Installing the Sun Java runtime environment on Fedora Core 5

Fedora logo Java logo
It’s no secret that I’m no fan of Java applications, but its also a necessary evil that I generally need to have installed on my PC. I had a few problems getting it working on my Linux (Fedora Core 5) PC though – this is what I had to do.

The Unofficial Fedora FAQ got me started; however as I didn’t want the whole Java development kit (JDK) installed – just the Java runtime environment (JRE) I downloaded the RPM installer from the Sun Java download site.

Next, I entered the following commands:

su –
chmod +x jre-1_5_0_08-linux-i586-rpm.bin
./jre-1_5_0_08-linux-i586-rpm.bin
yum –enablerepo=jpackage-generic-nonfree install java-1.5.0-sun-compat
ln -s /usr/java/jre1.5.0_08/plugin/i386/ns7/libjavaplugin_oji.so /usr/lib/mozilla/plugins/

I’m not sure why the link is from the mozilla plugins folder, not from /usr/lib/firefox-1.5.0.6/plugins/ (as I would have expected from a LinuxQuestions.org forum post on the subject) but after a browser restart, I was able to successfully test the Java installation, which was correctly identified as Sun Microsystems Inc. Java version 1.5.0_08 on Linux OS version 2.6.17-1.2174_FC5.

Slicing server TCO with HP ProLiant server blades

Over the last few years, I’ve heard a lot about blade servers – mostly anecdotal – and mostly commenting that they produce a lot of heat so for all the rack space saved through their use, a lot of empty space needs to be left in datacentres that weren’t designed for today’s high-density servers. In recent weeks I’ve attended a number of events where HP was showcasing their new c-class blade system and it does look as if HP have addressed some of the issues with earlier systems. I’m actually pretty impressed – to the point where I’d seriously consider their use.

HP’s c-class blade system was introduced in June 2006 and new models are gradually coming on stream as HP replaces the earlier p-class blades, sold since 2002 (and expected to be retired in 2007).

HP c7000 blade enclosure - front

The new c-class enclosure requires 10U of rackspace, which can be configured with up to 16 half-height server blades, 8 full-height server blades or a combination of the two. Next week, HP will launch direct-attached storage blades (as well as new server blades) and next year, they expect to launch shared storage blades (similar to the StorageWorks Modular Storage Array products). With the ability to connect multiple blade enclosures to increase capacity, an extremely flexible (and efficient) computing resource pool can be created.

HP c7000 blade enclosure - rear

At the back of the enclosure are up to 10 cooling fans, 6 power connections (three-phase connections are also available), 1 or 2 management modules, and up to 8 interconnect modules (e.g. Ethernet or fibre-channel pass-through modules or switches from HP, Cisco, Brocade and others).

There are a number of fundamental changes between the p-class and c-class blade systems. Immediately apparent is that each blade is physically smaller. This has been facilitated by moving all cooling fans off the blade itself and into the enclosure, as well as by the move from Ultra320 SCSI hard disks to small form-factor serial-attached SCSI (SAS) hard disks. Although the SAS disks currently have reduced storage capacity (compared with Ultra320 SCSI), a 146GB 10,000RPM SAS disk will be launched next week and 15,000RPM disks will be released in the coming months. Serial ATA (SATA) disks are also available, but not recommended for 24×7 operation. The new disks use a 2.5″ form factor and weigh significantly less than 3.5″ disks; consequently they require about half as much power to provide equivalent performance.

HP are keen to point out that the new cooling arrangements are highly efficient, with three separate airflows through the enclosure for cooling blades, power supplies and communications devices. Using a parallel, redundant and scalable (PARSEC) architecture, the airflows include back-flow preventers and shut-off doors such that if a component is not installed, then that part of the enclosure is not cooled. If the Thermal Logic control algorithm detects that management information is not available (e.g. if the onboard management module is removed) then the variable speed Active Cool fans will fail open and automatically switch to full power – it really is impressive to see just how much air is pulled through the system by the fans, which are not dissimilar to tiny jet engines!

Power is another area where improvements have been made and instead of using a separate power supply modele, hotswap power supply units are now integrated into the front of the enclosure. The Thermal Logic system will dynamically adjust power and cooling to meet energy budgets such that instead of running multiple supplies at reduced power, some supplies are run close to full capacity (hence more efficiently) whilst others are not used. If one power supply fails, then the others will take up the load, with switching taking around 1ms.

Each blade server is a fully-functional HP ProLiant industry standard server – in fact the BL model numbering system mirrors the ML and DL range, adding 100 to the DL number, so a BL480c blade is equivalent to a DL380 rack-mount server (which itself adds 10 to the ML number – in this case an ML370).

Looking inside a blade, it becomes apparent how much space in a traditional server is taken up by power and cooling requirements – apart from the disks at the front, most of the unit consists of the main board with CPUs and memory. A mezzanine card arrangement is used to provide network or fibre-channel ports, which are connected via HP’s Virtual Connect architecture to the interconnect modules at the rear of the enclosure. This is the main restriction with a blade server – if PCI devices need to be employed, then traditional servers will be required; however each half-height blade can accommodate two mezzanine cards (each up to 2 fibre-channel or 4 Gigabit Ethernet ports) and a full-height blade can accommodate three mezzanine cards. Half-height blades also include 2 network connections as standard and full-height have 4 network connections – more than enough connectivity for most purposes. Each blade has between 2 and 4 hard disks and the direct attached storage blade will provide an additional 6 drives (SAS or SATA) in a half-height blade.

One of the advantages of using servers from tier 1 OEMs has always been the management functionality that’s built in (for years I argued that Compaq ProLiant servers cost more to buy but had a lower overall cost of ownership compared with other manufacturer’s servers) and HP are positioning the new blades in a similar way – that of reducing the total cost of ownership (even if the initial purchase price is slightly higher). Management features included within the blade include the onboard administrator console, with a HP Insight display at the front of the enclosure and up to two management modules at the rear in an active-standby configuration. The insight display is based on technology from HP printers and includes a chat function, e.g. for a remote administrator to send instructions to an engineer (predefined responses can be set or the engineer can respond in free text, but with just up, down and enter buttons it would take a considerable time to do so – worse than sending a text message on a mobile phone!).

Each server blade has an integrated lights out (iLO2) module, which is channelled via the onboard administrator console to allow remote management of the entire blade enclosure or the components within it – including real-time power and cooling control, device health and configuration (e.g. port mapping from blades to interconnect modules), and access to the iLO2 modules (console access via iLO2 seems much more responsive than previous generations, largely due to the removal of much of the Java technology). As with ML and DL ProLiant servers, each blade server includes the ProLiant Essentials foundation pack – part of which is the HP Systems Insight Manager toolset; with further packs building on this to provide additional functionality, such as rapid deployment, virtual machine management or server migration.

The Virtual Connect architecture between the blades and the interconnect modules removes much of the cabling associated with traditional servers. Offering a massive 5Tbps of bandwidth, the backplane needs to suffer four catastrophic failures before a port will become unavailable. In addition, it allows for hot spare blades to be provisioned, such that if one fails, then the network connections (along with MAC addresses, worldwide port numbers and fibre-channel boot parameters) are automatically re-routed to a spare that can be brought online – a technique known as server personality migration.

In terms of the break-even point for cost comparisons between blades and traditional servers, HP claim that it is between 3 and 8 blades, depending on the connectivity options (i.e. less than half an enclosure). They also point out that because the blade enclosure also includes connectivity then its not just server costs that need to be compared – the blade enclosure also replaces other parts of the IT infrastructure.

Of course, all of this relates to HP’s c-class blades and it’s still possible to purchase the old p-class HP blades, which use a totally different architecture. Other OEMs (e.g. Dell and IBM) also produce blade systems and I’d really like to see a universal enclosure that works with any OEM’s blade – in the same way that I can install any standard rack-format equipment in (almost) any rack today. Unfortunately, I can’t see that happening any time soon…

Application virtualisation using the Softricity SoftGrid platform

A few weeks back I had the opportunity to attend a presentation on application virtualisation using the Softricity SoftGrid platform. Server virtualisation is something I’m becoming increasingly familiar with, but application virtualisation is something else entirely and I have to say I was very impressed with what I saw. Clearly I’m not alone, as Microsoft has acquired Softricity in order to add application virtualisation and streaming to its IT management portfolio.

The basic principal of application virtualisation is that, instead of installing an application, an application runtime environment is created which can roam with a user. The application is packaged via a sequencer (similar to the process of creating an MSI application installer) and broken into feature blocks which can be delivered on demand. In this way the most-used functionality can be provided quickly, with additional functionality in another feature block only loaded as required. When I first heard of this I was initially concerned about the potential network bandwidth required for streaming applications; however feature blocks are cached locally and it is also possible to pre-load the cache (either from a CD or using tools such as Microsoft Systems Management Server).

From a client perspective, a user’s group membership is checked at login time and appropriate application icons are delivered, either from cache, or by using the real-time streaming protocol (RTSP) to pull feature blocks from the server component. The virtual application server uses an SQL database and Active Directory to control access to applications based on group membership and this group model can be used to stage rollout of an application (again, reducing the impact on the network avoiding situations where many users download a new version of an application at the same time).

Not all applications are suitable for virtualisation. For example, very large applications used throughout an organisation (e.g. Microsoft Office) may be better left in the base workstation build; however the majority of applications are ideal for virtualisation. The main reason not to virtualise are if an application provides shell integration that might negatively impact upon another application if it is not present – for example the ability to send an e-mail from within an application may depend on Microsoft Outlook being present and configured.

One advantage of the virtualised application approach is that the operating system is not “dirtied” – because each package includes a virtual registry and a virtual file system (which run on top of the traditional “physical” registry and file system), resolving application issues is often a case of resetting the cache. This approach also makes it possible to run multiple versions of an application side-by-side – for example testing a new version of an application alongside the existing production version. Application virtualisation also has major advantages around reducing rollout time.

The Microsoft acquisition of Softricity has so far brought a number of benefits including the inclusion of the ZeroTouch web interface for self-provisioning of applications within the core product and reduction of client pricing. There is no server pricing element, making this a very cost effective solution – especially for Microsoft volume license customers.

Management of the solution is achieved via a web service, allowing the use of the SoftGrid Management Console or third party systems management products. SoftGrid includes features for policy-based management and application deployment as well as usage tracking and compliance.

I’ve really just skimmed the surface here but I find the concept very interesting and can’t help but feel the Microsoft acquisition will either propel this technology into the mainstream (or possibly kill it off forever – less likely). In the meantime, there’s a lot of information available on the Softricity website.

MacBreak Weekly rant

Leo Laporte’s TWiT Podcast Network has some really good podcasts including This Week in Tech (TWiT). More recently, the network has launched MacBreak Weekly and (I understand) will soon launch a Windows Podcast hosted by Paul Thurrott. Of course, some of the information is subjective and must be taken with pinch of salt – it can also be very US-centric (this is helped when there are European guests, e.g. Wil Harris from Bit-Tech); however MacBreak Weekly annoyed me greatly as I caught up on a few podcasts over the last couple of days.

  • Whilst discussing the Mac Pro (in episode 3) there was comment about a lot of software not being optimised for multi-processor configurations and the reply came back (and I quote) “you mean that Apple actually built a computer that’s ahead of its time?”. No! I can accept that Apple may well have built a computer that offers more processing power than many users could use; and in Apple’s credit all Macs now have at least two processor cores (except any Core Solo Mac Minis that are still being sold – I think even they have hyperthreading) but both the other major PC operating system platforms (Linux and Windows) have supported multi-processor machines for some time now – if Mac OS X is not able to make full use of the machines then that’s a fault of the operating system designers at Apple and they need to get up to speed – quickly. I’m no developer but the need to rewrite applications to run on an Intel platform instead of the older PowerPC architecture was given as the reason for the distraction preventing writing applications to use the available processing power. That doesn’t stack up to me. I am casting my mind back 15 years now but I seem to remember from the operating systems internals module that made up a part of my degree that it is the task of the operating system scheduler to assign processor time to execution threads – so that’s Mac OS X then, not the applications. Of course if the applications aren’t threaded then there’s not much that the operating system can do about it, but even applications for a single processor should be multithreaded. Shouldn’t they?
  • They then went on to talk about striping four 750GB SATA drives to give 3TB of “super fast storage performance”. Hmm… it sounds very risky to me. SATA drives are okay for PC use but not designed for 24×7 operation; however, regardless of the disk hardware in use, RAID 0 (striping) offers no fault tolerance at all. Zero. Nada. RAID 5 and 6 would work (but are a bit slow for writing) and would reduce the available disk space to about 2.25TB. If the Mac Pro’s RAID controller supports it, the safest solution (whilst remaining performant) would be RAID 1+0 giving 1.5TB of usable space, mirrored across two disks and then striped. RAID 0 might be fast but you’d better hope it’s being backed up somewhere else and 3TB backups are not very easy to manage!
  • In another section, the panel was amused that PC Magazine would cover a story about why 91% of Mac users are satisfied with their product (as Apple tops a user satisfaction survey). Get over it – Mac OS X is just an operating system and Macs are personal computers (they always have been). If that’s a bit literal then Intel Macs are definitely just PCs! Now, if Windows XP Magazine or Linux Format had covered this story then I could understand the amusement, but PC Magazine and Personal Computer World should be covering Linux, Mac OS and Windows stories (in my experience Personal Computer World magazine certainly does) as well as those relating to any other operating systems that run on PC hardware.
  • In one episode the guys were suggesting that there is no reason to buy a PC as a Mac can do it all, making it a better PC than a PC… but hang on guys – previously you were making a distinction between Macs and PCs – you can’t have it both ways! And as much as I love Apple hardware, a black MacBook sounds pretty expensive to me. Even the MacPress has commented that other PC manufacturers have been making black notebook PCs for many years now (and they don’t charge a £90 premium to have it in black). I’d love a MacBook but my IBM ThinkPad is still my favourite (and best built) notebook PC.
  • Another item that riled me was a comment that Macs have 5% of the PC market share but not 5% of the viruses – duh! Hackers, virus writers, and other miscreants like kudos. No-one gets kudos for writing a virus on something obscure, but as the Mac gains a greater market share it will be the target for more malware – especially as the MacPress continues to stress that Windows on a Mac is subject to the same security concerns as Windows on any other PC (true) whilst stressing that running OS X on a Mac is safe (misleading… and unlikely to remain true indefinitely). All PC users should practice safe computing, regardless of the operating system.

In all, MacBreak Weekly disappointed me with a general Mac-elitist view. Sure, I recently switched to using a Mac, but I run other OSs too (I’m writing this on my Fedora notebook). Mac OS X is good at some things, Linux is good at others and, believe it or not, Windows is good at some things too; Windows Vista and Windows Longhorn Server may be running late but Windows Server 2003 is still a great server OS. The trouble is that there are still too many “my OS is better than your OS” discussions.

Still, at least (in episode 5) I learnt about availability heuristics!

Server virtualisation using VMware: two real-life stories

VMware logo BT logo Nationwide logo
Last week, I attended the VMware Beyond Boundaries event in London – the first of a series of events intended to highlight the benefits that server virtualisation technology has to offer. The day included a number of high-quality presentations; however there were two that had particular meaning because they were given by VMware customers – no marketing fluff, just “this is what we found when we implemented VMware in our organisations”. Those organisations weren’t small either – BT (a leading provider of communications solutions serving customers throughout the world) and Nationwide Building Society (the UK’s largest building society – a members-owned financial services provider with mutual status).

Michael Crader, BT’s Head of Development and Test Infrastructure/Head of Windows Migration talked about the BT datacentre server consolidation and virtualisation strategy. This was a particularly interesting presentation because it showed just how dramatic the savings could be from implementing the technology.

BT’s initial virtualisation project was concerned with test and development facilities and used HP ProLiant DL585 servers with 16-48GB RAM, attached to NetApp primary (24TB) and nearline (32TB) storage with each virtual machine on its own LUN. SnapMirror technology allows backing up a virtual machine in 2-3 seconds, facilitating the removal of two roles whereby two staff were solely responsible for loading tapes (with 96 hour backups of the test infrastructure).

The virtualisation of the test and development facilities was so successful that BT moved on to file and print, and then to production sites, where BT are part way through consolidating 1503 WIntel servers in 5 datacentres to three virtual infrastuctures, aiming for:

  • Clearance of rack space (15:1 server consolidation ratio).
  • Reduction in power/heat requirements.
  • Virtualised servers and storage.
  • Rapid deployment.
  • True capacity on demand.

The supporting hardware is still from HP, using AMD Opteron CPUs but this time BT are using (in each datacentre) 36 HP ProLiant BL45 blade servers for hosting virtual machines, each with 32GB RAM, 3 HP ProLiant DL385 servers for management of the infrastructure (VirtualCenter, Microsoft SQL Server and PlateSpin PowerConvert), 4 fibre channel switches and an HP XP12000 SAN – that’s just 10 racks of equipment per datacentre.

This consolidation will eventually allow BT to:

  • Reduce 375 racks of equipment to 30.
  • Reduce power consumption from approximately 700W per server to around 47W, saving approximately £750,000 a year.
  • Consolidate 4509 network connections (3 per server) to 504.
  • Remove all direct attached storage.

At the time of writing, the project has recovered 419 servers, 792 network ports, 58 racks, used 12TB of SAN storage, saved 250KW of power, 800,000 BTU/hour of heat and removed 75 tonnes of redundant equipment – that’s already massive financial savings, management efficiencies, and that reduction in heat and power is good for the environment too!

Michael Crader also outlined what doesn’t work for virtualisation (on ESX Server 2.5.x):

  • Servers which require more than 4 CPUs
  • Servers with external devices attached
  • Heavily loaded Citrix servers.

His main points for others considering similar projects were that:

  • Providing the infrastructure is in place, migration is straightforward (BT are currently hitting 50-60 migrations per week) with the main activities involving auditing, workload management, downtime and managing customer expectations.
  • The virtual infrastructure is truly providing capacity on demand with the ability to deploy new virtual machines in 11-15 minutes.

In another presentation, Peter West, one of Nationwide Building Society’s Enterprise Architects, outlined Nationwide’s server virtualisation strategy. Like many organisations, Nationwide is suffering from physical server sprawl and increased heat per unit of rackspace. As a major user of Microsoft software, Nationwide had previously begun to use Microsoft Virtual Server; however they moved to VMware ESX Server in order to benefit from the product’s robustness, scalability and manageability – and reduced total cost of ownership (TCO) by 35% in doing so (Virtual Server was cheaper to buy – it’s now free – but it cost more to implement and manage).

Nationwide’s approach to virtualisation is phased; however by 2010 they plan to have virtualised 85-90% of the Intel server estate (production, quality assurance/test, and disaster recovery). Currently, they have 3 farms of 10 servers, connected to EMC Clariion storage and are achieving 17-18:1 server consolidation ratios on 4-way servers with data replication between sites.

Peter West explained that Nationwide’s server consolidation approach is more than just technology – it involves automation, configuration and asset management, capacity on demand and service level management – and a scheme known internally as Automated Lights-out Virtualisation Environment (ALiVE) is being implemented, structured around an number of layers:

  • Policy-based automation
  • Security services
  • Resource management services
  • Infrastructure management services
  • Virtualisation services
  • Platforms
  • IP networks

With ALiVE, Nationwide plans to take 700 development virtual servers, 70 physical development servers, a number of virtual machines on a VMware GSX Server platform and 500 physical machines to VMware Infrastructure 3, addressing issues regarding a lack of standard builds, backup/recovery, limited support, and a lack of SLAs along with a growing demand from development projects, to allow self service provisioning of virtual machines via a portal.

At the risk of sounding like an extension of the VMware marketing department, hopefully, these two examples of real-life virtualisation projects have helped to illustrate some of the advantages of the technology, as well as some of the issues that need to be overcome in server virtualisation projects.

Getting Real Player to work on Fedora Core 5

Fedora logo Helix logo Real logo
I really dislike RealPlayer. This dislike stems from the Windows version of the application, which seems (to me) to install unwanted components and generally act in an intrusive manner; unfortunately the BBC’s streaming audio service uses RealAudio formats (although some content is available for Windows Media) so if I want to listen to BBC radio over the Internet then I need to install this objectionable piece of software – that’s what I’ve spent the last 2 and a bit hours trying to do on my Linux (Fedora Core 5) system here in my hotel room…

Getting hold of the software is easy enough – just download the RealPlayer for Linux from the Real Networks website (there’s even an RPM package). Alternatively there’s a Mozilla-compatible plug-in for access to RealAudio and RealVideo content from within a browser, although I couldn’t seem to get it to work with my Firefox installation (having said that, I have a feeling that some of the later troubleshooting steps I followed to get the RealPlayer working might have worked for the plug-in too).

After downloading RealPlayer 10 for Linux, I opened a terminal session, and entered the following commands:

su –
rpm -ivh RealPlayer10GOLD.rpm
cd /usr/local/RealPlayer/postinst/
./postinst.sh

I had hoped that this would be all I needed to do, but I still couldn’t access audio from the BBC website. Following advice from a tutorial that includes information on Mozilla plugins I ran yum -y install mozplugger; however this didn’t seem to help – each time I accessed RealAudio content from the web, the Helix Player (upon which RealPlayer for Linux is based) launched and displayed the following message:

Component Missing
The player does not have the capabilities to play back this content.

This content is supported by RealPlayer.

Clicking on the details button highlighted that the player was looking for the protocol_rtsp_rdt component but googling didn’t turn up much on this. I also checked out the BBC’s audio help advice for Linux/Unix users without too much luck. One tip that may have helped (from a Linux Questions forum post) was to create a symbolic link to the RealPlayer plugins for Firefox:

ln -s /usr/local/RealPlayer/mozilla/* /usr/lib/firefox-1.5.0.6/plugins

I finally got a break when I noticed that the Real Player 10 shortcut on the Applications menu didn’t seem to do anything. Looking at the properties for the shortcut (using smeg) highlighted the command as realplay so I issued the same command from a terminal. This gave me a useful message:

/usr/local/RealPlayer/realplay.bin: error while loading shared libraries: libstdc++.so.5: cannot open shared object file: No such file or directory.

Following Stanton Finley’s Fedora Core 5 installation notes, I ran yum -y install compat-libstdc++-33 after which the realplay command launched the RealPlayer Setup Assistant and I successfully played RealAudio and RealVideo test clips directly in the RealPlayer; however accessing RealAudio content from within Firefox still launched the Helix Player, complete with the Component Missing error. Not really knowing how to use MozPlugger (other than to view about:plugins), I checked the version numbers for the two players and found that Helix Player reported its version number as v1.0.6.778 (experimental) whereas RealPlayer was v10.0.8.805 (gold). Rather than upgrading Helix Player, I removed it using yum -e HelixPlayer and found that, although this also removed the RealPlayer 10 application shortcut, I could still call realplay from a shell and RealMedia content from NPR and the BBC ran successfully both within RealPlayer and Firefox.

So, that’s RealPlayer working on Fedora Core 5… not exactly painless, and probably not the best way of doing it (some of these steps may well be unnecessary) – hopefully writing these notes up will save someone else a load of time.

Some more about VMware Infrastructure 3

VMware logo
Last week I wrote an introduction to VMware Infrastructure 3. That was based on my experiences of getting to know the product, so it was interesting to see VMware‘s Jeremy van Doorn and Richard Garsthagen provide a live demonstration at the VMware Beyond Boundaries event in London yesterday. What follows summarises the demo and should probably be read in conjunction with my original article.

Virtual Infrastructure 3 is designed for production use, allowing advanced functionality such as high availability to be implemented even more easily than using physical hardware – not just with current versions of Windows – VMware ESX Server 3.0 can run any x86 operating system including non-Windows operating systems (e.g. Sun Solaris), future Windows releases (e.g. Windows Vista) and even terminal servers.

Because virtual machines are just files on disk, it is simple to create a new server from a template and if a particular operator should only be given access to a subset of the servers then it is just a few clicks in the Virtual Infrastructure Client to delegate access and ensure that only those parts of the infrastructure for which a user has been assign permissions are visible. There’s also a browser-based administration client (Virtual Infrastructure Web Client) and URLs can be created to direct a user straight to the required virtual machine.

VMware demonstrated live server migration using VMotion with a remote desktop connection to a virtual machine which was running a continuous ping command, as well as a utility to keep the CPU busy and playing the Tetris game with no break in service. The then explained that because multiple servers can have access to the same data storage (i.e. VMFS on a shared LUN), migration is simply a case of one server releasing control of the virtual machine and another taking it on (provided that both machines have CPUs from the same processor family).

They then went on to drag a virtual machine between test and production resource pools, allowing access to more computing resources and after a couple of minutes the %CPU time allocated to the virtual machine could be seen to increase (recorded by a VMware script – not Windows Task Manager, which showed the machine as running at 100% already). It should be noted that there are limits to the resources that a virtual machine can use – each virtual machine can only exist on a single physical server at any one time, and even with VMware Virtual SMP is limited to accessing 4 CPUs and 16GB of RAM.

The environment was then extended by adding a new host to the VMware cluster within VirtualCenter and the VMware dynamic resource scheduling (DRS)functionality demonstrated, as virtual machines were automatically migrated between hosts to spread the load between servers. Then, to demonstrate a failure of a single host, one of the servers was simply switched off! Within about two minutes all virtual machines had successfully migrated elsewhere (using VMware high availability) and although there was an obvious break in service, it was only for a few minutes.

Richard Garsthagen then made the point that VMware (as a company) is not just about virtualisation – it’s about rethinking common IT tasks and he demonstrated the VMware consolidated backup (VCB) functionality whereby a backup proxy was used to take a point in time (snapshot) copy of a virtual machine without any break in service (just a message on the screen to say that the machine was being backed up), whilst maintaining consistency of data. VMware did highlight however that VCB is not a backup product itself – it’s an enabling technology that can be integrated with other products.

Turning to virtualisation of the desktop, VMware then demonstrated their Virtual Desktop Infrastructure product which makes virtual desktops available to users via a web portal with links that will start a VM in a remote desktop session. Provisioning a virtual machine to a user is a simple as assigning access in the Virtual Infrastructure Client.

Finally, a short glimpse was given into the Akimbi Slingshot product, recently purchased by VMware, which allows self provisioning of an isolated laboratory environment from a web client.

I’ve seen a lot of demonstrations over the years and, apart from a slight hiccup with the VCB demo when Richard Garsthagen closed the command window just as the backup started, this was one of the smoothest demos I’ve seen of some advanced operations, which in the physical world would require expensive (and complex) hardware, all executed within VMware Infrastructure 3.

A tale of two CPU architectures

AMD Opteron Intel XeonLast week I wrote about the VMware infrastructure that I’m trying to put in place. I mentioned that my testing has been based on HP ProLiant DL585 servers – each of these is equipped with four dual-core AMD Opteron 8xx CPUs and a stack of memory. Half of the initial infrastructure will use new DL585s and the intention is that implementing these servers will release some recently-purchased HP ProLiant DL580G3s for an expansion of the infrastructure. Because the DL580G3 uses an Intel Xeon MP (formerly codenamed Paxville MP) processor, the difference in processor families requires a separation of the servers into two resource pools; however that’s not the real issue. My problem is justifying to an organisation that until now has exclusively used Intel processors that AMD units provide (as my CTO puts it) “more bang for our buck”.

The trouble is that the press is full of reports on how the new Intel Xeon 51xx CPUs (formerly codenamed Woodcrest) out-perform AMD Opterons, where AMD has been in the lead until now; but that’s in the 2-processor server space and I’m not hearing much about 4-way units.

All of this may change tomorrow as, at today’s VMware Beyond Boundaries virtualisation roadshow, Richard Curran, Director of Marketing for the Intel (EMEA) Digital Enterprise Group, hinted about an impending announcement; however an HP representative expressed a view that any new CPU will just be to plug the gap for a few months – the real performance boost will come in a few months time with the next generation of dual-core multiprocessor chips (in the same way that the Xeon 50xx chips, formerly codenamed Dempsey, preceded the 51xx Woodcrest).

Leaving aside any other server vendors, I need some direction as to which 4-way server to buy from HP. HP ProLiant DL580G3s would allow me to standardise but the newer HP ProLiant DL580G4s are more powerful – using the Xeon 71xx chips (formerly codenamed Tulsa) with Intel VT virtualisation support – and, based on list price, are significantly less expensive. Meanwhile, HP’s website claims that ProLiant DL585s are “the best performing x86 4-processor server in the industry” and they cost slightly less than a comparably-specified DL580G4 (again, based on list price), even before taking into account their lower power consumption.

Speaking to Intel, they (somewhat arrogantly) disregarded any reason why I should chose AMD; however AMD were more rational, explaining that regardless of the latest Intel benchmarks, an Opteron is technologically superior for a two main reasons: the hypertransport connection between processor cores; and the integrated memory controller (cf. Intel’s approach of using large volumes of level 3 cache), although the current generation of Opterons only use DDR RAM. Crucially though, AMD’s next-generation dual-core Opterons are socket-compatible with the forthcoming quad-core CPUs (socket F) and are in the same thermal envelope – allowing for processor upgrades – as well as using DDR2 memory and providing AMD-V virtualisation support (but in any case I’ll need to wait a few months for the HP ProLiant DL585G2 before I can buy a socket F-based Opteron 8xxx rack server from HP).

As my virtualisation platform is based on VMware products, I asked VMware which processor architecture they have found to be most performant (especially as the Opteron 8xx does not provide hardware support for virtualisation; although there are doubts about whether ESX Server 3.0 is ready to use such technology – I have read some reports that there will be an upgrade later). Unsurprisingly, VMware are sitting on the fence and will not favour one processor vendor over another (both AMD and Intel are valued business partners for VMware); of course, such comparisons would be subjective anyway but I need to know that I’m making the right purchasing decision. So I asked HP. Again, no-one will give me a written opinion but two HP representatives have expressed similar views verbally – AMD is still in the lead for 4-way servers, at least for the next few months.

There are other considerations too – DL580s feature redundant RAM (after power and disk, memory is the next most likely component to fail and whilst ECC can guard against single-bit failures, double-bit failures are harder to manage); however because the memory controller is integrated in each CPU for an AMD Opteron, there is no redundant RAM for a DL585.

Another consideration is the application load – even virtualised CPUs are perform differently under different workloads: for heavily cached applications (e.g. Microsoft SQL Server or SAP), an Intel architecture may provide the best performance; meanwhile CPU and memory-intensive tasks (e.g. Microsoft Exchange) are more suited to an AMD architecture.

So it seems that it really is “horses for courses” – maybe a split resource pool is the answer with one pool for heavily cached applications and another for CPU and memory-intensive applications. What I really hope is that I don’t regret the decision to follow the AMD path in a few months time… they used to say that “nobody ever got fired for buying IBM“. These days it seems to be the same story for buying Intel.

UK white pages available online

I don’t know how long this has been available but I just noticed a link on the BT website to the Phonebook – the UK’s residential and business white pages service. Many years back I used to have some sort of dial-up terminal access to a directory lookup system but I didn’t know it was now available on the Internet. Won’t find me though… I’m ex-directory!

VMware Beyond Boundaries virtualisation roadshow

VMware Beyond Boundaries

It’s conference season and I’ll be missing the European Microsoft TechEd IT Forum this year for two reasons: firstly, it clashes with my son’s birthday; secondly, it’s in Barcelona, and last time I attended a TechEd there I found it to be less-well organised than conferences in other European cities (e.g. Amsterdam). There’s also a third reason – it’s unlikely I’ll get budget approval to attend – but the reasons I’ve already given mean I won’t even be trying!

Given my current work commitments, one conference for which I should find it reasonably easy to justify is VMware’s VMworld; however, nice though a trip to Los Angeles might be (actually, there are other American cities that I’d rather visit), I’m expecting to have gained a new son or daughter a few weeks previously and leaving my wife home alone with a toddler and a newborn baby for a week might not be considered a very good idea. With that in mind I was glad to attend the VMware Beyond Boundaries virtualisation roadshow today at London’s Excel conference centre – VMware’s first UK symposium with 500 attendees and 27 sponsors – a sort of mini-VMworld.

Whilst I was a little annoyed at having arrived in time for the first session at 09:30 and VMware apparently being in no hurry to kick off the proceedings, it was a worthwhile day, with presentations on trends in virtualisation and increasing efficiency through virtualisation; live demos of VMware Infrastructure 3; panel discussions on realising business benefits from a virtualisation strategy and recognising when and how to virtualise; real life virtualisation experiences from BT and Nationwide; and a trade show with opportunities to meet with a number of hardware vendors and ISVs.

I’ll post some more about the most interesting sessions, but what follows is a summary of the key messages from the event.

One feature in the introduction session was a video with a bunch of children describing what they thought virtualisation might mean. Two of the quotes that I found particularly interesting were “virtual kind of means to me that you put on a helmet and then you’re in a different world” and the idea that I might “use it to get money and do [my] homework”. Actually, neither of those quotes are too far from the truth.

Taking the first quote, virtualisation is a different world – it’s a paradigm shift from the distributed server operations model that we’re used to in the “WIntel” space – maybe not so radical for those from a mid-range or mainframe server background, but a new style of operations for many support teams. As for the second quote – it is possible to save money through server consolidation which leads to savings in hardware expenditure as well as reduced power and heat requirements (one CPU at a higher utilisation uses less power than several lightly-loaded units) and consolidation (through virtualsiation) also allows organisations to unlock the potential in underutilised servers and get their “homework” done.

Indeed, according to IBM‘s Tikiri Wanduragala, server consolidation is the driver behind most virtualisation projects as organisations try to get more out of their hardware investment, making the most of computing “horsepower” and looking at metrics such as servers per square inch or servers per operator. Realising cost savings is the justification for the consolidation exercise and virtualisation is the enabling technology but as IDC‘s Thomas Meyer commented, he doubted that a conference room would have been filled had the event be billed as a server consolidation event, rather than a server virtualisation one. Wanduragala highlighted other benefits too – virtualsiation is introducing standard by the back door as organisations fight to minimise differences between servers, automate operations and ultimately reduce cost.

Interestingly, for a spokesman from a company whose current marketing message seems to be all about high performance and who is due to launch a (faster) new chip for 4-way servers tomorrow, Intel‘s Richard Curran says that performance per Watt is not the single issue here – organisations also want reliability, and additional features and functionality (e.g. the ability to shut down parts of a server that are not in use), whilst Dell‘s Jeffrey Wartgow points out that virtualisation is more than just a product – it’s a new architecture that impacts on many areas of business. It also brings new problems – like virtual server proliferation – and so new IT policy requirements.

Somewhat predictably for an organisation that has been around since the early days of computing, IBM’s response is that the reactive style of managing management console alerts for PC servers has to be replaced with predictive systems management, more akin to that used in managing mid-range and mainframe servers.

Of course, not every organisation is ready to embrace virtualisation (although IDC claim that 2006 is the year or virtualisation, with 2.1 million virtual servers being deployed, compared with 7 million physical server shipments; and 46% of Global 2000 companies are deploying virtualisation technologies [Forrester Research]). Intel cited the following issues to be resolved in pushing virtualisation projects through:

  • Internal politics, with departments claiming IT real estate (“my application”, “my server”, “my storage”).
  • Skills – getting up to speed with new technologies and new methods (e.g. operations teams that are wedded to spreadsheets of server configuration information find it difficult to cope with dynamically shifting resources as virtual servers are automatically moved to alternative hosts).
  • Justifying indirect cost savings and expressing a total cost of ownership figure.

IDC’s figures back this up with the most significant hurdles in their research being:

  • Institutional resistance (25%).
  • Cost (17%).
  • Lack of technical experience (16%).

The internal politics/institutional resistance issue is one of the most significant barriers to virtualisation deployment. As Tikiri Wanduragala highlighted, often the line of business units hold their own budgets and want to see “their machine” – the answer is to generate new business charging models that reflect the reduced costs in operating a virtual infrastructure. Intel see this as being reflected in the boardroom, where IT Directors are viewed with suspicion as they ask for infrastructure budgets – the answer is the delivery of IT as a service – virtualisation is one shared service infrastructure that can support that model, as Thomas Meyer tagged it, a service oriented infrastructure to work hand in hand with a service oriented architecture.

For many organisations, virtualisation is fast becoming the preferred approach for server deployment, with physical servers being reserved for applications and hardware that are not suited to a virtual platform. On the desktop, virtualisation is taking off more slowly as users have an emotional attachment to their device. HP‘s Iain Stephen noted that there are two main technologies to assist with regaining control of the desktop – the first is client blades (although he did concede that the technology probably hit the market two years too late) and the second is virtual desktops. Fujitsu-Siemens Computers‘ Christophe Lindemann added that client blades simply take the desktop off the desk is not enough – the same management issues remain – and that although many organisations have implemented thin client (terminal server) technology, that too has its limitations.

Microsoft’s dynamic systems initiative, HP’s adaptive infrastructure, Dell’s scalable enterprise, IBM’s autonomic computing, Fujitsu-Siemens Computers’ dynamic data centre and IDC’s dynamic IT are all effectively about the same thing – as HP put it “[to] deliver an integrated architecture that helps you move from high-cost IT islands to lower-cost shared IT assets”. No longer confined to test and development environments, virtualsiation is a key enabler for the vision of providing a shared-service infrastructure. According to IDC, 50% of virtual machines are running production-level applications, including business-critical workloads; and 45% of all planned deployments are seen as virtualisation candidates. It’s not just Windows servers that are being virtualised – Linux and Unix servers can be virtualised too – and ISV support is improving – VMware’s Raghu Raghuram claims that 70% of the top ISVs support software deployed in a virtual environment.

Looking at server trends, the majority of servers (62.4%) are have a rack-mount form factor with a significant proportion (26.7%) being shipped as blades and pedestal/tower servers being very much in the minority [source: IDC]. Most servers procured for virtualisation are 2- or 4-way boxes [source: IDC] (although not specifically mentioned, it should also be noted that the VMware licensing model, which works on the basis of pairs of physical processors, lends itself well to dual-core and the forthcoming multi-core processors).

Virtualisation changes business models – quoting Meyer “it is a disruptive technology in a positive sense” – requiring a new approach to capacity planning and a rethink around the allocation of infrastructure and other IT costs; however it is also a great vehicle to increase operational efficiencies, passing innovation back to business units, allowing customers to meet emerging compliance rules and to meet business continuity requirements whilst increasing hardware utilisation.

Summarising the day, VMware’s Regional Director for the UK and Ireland, Chris Hammans, highlighted that virtual infrastructure is rapidly being adopted, the IT industry is supporting virtual infrastructure and the dynamic data centre is here today.