Server Virtualization From A Market Perspective

I. classification of virtualized manufacturers

As virtualization continues to heat up, big manufacturers are "ready to move". Besides VMware and Microsoft, other IT giants are joining the field in an attempt to get a slice of it.

Although many of the giants have joined, they can be roughly divided into four categories:

1. traditional OS manufacturers

Microsoft, for example, represents Virtual PC/Virtual Server (traditional virtualization technology) and Windows Server 2008 built Hyper-V (Hypervisor based virtualization technology).

Its management platform platform product is System Center Virtual Machine Manager. The current version 2007 is used to manage Virtual Server. Next year Hyper-V will release the updated System Center Virtual System to support it.

In addition, RedHat, Novell SUSE Linux and other manufacturers have joined XEN based virtualization functions in their latest OS.

2. traditional ISV manufacturers

Oracle has recently announced that it will join the ranks of virtualization and publish a XEN based virtualization product.

This is a landmark event.

Maybe many ISV will choose this mode in the future.

3. independent virtual vendors

It is VMware and XEN Source (which have been acquired by Citrix).

4. hardware vendors

It mainly refers to the virtualization technology of CPU, such as the VT technology of Intel at present and the AMD-V technology of AMD.

In the future, CPU will also add more advanced memory virtualization and I/O virtualization technology, which can better assist virtualization technology.

Two, manufacturers' respective strategies

If we carefully observe the virtualization framework, it will be easy for us to understand the classification of virtual manufacturers and their choices, whether in the market or in technology, as shown in the drawings.

The whole virtualization architecture is divided into four layers from top to bottom: application, operation system, Hypervisor (virtualization management layer), and hardware layer.

1. traditional OS manufacturers

As you can see from the above diagram, the operation system and the virtualization management layer are separated recently, so it is very natural for OS manufacturers to provide virtualized products.

Native) things.

Take Microsoft as an example, why does its virtualization product (Hyper-V) choose a thin management layer?

The humble opinion of a basin man is not merely a technical consideration. It is said to be for safety, or rather for consideration of market strategy.

(1) as a OS manufacturer, we must consider the issue of hardware compatibility. If we adopt a fat management layer, the problem of hardware compatibility can not be avoided. It will seriously affect the shipment volume of Windows Server 2008 in the future. This is certainly not what Microsoft would like to see, but it is also not something that customers would like to see.

(2) as a OS manufacturer, Microsoft can form a good strategic alliance with CPU manufacturers.

Microsoft's Hyper-V requires CPU to support 64 bits and support hardware virtualization technology. On the one hand, this design helps reduce Hypervisor code and reduce the possible Bug. On the other hand, this design helps to provide better products and services to customers with the help of a joint ecosystem of Microsoft and CPU manufacturers.

2. traditional ISV manufacturers

As you can see from the above chart, the application and virtualization management are also quite close.

But Oracle has recently begun to provide virtualization products with the main purpose of promoting its own database products.

Considering the advantages of technical support and compatibility, Oracle customers may be more inclined to use the virtualization scheme provided by Oracle.

Since the application and virtualization management layer are separated from an operating system layer, it is conceivable that Oracle will cooperate with the traditional OS vendors, including UNIX/Linux, and Microsoft, which it has not always liked, to ensure that these Guest OS can run well on the Oracle virtualization management layer, so as to provide better support for Oracle database.

3. independent virtual vendors

The virtual management layer can certainly be provided by an independent vendor, such as VMware.

So why does VMware ESX Server's Hypervisor adopt fat management?

The humble opinion of the basin is not merely a technical consideration.

It is for performance, rather than for market strategy considerations.

(1) as an independent manufacturer, VMware must consider downlink with hardware manufacturers, and join up with ISV manufacturers to form their own ecosystem.

It is a good strategy to combine with hardware manufacturers and adopt a fat management layer.

Because the fat management needs the integration of the drivers of the underlying hardware in Hypervisor, it can be combined with the hardware vendors below to develop the driver that supports Hypervisor. At the same time, it is also a good thing to verify the hardware vendors and provide the whole solution to the customers, whether for VMware, hardware manufacturers or customers.

(2) as an independent manufacturer, VMware must consider the combination of upfront and ISV vendors so that customers can be persuaded to put key applications into virtual machines instead of just marginalized and irrelevant applications.

And Oracle launched its own virtualization product, which is no doubt a blow to VMware.

4. virtualization of hardware layer

As can be seen from the above diagram, the hardware layer is very close to the virtual management layer.

If the hardware layer and the virtualization layer are bound, then a physical machine can be viewed logically as multiple machines from the customer's point of view.

But in addition to CPU vendors, "pure" hardware vendors do not have many virtualized products.

Even for CPU manufacturers, the virtualization product should be an auxiliary virtual product, and the software virtualization management layer must be added? Script src=>