Posts tagged with Best Practices
Simply Spectacular Virtualization Part II
Posted by Margaret Lewis in 10:11 am
(8 votes, average: 4.00 out of 5)
Loading ...AMD recently received a series of comments via Twitter from Intel about the configurations used for the “VMmark Systems” in the “Simply Spectacular Virtualization” blog. They wanted us to re-price our 64GB machine based on 8×8GB memory configuration. The last “tweet” closed with the comment, “We then win.”
Since the question was raised – I have reconfigured the VMmark systems as of May 6, 2009. I have listed valid memory configurations for the systems that match the total amount of memory used in the VMmark benchmark.
|
|
Processor Model |
Memory Config |
VMmark Score |
System cost (cpu, memory, controller, one disk) |
Cost Comparison VMmark Systems |
Cost per VM |
|
HP ProLiant DL370 G6 |
Intel® Xeon® W5580 3.20 GHz |
PC3 10600R 12 X 8GB 2Rank Memory |
23.96@16 tiles; 96 VMs (6×16 tiles) |
$27,407 |
~158% higher system cost* |
$285 |
|
HP ProLiant DL370 G6 |
Intel® Xeon® W5580 3.20 GHz |
PC3 8500R 12 X 8GB 2Rank Memory |
|
$18,787 |
|
|
|
HP ProLiant DL385 G5 |
AMD Opteron™ 2384 2.7 GHz |
PC2 5300 8 x8GB |
11.28@8 tiles; 48 VMs (6×8 tiles) |
$10,642 |
|
$222 |
|
HP ProLiant DL385 G5 |
AMD Opteron™ 2384 2.7 GHz |
PC2-6400 LP 16 x 4GB Dual Rank Memory |
|
$5,838 |
|
|
|
HP ProLiant DL385 G5 |
AMD Opteron™ 2384 2.7 GHz |
PC2-6400 16 x 4GB Dual Rank Memory |
|
$5,518 |
|
|
|
|
Processor Model |
Memory Config |
VMmark Score |
System cost (cpu, memory, controller, one disk) |
Cost Comparison VMmark Systems |
Cost per VM |
|
Dell PowerEdge R710 |
Intel® Xeon® X5570, 2.93Ghz |
96GB Memory (12×8GB), 1066MHz Dual Ranked |
24@17 tiles; 102 VMs (6×17 tiles) |
$21,135 |
~123% higher system cost* |
$209 |
|
Dell PowerEdge R805 |
AMD Opteron™ 2384, 2.7GHz |
64GB Memory, 8×8GB, 667MHz, Dual Ranked |
11.22@8 tiles; 48 VMs (6×8 tiles) |
$9,465
|
|
$197 |
|
Dell PowerEdge R805 |
AMD Opteron™ 2384, 2.7GHz |
64GB Memory, 16×4GB, 667MHz, Dual Ranked DIMM |
|
$5,357 |
|
|
|
Dell PowerEdge R805 |
AMD Opteron™ 2384, 2.7GHz |
64GB (16×4GB), 800MHz, Dual Ranked |
|
$5,357 |
|
|
* All cost comparisons are based on the difference in total system cost of the Intel processor-based system corresponding to the VMmark scores noted above, compared to the total cost for the AMD Opteron™ processor-based system referred to in the corresponding section of the above chart. Prices are based on configurations submitted on OEM (Dell and HP) online system configuration tools as of May 7, 2009.
Now instead of focusing on who wins – AMD or Intel – let’s focus on details that are probably more important to customers who are really using these systems. As is shown in the chart above, with systems based on the AMD Opteron™ processor Model 2384, there are more options of memory speeds and DIMM configurations when purchasing 64GB of memory. This provides the ability to choose in terms of system price or performance. I think this kind of choice puts the customer in the winner seat.
For another look at system configurations and pricing I suggest you go to the Solutions Oriented Blog.
Margaret Lewis (@margaretjlewis) is a Product Marketing Director at AMD. Her postings are her own opinions and may not represent AMD’s positions, strategies or opinions. Links to third party sites are provided for convenience and unless explicitly stated, AMD is not responsible for the contents of such linked sites and no endorsement is implied.
Simply Spectacular Virtualization
Posted by Margaret Lewis in 8:25 pm
Seems like the industry wants to treat virtualization like a “high performance computing” workload. There is a growing obsession with hardware vendors (including AMD) to tout top VMmark benchmark scores. The truth is any analysis of virtualization performance needs to consider more than just “raw performance.” So let’s go “beyond the score” and take a closer look at the systems posting some of the top VMmark scores.
First, a short bit on VMmark . VMmark is a consolidation benchmark that generates an aggregate score of individual VMs for a given number of tiles. A tile is six VMs running common load-generation tools that represent typical workloads: web server, file server, mail server, database, java server as well as an idle VM. One client computer is used to generate the load for one tile.
Looking at top VMmark scores you find systems that can run over 100 VMs per server. And there is a lot of chatter about how a 2 Socket Intel Xeon “Gainestown” processor-based server can run 16 tiles (or 96 VMs). However, there is no reference to the cost of the systems posting scores. VMmark documents the system configuration for the benchmark so you can take a stab at pricing these configurations on-line at the hardware vendor sites. (See slides 3 and 4 of presentation) In doing so we found that some of the top VMmark Intel Xeon “Gainestown” processor-based server configurations price out at about 175% and in some cases even higher than the top performing AMD Opteron™ processor (“Shanghai”) configurations (based on April 16, 2009 prices). Even in the performance-oriented high performance computing world this would turn heads. Cost does matter.
Going a step further, we now have the information to evaluate the price/performance of some of these systems by taking the estimated system cost and dividing it by number of VMs achieved during the VMmark run. While large number of VMs might be impressive – most IT professionals in today’s economy are focused on balancing performance and price—looking at the cost per VM helps to better understand the cost of putting the system in action. What you find is the system with the top VMmark score is not the system that gives you the best cost per VM.
Now that we have looked at the VMmark systems configurations, what type of virtualization configurations are customers really running? When looking at customer case studies posted on hardware and software vendors’ sites we find servers configurations ranging from 16GB to 64G of memory as more of the norm. We also don’t find many data centers pushing 100 VMs on a system. Responses to SearchDataCenter.com’s 2008 Purchasing Intentions Survey reveals that only 5% of respondents are running more than 25 VMs on a server – 61% are running less than 10 VMs per server and 33% are running 10 to 25 VMs per server. And since many customers are implementing virtualization as a cost saving strategy – we don’t see many of these customers buying the top bin “performance” processor models, which by design tend to consume the most power.
We did the pricing on systems configurations using energy efficient processors and more typical memory configurations for virtualization (again based on April 16, 2009 pricing), comparing both system pricing and cost per VMs (see slide 5 of presentation). Take a look for yourself. We think you will agree considering performance and price can give you a better view of its overall value.
So the question remains: how do *you* define “simply spectacular” virtualization? Is it in terms of raw performance or is it price/performance? Hopefully after reading this post, you have a different answer than when you started.
Margaret Lewis (@margaretjlewis) is a Product Marketing Director at AMD. Her postings are her own opinions and may not represent AMD’s positions, strategies or opinions. Links to third party sites are provided for convenience and unless explicitly stated, AMD is not responsible for the contents of such linked sites and no endorsement is implied.
Silos are for grain storage
Posted by John Fruehe in 1:31 pm
I have been watching the media coverage after our competitor finally brought out their new products last week with an architecture strongly reminiscent of AMD’s Direct Connect Architecture. One thing I noticed is that as the week went on, more and more questions began to emerge. How can an overhaul of a platform be cost-efficient or easy to manage for customers? Especially in this day and age? Does it make sense to go for the highest rungs of performance when that could “break the bank” and arguably isn’t even really necessary for the most part?
In light of this debate, I also talked last week with Graham Lovell at Sun -- one of our technology partners. (You can watch a bit of our conversation below.) Graham is the director of Open Storage and let me tell you, he gets it. Their Amber Road product line has effectively addressed the important issues that customers can face in determining the storage component of a data center strategy – specifically the need to have highly scalable storage capacity on a high performing network - storage that is simple to manage and power efficient. Interesting how storage and server requirements are converging these days.
It seems the tide has been turning a bit in the storage world and there’s a lot more to consider now beyond the “classical” fail-safe back-up. There are synergies to be had by looking at the overall server/storage/software/virtualization equation. Sun’s delivered a product line that takes a building block approach to integrating the crucial storage element because that’s the direction the IT managers and the businesses they support are going. Simple as that. (Take a look at the massive Internet Archive project which is using AMD Opteron™ processor-based storage in a Sun Modular Datacenter.)
There will likely always be a place for the more traditional back office systems. But expensive implementations based on proprietary technology and that don’t readily mesh with the increasing need for quick, local, on-demand storage arguably aren’t the best fit given the direction our customers are going.
With more customers looking to virtualization to solve their IT needs, consolidation of storage is likely going to be that “critical first step” in getting the most out of a virtualized environment. Flexibility becomes more important and products like Sun’s Amber Road, built on AMD Opteron processor technology, help drive the right solutions.
Delivering technology that lets you build what you need, when you need it and do so with maximum efficiency -- that still sounds like the right way to go. I can’t see a future where that doesn’t make sense.
John Fruehe is the Director of Business Development for Server/Workstation products at AMD. His postings are his own opinions and may not represent AMD’s positions, strategies or opinions. Links to third party sites are provided for convenience and unless explicitly stated, AMD is not responsible for the contents of such linked sites and no endorsement is implied.
Return on Hype
Posted by John Fruehe in 2:34 pm
Recently, our competitor claimed an amazing Return on Investment (ROI) statistic – replace 9 older single core servers with 1 new multi-core one and repay that investment in less than a year. “The cost savings from energy alone will pay for new servers in about eight months[1].”
Having been around IT planning teams for the past 15 years, hearing any ROI statistic always sets my radar off. This is no exception. To me, this claim feels very unusual and there are only 2 explanations that I can think of; Either they are trying to oversimplify a very complex calculation by only looking at one factor (power); or they simply don’t understand the complexity of enterprise applications. Either way they risk doing a major disservice to customers.
The argument that a company can pay off the investment in a new multi-core server by retiring 9 older single core ones is akin to buying a new hybrid car and raving about how much money you are saving every time you fill the tank, ignoring that you had to purchase a car in the process. Return on investment should encompass all of the costs of a solution; otherwise it risks overstating the return.
Let’s take a look at retiring 9 single core servers by consolidating them down to one multi-core server. Simplistically you are going to incur the following costs:
· Consolidation prep – you have to actually do all of the planning and prototyping of the system, mapping data, etc., this is not a simple “copy and paste” exercise. Let’s not forget the data center planning piece of this exercise. You are going to have to remove all of the systems and install a new one.
· Migration of the data – this includes the actual movement of the data. Maybe you get lucky because all 9 servers magically had the exact same data structures and can all coexist happily with each other. Or not. I’m going to bet on “not”, I’ve seen enough of these projects.
· Security – You had 9 separate servers with 9 separate ACLs or security profiles set up to manage who could – and more importantly – could not access the data. Whenever you start consolidation of systems, it is important to make sure that the Marketing Department can’t see the Payroll Department’s files.
· Testing – once you have the new servers in the rack, you don’t actually just flip a switch. You are going to have to touch all the applications that touch that server. Including middleware, backup, security, and network infrastructure. One incorrect MAC address can result in a bunch of troubleshooting if you can’t quickly diagnose the problem.
· Unplanned consequences – Did you ever add a new user and find another suddenly can’t print? Most project managers I’ve worked with include some measure of “overage” to the project to help compensate for having to track down the “stragglers” of any project.
· Licensing changes – Well, 9 servers running 9 copies of the old program might be a sunk cost in ROI, but I am betting that as you consolidate these servers you may end up needing to upgrade to the newest version of the software in order to handle the complexity of the new environment.
· Disposal – you will need to get rid of the old systems, let’s not forget that you can’t just leave them in the dumpster (don’t forget to take the time to truly destroy the hard drives…)
And this is all just the tip of the iceberg, I’m sure that each one of you can provide your own list of hidden costs in trying to do a project. There is a human cost, and with the typical cost of ~$65/hour (the fully burdened cost estimate from the last project I worked on a few years ago) the human costs will likely dwarf the hardware purchase. If you don’t comprehend these costs, you can’t accurately assess ROI.
I’m not naïve in thinking that projects like this happen every day. But it is a bit naïve to think that power costs alone can determine ROI.
Looking at the typical server deployment, you can rest assured that the hardware is the lowest cost of the project by far. So if you want to do yourself a favor, don’t let your company fall for the “pays for itself in 8 months” hype that’s out there – do your own research and get the full story with all the costs revealed. Otherwise you’ll be the one explaining things to the CFO.
John Fruehe is the Director of Business Development for Server/Workstation products at AMD. His postings are his own opinions and may not represent AMD’s positions, strategies or opinions. Links to third party sites are provided for convenience and unless explicitly stated, AMD is not responsible for the contents of such linked sites and no endorsement is implied.
[1] http://download.intel.com/products/processor/xeon/dc55kprodbrief.pdf Intel footnote – Source: Intel. March 2009. Compares replacing nine four-year-old single-core Intel® Xeon® processor 3.8GHz with 2M cache-based servers with one new Intel Xeon processor X5570-based server. Results have been estimated based on internal Intel analysis and are provided for information purposes only.
Sacrifice Nothing
Posted by John Fruehe in 5:30 pm
With today’s focus on "green IT" and energy efficiency, it’s no wonder that the interest in low power processors continues to grow. Even when AMD (and a handful of very insightful customers) could see that low power computing was the future, we couldn’t anticipate how rapidly cloud computing, "twin servers" (2 motherboards in a single chassis), and small form factor servers and blades would become top of mind for many IT managers. These innovations, combined with the strong role of virtualization in the data center, are all telltale signs that the world is going to continue demanding more efficient solutions.
And the economy today? Do you really believe that any IT director wants to stand in front of the CEO and explain why they are not taking the steps to reduce power consumption in the data center? Even small and medium businesses are affected by the rising costs of energy and with the increasing sense of shared global responsibility for conserving energy, it is becoming a key performance initiative for many IT Managers.
When we introduced the 45nm Quad-Core AMD Opteron™ processor (codenamed "Shanghai") last November, customers were excited to find that in many cases, those standard power processors could actually consume less power than the existing low power Quad-Core AMD Opteron processors. What could be better than that? How about even lower power? Or even greater performance? Today, we’ve announced two new "Shanghai" processor categories: the AMD Opteron™ HE processors – designed for energy efficiency and the AMD Opteron SE processors – designed for the highest raw computing environments.
Energy efficiency is something that we work to design into all of our processors. We are even bringing a new feature to the market called AMD PowerCap manager that will allow IT datacenter managers to set predefined maximum limits for the processor’s clock speed and voltage, allowing a flexible solution for holding down energy costs. Because many workloads tend to be spiky in nature, the need to run at the highest clock speed is often only for a cycle or two. Power capping helps smooth out the peaks and can help maintain a better overall average power. In fact, AMD PowerCap manager can reduce server processor power consumption by up to 63%. And our AMD CoolCore™ technology, which lets you turn off unused parts of the processor, is now extended to include L3 cache.
Power efficiency has to be accompanied by performance. Our new processors today offer the potential to both consume less power and deliver better application performance. But what does "better performance" really mean? When the focus is on energy efficiency, better performance means helping you recognize a savings while your apps operate the same or better. How does this translate for businesses?
Take a look at the progression of energy efficiency in quad-core processors, and you can easily see that between our 65nm "Barcelona" processors and our new 45nm "Shanghai" processors, the overall power consumption, at both load and idle, had been steadily moving downward. Now compare that with the cost of power and you can see that as costs of power continue to rise, the AMD Opteron processors can be your best hedge against increasing costs in the data center.
If you’re asking yourself what do these comparisons really mean, consider this simple statement: using the exact same platform, an upgrade from the highest performing low-power "Barcelona" processor to the 2.3 GHz "Shanghai" HE processor can deliver up to 44% better performance to power ratio. That’s pretty significant. To reiterate, it’s not just the power savings, its power savings combined with performance that delivers a compelling business solution.
Then it’s quite clear that our advancements today can help IT managers in their quest for increasing computational muscle, while decreasing costs.
I encourage you to also take a look at what our OEM customers are saying. Rackable Systems has blogged about the new processors and Dell makes a guest appearance at our AMD at Work blog. Also, check out a new video detailing the benefits of the "Shanghai" HE processor and how it address the challenges of the datacenter.
AMD’s philosophy of giving you the power of choice comes through loud and clear in these latest product offerings. Whether you need a balanced, energy efficient processor that helps ensure you are optimizing your energy consumption without sacrificing performance or your performance hungry application demands every edge available, AMD Opteron processors give you the choice. The best part is this is all done within the same infrastructure – each processor works on the same platform – ensuring your biggest task is not being an inventory manager for the myriad combinations needed to support your data center, but concentrating on what really matters, satisfying your customers.
John Fruehe is the Director of Business Development for Server/Workstation products at AMD. His postings are his own opinions and may not represent AMD’s positions, strategies or opinions. Links to third party sites are provided for convenience and unless explicitly stated, AMD is not responsible for the contents of such linked sites and no endorsement is implied.
The Importance of Consistency
Posted by Kevin Knox in 10:55 am
I was reading today about the Oakland Raiders’ latest fired coach filing a grievance for the salary he still believes he is owed. That got me thinking that just five years ago the Oakland Raiders were in a Super Bowl. I actually had to go back and double check because I couldn’t believe it. Since that time the Raiders have had five coaches in six years. This coach de jour approach makes it near impossible to succeed in the NFL.
I recognize that the NFL is a business and you need to win at all costs. I’m also not going to pretend that I know more about football or how to operate an NFL franchise better than Al Davis. However, I do know a thing or two about the importance of consistency and how churn typically doesn’t have a positive impact on whatever your business may be. My unsolicited advice to Mr. Davis is to find the right guy, help him be successful and stick with him. Oh yeah and don’t forget – JUST WIN BABY. On the flip side, take a team like the Seahawks or Eagles who are consistently at the top of their divisions and look at how long Mike Holmgren and Andy Reid have been at the helm. They say a team takes on the personality of its coach, but this takes consistency, and sometimes patience.
This is what AMD did several years ago and continues to do today with respect to its server roadmap. We sought the advice of our customers, both within our OEM partners and as well as some of our largest end-users, and asked them what some of the key things they needed to see from AMD were beyond the obvious ones like continuous improvements in performance, performance-per-watt and virtualization. The answer we heard over and over again was to keep things as simple and consistent as possible for them as they scale.
Our customers are recognizing the benefit of this today, particularly as we prepare to launch our latest AMD Opteron processor code-named "Shanghai." Shanghai drops into our existing infrastructure which has been in place since 2006. Why does this matter? Well frankly, in the current economic and IT spending climate, we are hearing from our customers that it has never mattered more.
People who have never been involved in managing large amounts of servers tend to overlook the importance of having a consistent processor architecture and infrastructure. A constant churn in processor architecture can result in complexity that can create more costs associated with software and labor.
As technology leaders, we as an industry should be doing everything we can to help our customers win. The best way we can help them is to make things as simple as possible for them when we bring new technologies to market.
Virtualization is a good example of this. As virtualization continues to grow and mature, migration has become a significant buying factor for customers. Having a consistent architecture definitely helps enable a smooth migration process. Our customers constantly highlight this as one of the reasons why they continue to scale with AMD. However, they also want to be able to migrate across heterogeneous processor environments as well. Unfortunately, some solution providers in the virtualization hardware and software ecosystem act as if giving customers the ability to do this (and not get locked in to one architecture) will slow the pace of innovation. More like slow the pace of helping customers win.
OK, I made my shoe in and missed my upset last week and in the spirit of keeping consistency, I asked Mac for the picks this week and he told me to ask his brother because he was gearing up for Halloween. So based on input from my 13 year old son Ryan (#51 OL, DE and kicker) here are the picks for the week:
Shoe-In = Cincinnati staying winless against Jacksonville
Upset = The Boys stealing one from the Giants in NY
Insight = Companies which fail to change their IT management processes and procedures will fail to reap the full benefits of server virtualization
 |
Kevin Knox is Vice President of Worldwide Commercial Business at AMD. His postings are his own opinions and may not represent AMD’s positions, strategies or opinions. Links to third party sites are provided for convenience and unless explicitly stated, AMD is not responsible for
the contents of such linked sites and no endorsement is implied. |
What’s in a Name?
Posted by Kevin Knox in 10:01 am
Before I get into this week’s thought, let me emphasize the point I made last week regarding the importance of the O-Line as the foundation of the offense. I painfully sat through the entire Steelers vs. Eagles game this week and I can honestly say, I have never seen a worse offensive line performance as I did by the Steelers. Not only was Big Ben under constant attack by the Eagles defense, but the Eagles also held Fast Willie to a handful of meaningless yards. I have never seen an offensive line so overpowered and so confused as the Steelers looked. Of course it is not just the O-Line’s fault, but as the foundation, as they go so goes the Steelers offense. And based on last week’s post, I would be remiss if I didn’t acknowledge a huge improvement this week by the Bengals O-Line in a tough OT loss to the Giants.
OK, onto my big Week 3 take away. If you would have told me that in Week 3, Kerry Collins, Gus Ferrotte and Brian Griese would have led the Titans, Vikings and Buccaneers to victory I would have told you that you were nuts. Now in an attempt to get the 0-3 Rams ship turned around, they are turning to 15-year veteran Trent Green.. These are guys who could just as easily be retired playing golf as playing football, never mind winning games in the NFL. Meanwhile some of the staples of the NFL quarterback ranks are having somewhat of a tough start. Peyton Manning looks like a rookie rather than a field general, Brett Favre has not even come close to living up to the NY hype and Derek Anderson’s poor play may in fact give Cleveland a reason to let Brady Quinn try and earn some of the millions they pay him.
Point here is, don’t too easily write off players who may have gone through a rough patch here and there, as they may be just what a certain situation requires. At the same time, teams need to be careful not to get so enamored with big name players that they lose perspective on what’s really important…WINNING. For example, I know it’s still early in the season, but it’s apparent to me already that Brett Favre is never going to live up to the expectations that the Jets, the NY fans or the media have set for him. The more interesting question is at what point this year (if ever) do the Jets swallow pride and pull Brett in lieu of a better option at QB (knowing the Jets I would say the answer is never).
Speaking of tough starts and rough patches, AMD had some challenges in bringing our Quad-Core AMD Opteron™ processor, also known as “Barcelona,” to market. And if you were to believe some of the lurid press reports during the past few months, you’d think AMD was on the verge of an early retirement. Yet, within the past year, Barcelona has become a leading performance and performance-per-watt solution for x86 servers across many of the workloads that are critical for enterprise customers today. Just as Collins, Ferrotte and Griese can still contribute and win at the highest level, the AMD Opteron processor remains a leader in the x86 server market. Also, let’s not lose sight of the fact AMD has only been playing in the server market for five years and over that short period of time, we have been able to deliver impressive improvements in performance and performance-per-watt.[1] We intend to continue this trend later this year with the planned launch of our 45nm “Shanghai” processor.
Substance and stability are the backbone of a good football team – not name and flash. The Titans could attest to that while admitting that paying nearly $60 million for a player doesn’t always equal success. Sometimes a good look under that surface will reveal that things may not be as great as they seem.
In the server world, I would suggest that hype is the exact thing you should avoid. Last time I checked a jingle or a guy with his face painted blue is not helping solving datacenter problems. Based on my conversations with customers, improved performance and functionality is critical for IT decision-makers, but equally important is stability and predictability. And Shanghai – without the hype – is being designed to deliver – in a big way – the performance and functionality enterprises need to win in their industries.
Please keep the comments coming – the good the bad and the ugly. One request I have gotten from several folks was to make some predictions on the upcoming week. Rather than predicting the obvious I thought I would give you a “Shoe-in”, an “Upset” and an “Industry” insight:
Shoe-In = Dallas at home easily over the Skins
Upset = Chiefs upset the Broncos for their first win
Insight = Technology and datacenters are a major purchase consideration amongst Wall St. firms looking to acquire one another
|
Kevin Knox is Vice President of Worldwide Commercial Business at AMD. His postings are his own opinions and may not represent AMD’s positions, strategies or opinions. Links to third party sites are provided for convenience and unless explicitly stated, AMD is not responsible for
the contents of such linked sites and no endorsement is implied. |
[1] In 2003, AMD introduced AMD Opteron™ with one-core (130nm) at 1.8GHz (89w) with no L3 cache.
In 2007, we introduced Quad-Core AMD Opteron™ with four-cores (65nm) at 2.30GHz (95w) with 2MB L3 cache and IPC improvements.
The times they are a’changing…
Posted by Margaret Lewis in 6:53 am
Leading into this year’s VMWorld conference in Las Vegas, all the buzz was about changes at VMWare. And after attending the conference, I’m here to tell you that the times they are a’changing. But it’s not all bad news for VMWare – and is an unique opportunity for the emerging virtualization ecosystem.
Sure, there’s new management at VMware, a repositioning to the operating system for the virtual datacenter, and lots of new competition. But what struck me even more than those changes are the fact that the x86 virtualization movement, started all those years ago by Diane and Mendel, is going mainstream, and that’s very very exciting for someone like me, who’s in charge of helping making sure AMD’s customers have the best experience possible in running software on AMD hardware.
One proof point is just the sheer amount of attention VMWorld is getting this year. Who would have ever thought the conference that attracted 1,600 early adopters of x86 virtualization to San Diego in Nov. 2004 would be hosting 14,000 mainstream IT professionals in Sept. 2008? And that the New York Times would write so much about a technology as enterprise focused as virtualization! I think this demonstrates the power that virtualization is already playing in shaping the future of the computing industry.
A second proof point is the amazing number of new servers I see being introduced by everyone from large OEMs to small system builders that are specifically aimed at serving as excellent virtualization solutions. For example both Dell and HP have recently introduced blades based on the energy efficient Quad-Core AMD Opteron™ processor that are designed to handle the rigors of memory-intensive virtualization.
A final proof point that virtualization has gone mainstream is the thriving ecosystem developing around virtualization. Just take a look at the presentations that were given in AMD’s own booth at the show – our “Master of Virtualization” theater was filled with small and large ISVs and IHVs who were showcasing how they are moving the needle on virtualization – including 3Leaf, Broadcom, Citrix, DataRam, Egenera, Microsoft, Novell, Sun, Transitive, Parallels, and Virtual Iron.
So what’s next in these times of change? I believe that as virtualization pushes it way into the main stream – and lights up discussions around topics such as cloud computing, virtual infrastructure, and dynamic data center fabrics – the virtualization ecosystem needs to understand that interoperability, open standards, and vendor cooperation has to be paramount. Customers are looking for choice – and not for technologies designed to lock out competition. They want live migration of virtual machines across different processors and tools that can manage virtual machines created by any hypervisor. Feel free to contact me and we can follow up with more information.
 |
Margaret Lewis is a Product Marketing Director at AMD. Her postings are her own opinions and may not represent AMD’s positions, strategies or opinions. Links to third party sites are provided for convenience and unless explicitly stated, AMD is not responsible for the contents of such linked sites and no endorsement is implied. |