Is virtualization the cure for the economic crisis?

Virtualization has been hailed by many as the cure to all our woes. Wouldn’t that be nice? Alas, it has its limitations — though it may do a whole lot more than you imagined it could.

Before we can really center on the benefits, we need to resolve some of the misconceptions. For example, perhaps you think of server virtualization as a great way to create savings by reducing the amount of hardware you need.

[ For the latest virtualization news and views, please check out David Marshall’s Virtualization Report. ]

Now, before you nod your head in agreement, keep in mind that that last statement may not be accurate. Imagine reducing 10 servers down to one. You might think that this results in obvious savings. But placing 10 virtualized systems onto one machine comes with a hefty price tag all its own. To calculate true ROI (return on investment), you have to first consider the cost for that solitary server, which has to be maxed out with processor/RAM/disk features. It should have a solid set of storage virtualization (mirrored drives, RAID, and so forth) and, in true business continuity form, should be replicated with data protection and disaster recovery in mind.

The price tag is starting to rise, isn’t it? Think of it as replacing 10 Hyundais with a Ferrari. Are you really saving money?

Wait a moment: Is virtualization a mistake, a costly mirage in a desert?

Actually, every company should be looking into implementing virtualization. There will be initial upfront costs, and it is true that you need to count the cost, so to speak, and make wise decisions about the vendor you choose and the pricing model you go with. However, the price of not going with a virtualization solution may be the full loss of your business.

Arguments for virtualization

Perhaps you have noticed the increasing number of natural and man-made disasters that are hitting companies. In both 1993 and 2001 when the World Trade Center was a target, many companies went out of business because they didn’t have a disaster recovery plan in place that could quickly have them up and running again. With the hurricanes hitting Louisiana in 2005, how many businesses were ill-prepared because they didn’t have an off-site location ready immediately to resume business? As a whitepaper from VMWare states [PDF], “According to the National Archives and Records Administration, 93 percent of companies that lost their datacenter for 10 days or more due to a disaster filed for bankruptcy within one year of the disaster.” This data might be striking at first, but it is hardly a coincidence that when the datacenter goes down for a prolonged period of the time, the whole company goes down shortly after that.

In calculating more immediate savings with virtualization, you must consider that a reduction in hardware (although probably less of a savings than you thought, as noted above) will also bring about a reduction in spending because you will free up datacenter floor space, though the amount of space you can free up depends on how many servers you have and how much consolidation you can achieve via virtualization. You will also require less energy (going greener, always a positive thing if you ask my esteemed colleague and Sustainable IT blogger Ted Samson) because you will not only have fewer machines to power but fewer machines to cool. A lower energy bill is a good thing. Alternatively, you can put that extra energy toward adding more servers to your datacenter.

Moreover, you will also require fewer personnel (not that we want anyone to lose their job to a machine, certainly not with this economy nor with the eventuate outcome of such a move, according to the show Battlestar Galactica; for those of you who have no idea what that means, research Cylons in Google). So perhaps instead of saying fewer personnel, we will say you can utilize your IT staff a little better because virtualized servers can typically be managed a lot more easily and through centralized management tools provided by the vendors.

Which virtualization solution should you pursue?

There are many good choices on the market, and I’m not about to begin yet another holy war in saying “Hyper-V beats out VMWare,” because I don’t believe that. There are pros and cons to all solutions. Consider this virtualization comparison chart on the IT 2.0 blog site. Certain solutions and vendors are missing from the list (most notable to me is CA, which has a nice suite of products for managing data protection through replication and virtualization products such as CAARCserve and CA XOsoft) — but you can see clearly that there is a lot to consider before making a purchase.

[ Read the InfoWorld Test Center’s review of Microsoft Windows Server 2008 Hyper-V RC1. ]

Once you have a vendor you like and who meets your needs and you’ve decided on a pricing model you can work with, you are going to have to make some other decisions. Are you going to virtualize your physical systems in-house or leave them alone and just go with a virtualized backup set of systems? Will your virtualize both production and off-site systems? Or will you go to the highest level and virtualize production systems to virtualized in-house data protection systems with an off-site set of virtualized systems for disaster recovery and business continuity? Whew! Lots to consider, but worth it in the end.

No, virtualization may not end the economic crisis, but it will possibly keep your company up and running. And hey, that saves jobs right? First and foremost, yours.

So how is your company implementing virtualization solutions? Which vendor do you support and why?