What I could gather from this post was:
- If you are purely cost-driven and don't care about the planet, then you will go for cheaper Linux servers instead of trying to manage those difficult Windows machines. That seems to be cheaper than buying VMware.
- Management overhead: It is an added burden to organizations to adopt a technology and to suddenly teach their staff to start leaning new skills and technologies. It is great for a system admin, but all the more difficult to make it happen. Measurability and accountability is very crucial. IT managers who can't get a grip on that have a lot to lose.
But virtualisation may introduce a hidden cost: management overhead.
Symantec field systems engineer Chris Bowden says managing a virtualised environment takes new skills and understanding. The same tasks remain, such as software compliance and patch management, but they are handled differently.
"It doesn't solve every problem," Mr Bowden says. "If they are not managing their servers well, then they are not going to be managing their virtual servers well, either. Because it is so easy to create a virtual server, there is potential to end up with more of these servers than we would with physical servers, introducing problems."
Obviously, there are parties who still believe that they can offer more value despite the cost inhibitor, to be fair they can achieve things like:
- Faster provisioning, moving 111 server by two individuals in a day is some feat indeed.
- How often do you pump 100+ vms across your data center?
- When all your Data Center is virtualized, how do you justify to your CxO on those heavy license costs?