model. To be specific, virtual memory is allocated to a running virtual machine.

Let’s first break down the licensing models for vSphere 4 and vSphere 5, then review a few possible scenarios:

vSphere 4
Edition Price
Standard $795
Advanced $2,245
Enterprise $2,875
Enterprise Plus $3,495
vSphere 5
Edition Price
Standard $995
Enterprise $2,875
Enterprise Plus $3,495
Scenario One – 4 Moderate Servers:
CPU Per Server = 2 x 6-Core CPU
RAM Per Server = 96GB

CPU in Pool = 8
RAM in Pool = 384GB
vRAM Licensed in Pool = 384GB

In this scenario, nothing will change. The only potential impact would be if you heavily oversubscribed memory and actually had more than 384GB of vRAM assigned to running VMs simultaneously. Though not recommend, this could be done. In that case, one additional license would be added to the pool; the additional CPU would not be assigned to a server, but the additional vRAM would be consumed from the pool.

Scenario Two – 4 Larger Servers:
CPU Per Server = 2 x 6-core CPU
RAM Per Server = 128GB

CPU in Pool = 8
RAM in Pool = 512GB
vRAM Licensed in Pool = 384GB

In this scenario, migrating to the vSphere 5 licensing model would likely not have an immediate impact unless more than 75% of physical RAM was currently committed to running VMs. Once 384GB of vRAM is allocated, an additional license will be required. The CPU of the new license will not be used, but the licensed vRAM pool will grow to 432GB. If the environment grows beyond 432GB of allocated vRAM, then add another license and grow the vRAM pool to 480GB.

Scenario Three – 4 Very Large Servers:
CPU Per Server = 2 x 8-Core
RAM Per Server = 192GB

CPU in Pool = 8
RAM in Pool = 768GB
vRAM Licensed in Pool = 384GB

This scenario is most likely going to impacted. Historically, this is a rare configuration that is general only used in a few special cases. Often, the CPU in this scenario will max out long before the RAM is consumed. In this scenario, additional licenses will have to be purchased for the purpose of adding additional RAM to the vRAM pool. The amount of additional licenses will be driven by overall consumption, and not tied directly to any one server.

Scenario Four – 2 Very Large Servers (migrating from 4 large servers)
CPU Per Server = 2 x 12-Core
RAM Per Server = 192GB

CPU in Pool = 4
RAM in Pool = 384GB
vRAM Licensed in Pool = 192GB

This is a hardware refresh scenario resulting from migrating from the 4 Moderate Servers shown in Scenario one in order to leverage higher CPU core densities and higher RAM capacities of the newer servers. Though there are only 4 CPUs in this configuration, you already owned 8 CPU licenses from scenario one. Those additional licenses would bring the vRAM pool up to 384GB, matching the physical RAM in the pool. You would be going from scenario one with 48 CPU cores and 384GB RAM, to scenario four with 48 CPU cores and 384GB RAM. This scenario cuts 4 physical servers down to 2 and 8 CPU sockets down to 4, but does not change overall CPU or memory capacities. Likewise, licensing requirements would be unchanged.

Scenario Five – 4 Moderate Servers:
CPU Per Server = 2 x 6-Core CPU
RAM Per Server = 96GB

CPU in Pool = 8
RAM in Pool = 384GB
vRAM Licensed in Pool = 384GB

In this scenario, the servers are dedicated for a disaster recovery role. Their resources are generally unused. By connecting the vCenter server in this environment to your production vCenter server (as linked vCenter servers), you not only gain better visibility for administration but you will also bring an additional 384GB of vRAM into your production pool for allocation. In a linked configuration, all vCenter servers will pool their licenses into one aggregate pool.

Summary:

There are now two factors to consider in determining license needs. First, determine licensing needs based on physical CPU count. Then assess the total vRAM allocation across all VMs within your environment (which may span multiple locations if using linked vCenter servers). Your license count will need to be sized to cover both of those numbers.

One option to consider is leveraging unused vRAM capacity from environments that may traditionally not consume high levels of vRAM. These could include environments hosting Unified Communications deployments or even disaster recovery environments. Simply use the linked vCenter feature to combine all of these licenses into a common pool. I have always recommended organizations link all of their vCenter servers together, for the many administrative advantages this configuration provides. However, with the new licensing model, such a configuration can also provide for better license utilization.

In terms of availability and agility, it is also important to note that vRAM limits are “soft” limits that are monitored and alerted on, but will not actually prevent a virtual machine from being powered on. You are bound by your End User License Agreement to comply with these license limits, but VMware has chosen to monitor based on this metric and not actually impose hard limits that may negatively impact your ability to respond to business demands.

Related links:

http://www.vmware.com/files/pdf/vsphere_pricing.pdf

http://www.vmware.com/files/pdf/techpaper/Whats-New-VMware-vSphere-50-Platform-Technical-Whitepaper.pdf

http://www.virtu-al.net/2011/07/14/vsphere-5-license-entitlements/

Beware of Free Puppies

One of my co-workers, Chris Reed (www.creedtek.com), uses the analogy that the most expensive pet you can get is a free dog. The initial cost is great. How can you get cheaper than $0? However, this transaction is followed by the vet bills, the inevitable property damage and the chewed up slippers. Free dogs rarely have their shots, which puppies need several rounds of. They usually need to be “fixed”, and I like to add in a location chip. Soon, you have shelled out a significant amount of cash on a free pet.

Many people will adopt a similar approach to virtualization, selecting a free product with the assumption that it will save them money. Can that work? Yes. Are there hidden costs to be aware of, and even expect in the near future? Definitely. Can those costs be significant? Yes, and they can be quite significant.

If you are comparing free hypervisors, then it comes down to features. Microsoft includes more features in their free version than VMware, but their features are less robust than the same features from VMware. And as you move into the higher licensing levels to migrate into an enterprise solutions, VMware’s features are significantly more robust. That could mean starting on one hypervisor at the free level, then having to change hypervisors as your environment matures. That can be a VERY painful process.

I wrote more on this topic in my last article “Free virtualization: It’s free for a reason“. I would also recommend going to www.virtualizationmatrix.com for a great break down of features between Citrix, Microsoft and VMware at various versions of their products. Andreas Groth has done a significant amount of research to build that matrix.

True Heroes

I am a proud supporter of the US Military, and serve with The Fort Worth Air Power Council. My father retired after 34 years as a C-130 pilot, and my brother has almost 20 years in the military as a C-130 navigator. In honor of the sacrifices made by so many in uniform, as well as the families that they leave behind, I wanted to share this story. This involves my brother, and was originally printed in a military journal. These events are from 2006.


C-130 aircrew evacuates girl on Father’s Day

by Master Sgt. Orville F. Desjarlais, 455th Air Expeditionary Wing

BAGRAM AIRFIELD, Afghanistan –  When Maj. Wayne Vaughn looked down at the injured 12-year-old girl clinging to life on a litter being loaded in the back of his C-130 Hercules, he thought, “How can they do this? How can they try and kill a little girl?”

Taliban extremists had bombed a girls’ school in Herat in eastern Afghanistan on Sunday, June 18, killing four and injuring 11.

The little girl had a broken back and collarbone, head injuries and was in critical condition.

Major Vaughn, a navigator, automatically thought of his three daughters at home. When he returned from the mission, he planned to call them because it was Father’s Day.

For the 774th Expeditionary Airlift Squadron aircrew, all from a Texas Air National Guard unit from Fort Worth, Texas, the day started much like every other day, with orders to fly distinguished visitors, soldiers, supplies and equipment around Afghanistan.

During the last leg of the mission, after loading half a dozen passengers, they cranked up their four engines and began to roll across the ramp when the control tower squawked a message over the radio.

The air traffic controller asked if the crew could wait five minutes for an emergency medical evacuation.

Try as they might, the aircrew couldn’t communicate with any higher authorities to get authorization to fly the mission. None of their communication devices would work, for whatever reason.  They were also pressing the limit on the amount of time they were authorized to fly that day, so they desperately needed to contact someone to get approval to extend their flying hours.

Meanwhile, when they learned it was a 12-year-old patient, they looked at each other and knew what they had to do. The aircraft commander, Maj. Tim Gibbons, made the final call.

The father of two boys, ages 12 and 9, said, “Let’s do it.”

“We were going to do it no matter what, even if we got in trouble,” Major Gibbons said. “We were tired, but we weren’t exhausted. The (International Security Assistance Force) told us we were her last chance.”

ISAF is a NATO-run organization whose goal is to help Afghanistan reach a self-sustaining peace and security.

For the C-130 aircrew, the ISAF involvement meant more communication problems.

“In the back of the plane, we had Americans, Italians, Spanish and Albanians,” Major Gibbons said, “and only the Italian doctor could speak English.”

Also, at the spur of the moment, loadmasters Master Sgt. Justin Vogel and Staff Sgt. Justin Bell had to reconfigure the aircraft so it could handle the litter.

When the ambulance arrived, Major Vaughn pulled off his headset and went to the back of the plane to help load the girl.

When he grabbed the litter and looked at the girl, he wondered how anyone could do such a thing.  He heard reports about the Taliban targeting girls’ schools because they didn’t believe women should be educated, but to actually see the results firsthand was something else.

The hour-and-a-half flight to Kabul was uneventful.  When they landed, an ambulance whisked the little girl away.

When the aircrew returned here, they made Father’s Day calls home.

“It was good to call home and realize that my children are not in the same world as the kids here,” Major Gibbons said.  “But it’s mission like that that make these deployments worth it.”

Mind the “Air Gap”

<IMAGE MISSING>

I regularly work with organizations that are wary of mixing public and private workloads in a common virtualization environment. Whether it is mixing public and private workloads, mixing multiple organizations on a common virtual infrastructure or simply mixing workloads from various internal networks, there is still a lot of concern around the security aspects of this discussion. Many people still look at one physical server, and get uneasy about different workloads sharing that server. Logically, many people relate it to sharing an operating system and that is the root of many concerns. This is an easy misconception, since traditional deployments have long been just that, one operating system for each physical server. If not properly explained, virtualization remains a black box to many people and old perceptions remain in place.

This is where we, as consultants and virtualization architects, need to do a better job of explaining new technologies. In this, case, it is not even a new technology, just a real lack of education in the marketplace. In 2001, the National Security Agency (NSA) worked with VMware on a project called NetTop to develop a platform for mixing secure and non-secure workloads on a common device. Previously the NSA maintained an “Air Gap” policy of not letting servers with mixed security needs touch each other. With the NetTop project, the NSA leveraged virtualization to bring these workloads onto a common server or workstation. This was not 2 years ago, but 10 years ago. And the security measures deployed in NetTop have only been improved on since then.

In fact, in 2007, the NSA came back to VMware to develop their High Assurance Platform (HAP). I won’t pretend to know your security needs, but I know virtualization has long been used for mixing highly sensitive data by people who live and die by data security.

You can read more on this in my latest TechTarget article:
http://searchservervirtualization.techtarget.com/news/2240036024/Mind-the-air-gap-Can-security-and-consolidation-coexist

Lessons from the clouds

In my MBA studies, many classes touched on Herb Kelleher and Southwest Airlines. Mr. Kelleher was an excellent example of how leadership should be done, and he led Southwest to growth in a very difficult market. As I revisit my previous studies, I now see technology lessons that parallel the business lessons.

<IMAGE MISSING>

Southwest simplified operational costs by selecting a single model of airplane and focusing on high-density routes. They also rode out some short term spikes in oil prices by leveraging advanced purhcases of airline fuel.

To read how these lessons relate to IT, visit my article “Successful virtualization strategies learned from the airline industry” at SearchServerVirtualization, then come back here to leave comments.

iPad vCenter Client

Had to throw out a quick comment on the new iPad vCenter Client from VMware.

For over a year now, VMware has offered the vCenter Mobile Access (vCMA) appliance. I have used it internally, but it has never caught on as well as I had thought. One drawback was the lack of SSL support, and that was fixed last week. Here are some quick screenshots of vCMA in action (these were on an iPad, it is really made to be viewed on a smaller PDA or phone screen, so some screens have excess whitespace):

<IMAGES MISSING>

vCMA was a great tool, but it just got better. VMware has developed a new iPad vCenter Client that leverages the vCMA to provide an even better user interface. Like the vCMA, the iPad vCenter Client can only do about 50% of the standard functions available in the Windows vCenter Client, but they are now committed to growing this application and adding more functionality. From some of the pre-launch discussions I was able to be in, VMware is very excited about this tool and anxious to begin expanding it’s functionality. The iPad client connects through the vCMA, and I am not sure I will be exposing it to the internet any time soon. I only operate a lab, and the vCMA now has SSL support, but I have VPN access and will likely use that to allow vCMA to stay behind the firewall…for now. Here are some shots of the iPad client, and you can see how much it improves on the previous vCMA interface:

<IMAGES MISSING>

As you can see in the images above (click on any to enlarge them), you can view the stats for ESXi hosts and for the VMs from the main screen. There is a small stats icon in the upper right corner of each VM’s image that will change its image form a banner representing the OS to a stats chart. Once you drill down to a VM, you can perform start/stop/suspend/restart functions, as well as restore snapshots. You can also view recent events, monitor stats and perform tests (ping and traceroute). Not bad for a convenient app you take with you on an iPad.

Steve Herrod, CTO at VMware, officially announced the iPad vCenter Client this morning, along with a link to this article on VMware’s CTO blog site.

Eric Siebert (virtualization guru and fellow vExpert) also wrote a great post on this at vSphere-Land. Be sure to follow the “full article” and “part 2” links at the bottom of the article to get more information and installation instructions.

As great as this client is, do not feel left out if you do not have an iPad (or if you use one of those inferior tablets…Aaron ;-), you can still use the vCMA from almost any mobile browser on a cell phone or tablet. Though the interface is not as refined, it will provide the same basic functionality.

Managing in Muddy Waters

Virtualization management tools are popping up everywhere, and some are much better than others. In fact, few really shine at this point.Part of the problem is that these tools are attempting to tame a wild animal. Virtualization technologies are expanding and growing at a blinding pace, and no one can truly keep up with the current pace of change…let alone manage it.

Vendors like VKernel, Veeam and Quest are doing a good job, but don’t hold your breathe looking for one tool to rule them all. There will always be advanced features within a hypevisor that management tools have not caught up to. You will either have to limit yourself to the tools supported by your management platform (better pick a robust platform or you will be crippling your hypervisor and destroying your ROI), or you will have to accept that you will still use the native hypervisor management tools to manage advanced features (limiting the ROI on the new management tool).

This trade off is frustrating, but one that will not go away until the pace of change within virtualization technologies slows down considerably. In other words, this will not change any time soon.

Though I generally recommend against it, I admit there may be reasonable cases for mixing hypervisors within an environment. As you evaluate decisions like that, be sure to consider the impact on ROI. OpEx can go through the roof in those scenarios and easily wipe out the CapEx savings used to justify the decision. If you are then looking to a management tool to bring the two hypervisors together in a single pane of glass, do not set your expectations too high on the capabilities of any tool to provide a high value in that scenario. The few tools that could make any real impact there may be cost prohibitive. Before you know it, you have pushed both the CapEx and OpEx through the roof trying to manage a mixed environment.

This topic can go pretty deep, and in a hundred directions. I welcome your feedback and comments. I written an article on this topic at SearchServerVirtualization – “Virtualization management tools: Navigating the muddy waters”. Be sure to check that out, then come back here to leave any comments or contribute to the discussion.

1201 Program Alarm

In July of 1969, the US was in a race for the moon. Astronauts Michael Collins, Buzz Aldrin and Neil Armstrong were entrusted with the Apollo 11 mission, taking the first shot at the momentous achievement. Last night, I caught a great documentary on this mission, waking through the many planning details and challenges involved in going where no man had gone before. In fact, knowing the technology of the time, I am still amazed that we were able to pull this off on the first attempt. These men were truly brave, trusting their lives to such new and really untested technologies.

<IMAGE MISSING>

One thing that caught my attention was how meticulous Mission Control was, as they faced a number of “go/no go” decisions from the launchpad to the moon and back. As Buzz Aldrin and Neil Armstrong undocked the lunar module and began their decent to the moon’s surface, they were faced with almost impossible odds. There were so many calculations that had to be made in a split second, with no prior experiences to draw from. Gene Kranz, NASA’s Flight Director at Mission Control, was faced with a number of tough decisions as the lunar module approached the surface of the moon.

They did not know exactly when they would touch down, or how much fuel they would burn in the process, but they did have a good idea of how much they would need to relaunch and connect back up with the command module for the return trip to Earth. With every second, fuel consumption was being calculated and measured to insure this was not a one-way trip. About 30 seconds after beginning their final approach, Neil Armstrong calls out “1201 program alarm”. This was a computer error code that simply meant there that the computer was unable to complete all of the calculations it was attempting and had to move on. Timing was critical, and the programmers of the flight computers knew that should this condition occur, it was more important to simply note that some data was lost and move on. I can imagine the concern this caused, both in Mission Control and cramped lunar module. This is where the many eyes and ears monitoring the situation at Mission Control had to step up and insure that the important information was not dropped.

As I watched this, I noticed much this is similar to how PCoIP handles data (you knew this had to have a virtualization tie in, right?). PCoIP uses UDP. UDP is stateless, it will drop data packets. At the most basic level of the solution, the networking layer, packets can be lost the data does not stop flowing. UDP is like the flight computers on-board the Apollo 11 lunar module. At the application layer, PCoIP becomes Gene Kranz and Mission Control. It is looking to determine what may have been lost and how that can impact the overall mission. Calculating the 100 feet in front of the lunar module was infinitely more important than continuing calculations for the 100 feet behind it. With PCoIP, the goal is an efficient and pleasant user experience. To achieve that, with a myriad of unknown factors that can come into play, UDP is recognizing that not all data is critical to the end goal. Instead, PCoIP is the watchful eye that makes the “go/no go” decisions. For USB communications, data input and other critical data, it will request a retransmit of the data to insure accuracy reliable delivery of information. For audio or video packets, where it would inflict more harm to pause communications and attempt retransmits of the lost packets, it simply makes the decision to move on.

Protocols build on top of TCP, like RDP or ICA/HDX, cannot provide this intelligent decision-making. TCP guarantees delivery of packets from the network layer, so the application has no option but to pause while waiting for the delivery of data. Sometimes, you really need to allow the software protocol to apply some intelligence to that decision.

As the Apollo 11 lunar module was rapidly approaching the surface of the moon, with nearly zero tolerance for errors, NASA knew that some data loss was acceptable. In fact, it was preferable to the penalty that could have been incurred by stopping the pending functions to complete previous ones. Had the Apollo 11 flight computers actually stopped measuring fuel consumption and distance to the moon for a few seconds to finish whatever computation triggered that 1201 program alarm, the event of July 20, 1969, may have ended very differently.

Put down the gum, and no body gets hurt

Virtualization has introduced a HUGE change in how servers are requested and acquired. In many cases, people have begun to think of virtual servers as being a “free” or “cheap” resource that has no lead time in requests and little cost for acquisition. This is very dangerous. Keeping adequate virtual resources available is critical to realizing the value of virtualization, but allowing this “sprawl” of virtual machines to steal these resources can be a serious issue. Replenishing resources for the virtualization environment is not free, so you cannot allow the consumption of those resources to be free.

In some ways, purchasing servers moved from the concept of a server being the large boxed item in the back of the store to being the pack of gum at the check out counter. The large box requires a considerable financial investment to purchase and some logistical considerations to actual get home. You don’t buy these unless you need them, and there is some pain involved that discourages waste in these purchases. The pack of gum, you buy that on impulse on the way out the door, and you grab a few extras for later. Low investment, little pain, lots of waste.

I go into this topic in much more detail in my recent SearchServerVirtualization article “Closing the VM sprawl floodgates” at http://searchservervirtualization.techtarget.com/news/column/0,294698,sid94_gci1523796,00.html

Please, come back here after reading this article and leave your comments. This is a topic that just won’t go away. Be looking for a future post on VM Stall, and how it relates to VM Sprawl.

Don’t put the cloud cart before the virtualization horse

The other day, I was digging into a discussion on thin provisioning, deduplication, snapshots and all of those great topics. I love these technologies, and I love to speak about them. However, after a few minutes, I came to a sad realization…I had ignored my audience and did more talking than listening.

There are a lot of very talented people in IT that have yet to begin their virtual journey. Sometimes, we can get so wrapped up in a virtual world that we forget that. When we let that happen, we lose value. This is a real paradigm change, and one that people need time to digest.

To read my entire article on this topic, please go to http://searchservervirtualization.techtarget.com/news/column/0,294698,sid94_gci1522243,00.html, then return here to leave feedback.

« Older posts Newer posts »