Skip to main content

VMware's storage independence with Storage Virtualization?



This was an interview with a Datacore Exec on their strategy on Storage Virtualiation and VMware's role in it.

TW: What do think about VMware directly interacting with a storage resource to automate storage provisioning for virtual servers?
PR:

We are having a lot of success with VMware pull-down and thin provisioning. VMware can already use Microsoft's Virtual Disk services (VDS) in Windows to do some of this. Also SMI-S has a generic storage API. It was supposed to be open but suppliers like EMC and HDS have extended it with proprietary extensions so it is no longer absolutely standard.

VDS hasn't taken off for a couple of reasons. Microsoft added complexity which wasn't needed. They came out with VDS and left it to lie. They didn't push it. No-one uses it. There isn't a usable GUI. The end user isn't interested in typing command lines.

We are talking to VMware (about an API-type protocol for storage provisioning). It's a rather complex relationship. They see storage as a hardware entity. We're not hardware. They are a software group too.


It still has a long way to go (as you read on the rest of the interview)

Datacore's site.
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Security: VMware Workstation 6 vulnerability

vulnerable software: VMware Workstation 6.0 for Windows, possible some other VMware products as well type of vulnerability: DoS, potential privilege escalation I found a vulnerability in VMware Workstation 6.0 which allows an unprivileged user in the host OS to crash the system and potentially run arbitrary code with kernel privileges. The issue is in the vmstor-60 driver, which is supposed to mount VMware images within the host OS. When sending the IOCTL code FsSetVoleInformation with subcode FsSetFileInformation with a large buffer and underreporting its size to at max 1024 bytes, it will underrun and potentially execute arbitrary code. Security focus
Post a Comment
Read more

OS Virtualization comparison: Parallels' Virtuozzo vs the rest

Virtuozzo's main differentiators versus hypervisors center on overhead, virtualization flexibility, administration and cost. Virtuozzo requires significantly less overhead than hypervisor solutions, generally in the range of 1% to 5% compared with 7% to 25% for most hypervisors, leaving more of the system available to run user workloads. Customers can also virtualize a wider range of applications using Virtuozzo, including transactional databases, which often suffer from performance problems when used with hypervisors. On the administration side, customers need to manage, maintain and secure just a single OS instance, while the hypervisor model requires customers to manage many OS instances. Of course, the hypervisor vendors have worked hard to automate much of this process, but it still requires more effort to manage and maintain multiple operating systems than a single instance. Finally, OS virtualization with Virtuozzo has a lower list price than the leading hypervisor for comme...
Post a Comment
Read more