Episode 6 – Multiple Hypervisors – Do you have to be monogamous?

All three of us together again. No predictions, no year in review, just pure new content iTunes or MP3

nonmonogamy_m-400x300

– Multi-hypervisor experiences – yes? no? why/why not?
– Musings on network virtualization, Cisco ACI, VMware NSX and what to look forward to
– Our current ideas on the unicorn that is storage virtualization
– vSphere upgrades – Josh & Chris upgrade their home labs (Angelo Luciani’s poll)
– No MS Technet – what does it mean for home labs?
– VMTN update what’s next?
– Chris’ rage against Web client/C# client

Thanks for listening! If you like the show please tell your friends and give us a review on iTunes. If you have any comments please send us a tweet or email

4 thoughts on “Episode 6 – Multiple Hypervisors – Do you have to be monogamous?

  1. Guys,

    Another good podcast with solid discussions. Do want to point out a couple of areas where I may disagree with the panel:

    1) When comparing the overall cost of vSphere with other hypervisors, I think it is important to consider not the cost of the hypervisor itself but the cost of the entire bundle/suite that the hypervisor is a component of. For example, there may be tangible cost benefits to a multi-hypervisor solution if it’s part of a Cloud platform such as OpenStack or CloudStack. Consider, for example, what is would be the cost of building out a Private Cloud and all it’s requisite features with only vSphere vs. vSphere with an open source hypervisor such as KVM?

    2) It sounded at times as though you may be equating/conflating storage virtualization with software defined storage. While the former is an enabler for the latter, the two are not identical. As I’ve argued in some of my blog posts, SDS is set of technologies, including vitualization, that enables an application-driven programmable storage solutions.

    All that being said, keep up the great work!

    Ken

    • Thanks for commenting, Ken.

      “It is important to consider not the cost of the hypervisor itself but the cost of the entire bundle/suite that the hypervisor is a component of” – a much more eloquent way of expressing my point. Too often the CapEx cost of a hypervisor (CFO gets excited … because some hypervisors are bundled for FREEEEEeeeeee) outweighs the cost to actually run the stack.

    • Thanks for listening Ken and for the comments.
      We certainly glossed over some of the overhead management solution costs when evaluating multiple hypervisors. Directly speaking to your thoughts around Cloud Platforms you’ll receive no objection from me. In my career thus far I have not worked or seen multiple hypervisors being used as a base for OpenStack or CloudStack. The scenarios where I’ve seen it in practice was truly for service tiering or directly tied to an application stack where the licensing was bundled, such as Citrix XenServer as foundation for other Citrix products.

      I think you are spot on with the software defined storage comments. Given that you’ve written blog posts on the topic I’m pretty confident you’d be in agreement with the three of us that we’re still not really clear on what Software Defined Storage is supposed to be. Thus far my exposure has been in the ability to deploy and assign storage based on the tier or workload that the system needs. I do not believe I’ve seen any SDS solutioning that functions in quite the same way that I’ve seen SDN. I am looking forward to seeing such things.

      It’s very clear that we may need to get you on a future episode to clear things up a bit and drop some user level knowledge. 🙂 Thanks again for listening and commenting!

  2. Pingback: vExpert Weekly Digest – January 13th 2014 – Death Stars! | This is Hyper-Awesome

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *