Funny , I was chatting with the Reflex Security CTO Hezi Moore today, and we both agreed that a lot of work, sweat and blood was being spilled by security firms like ReflexSecurity and others but there were no standards to compare (Ok, I do agree that security may not be the right example, but it is one of the issues that also threatens virtualization adoption in production, if it is not considered during the virtualization ).
Obviously Reflex being the front runner had/has most of the features but some standard that will not only address security but also make it a default option during installation, will definitely help virtualization grow.
There has to be some SPEC benchmarking that will help organizations scale their applications on virtualization platform or help them choose which applications can really run on a virtual platform. There is still some fear and doubt about it, there is anyways a gray cloud of uncertainty that is looming on the managers heads, a lot of them also risk of losing their jobs, because the neighbor is doing it already for a year.
We need a lot of compatibility, a lot of "middle space"* and good hope for future investments. I don't entirely agree with this article as companies are taking notice and a lot of them are beginning to invest in crucial aspects of virtualization such as security, vmlm, provisioning, release management, development, off-shoring etc.
We also need a strong open source virtualization format, call it an OVF (Open Virtualization Format), that can be used by companies to build, deploy and tear down their environments. The business perspective too has to change, imagine if you start defining LOBs that have 6-9 month windows.
A simple example could be: Firm X starts up a production unit in Guatemala for processing alternative fuel from the crops (maize etc), it sets up its "Lightweight LOB" with the current VI that conforms to a "Common Standard" (I talk about this as well in my slide during Brussels) at that PIT (Point-In-Time), this unit in intended to have a 6-9 month life. when the refined fuel is processed , then another LOB can be started to transport the fuel to other countries (also to be consumed by the vessel carrying it obviously so it remains a Green Initiative), ending the older LOB effectively. The new LOB will take on the current VI that is valid for that point-in-time.
All I am trying to say here is that we need standards but we should stop relying on standards that will hold for decades. When that changes, worries about virtualization adoption, alternative fuels, genome researches can all take place without any worry about some unforeseen future.
* A broker layer where all the check pointing like policy management, release management, change management, backup etc should take place.
Anyways here's the take from that Forrester's researcher on the CNN.
Link here, More later...
Obviously Reflex being the front runner had/has most of the features but some standard that will not only address security but also make it a default option during installation, will definitely help virtualization grow.
There has to be some SPEC benchmarking that will help organizations scale their applications on virtualization platform or help them choose which applications can really run on a virtual platform. There is still some fear and doubt about it, there is anyways a gray cloud of uncertainty that is looming on the managers heads, a lot of them also risk of losing their jobs, because the neighbor is doing it already for a year.
We need a lot of compatibility, a lot of "middle space"* and good hope for future investments. I don't entirely agree with this article as companies are taking notice and a lot of them are beginning to invest in crucial aspects of virtualization such as security, vmlm, provisioning, release management, development, off-shoring etc.
We also need a strong open source virtualization format, call it an OVF (Open Virtualization Format), that can be used by companies to build, deploy and tear down their environments. The business perspective too has to change, imagine if you start defining LOBs that have 6-9 month windows.
A simple example could be: Firm X starts up a production unit in Guatemala for processing alternative fuel from the crops (maize etc), it sets up its "Lightweight LOB" with the current VI that conforms to a "Common Standard" (I talk about this as well in my slide during Brussels) at that PIT (Point-In-Time), this unit in intended to have a 6-9 month life. when the refined fuel is processed , then another LOB can be started to transport the fuel to other countries (also to be consumed by the vessel carrying it obviously so it remains a Green Initiative), ending the older LOB effectively. The new LOB will take on the current VI that is valid for that point-in-time.
All I am trying to say here is that we need standards but we should stop relying on standards that will hold for decades. When that changes, worries about virtualization adoption, alternative fuels, genome researches can all take place without any worry about some unforeseen future.
* A broker layer where all the check pointing like policy management, release management, change management, backup etc should take place.
Anyways here's the take from that Forrester's researcher on the CNN.
Just as virtualization software teeters on the mainstream, the industry's inability to create ways for its different products to communicate threatens to stifle the burgeoning$5 billion business.Companies looking to invest in virtualization, while attracted to the cost savings that the technology offers, are growing hesitant to make too big a commitment in fear they bet on the wrong technology, leaving them with software that will be incompatible with other networks.
"The virtualization space is complex right now and understanding all of the nuances is what is slowing down the adoption of the technology," said
Natalie Lambert , analyst at Forrester Research.
Link here, More later...
Comments
Post a Comment