News
11/10/2008
08:39 AM
George Crump
George Crump
Commentary
50%
50%

Solving The Gap Between Virtual Machine And Storage

Server virtualization rollouts often get stuck after the first wave. That first wave is where you have virtualized most of your easy stuff. Then as the virtual machines begin to proliferate, it occurs to you that you have lost control. One of the key disconnects is from server to storage.

Server virtualization rollouts often get stuck after the first wave. That first wave is where you have virtualized most of your easy stuff. Then as the virtual machines begin to proliferate, it occurs to you that you have lost control. One of the key disconnects is from server to storage.Back in the old days of direct attached storage (DAS), you knew exactly where your application was getting its data and where to identify bottlenecks. That said, DAS certainly had its limitations. Those limitations were in large part resolved by storage area networks (SAN) and despite the complexity they brought to the data center, SANs were deemed "worth it." There was a layer of abstraction that caused some confusion with a SAN. The storage is separated from the server, but at least you still had one application to one server.

Server virtualization adds another layer of abstraction to the equation -- now multiple virtual servers from the same physical host are attached to your SAN. Additionally, those virtual servers begin to move from physical host to physical host. Storage management in a virtualized server environment becomes very challenging.

The process bogs down when you try to virtualize more of your existing servers or someone presents you a request for a new virtual server. Typically, one of your first steps will be to determine which physical host has the most available compute, memory, network, and storage resources available to it. The problem is getting a view that lets you "see" from the virtual cluster all the way through to storage. For example, tools like Tek-Tools Software's Profiler for VMware, Akorri's BalancePoint, and others provide capabilities that allow you to see how storage, virtual machines, and their physical hosts interact.

In a world where you have to do more with less, these solutions increase your efficiency by allowing you to better plan and optimize your virtual moves. For example, if you have a physical server that you are planning to virtualize, you can use these tools to see where your available capacity is by physical host or by the entire virtual cluster. You can then place your new virtual machine on the server with the most available storage capacity both from a space standpoint as well as I/O availability. Tek-Tools extends this a step further if you are using its other modules and will rank the hosts in your environment as to their favorability to be virtualized.

Using tools like this will increase ROI on your virtualization project by allowing you safe but maximum utilization out of your physical infrastructure while at the same time increasing your flexibility to respond to changing business requirements.

Join us for our upcoming Webcast, SSD: Flash vs. DRAM...and the winner is?

Track us on Twitter: http://twitter.com/storageswiss.

Subscribe to our RSS feed.

George Crump is founder of Storage Switzerland, an analyst firm focused on the virtualization and storage marketplaces. It provides strategic consulting and analysis to storage users, suppliers, and integrators. An industry veteran of more than 25 years, Crump has held engineering and sales positions at various IT industry manufacturers and integrators. Prior to Storage Switzerland, he was CTO at one of the nation's largest integrators.

Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Cartoon
Current Issue
Dark Reading December Tech Digest
Experts weigh in on the pros and cons of end-user security training.
Flash Poll
10 Recommendations for Outsourcing Security
10 Recommendations for Outsourcing Security
Enterprises today have a wide range of third-party options to help improve their defenses, including MSSPs, auditing and penetration testing, and DDoS protection. But are there situations in which a service provider might actually increase risk?
Video
Slideshows
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2014-4807
Published: 2014-11-22
Sterling Order Management in IBM Sterling Selling and Fulfillment Suite 9.3.0 before FP8 allows remote authenticated users to cause a denial of service (CPU consumption) via a '\0' character.

CVE-2014-6183
Published: 2014-11-22
IBM Security Network Protection 5.1 before 5.1.0.0 FP13, 5.1.1 before 5.1.1.0 FP8, 5.1.2 before 5.1.2.0 FP9, 5.1.2.1 before FP5, 5.2 before 5.2.0.0 FP5, and 5.3 before 5.3.0.0 FP1 on XGS devices allows remote authenticated users to execute arbitrary commands via unspecified vectors.

CVE-2014-8626
Published: 2014-11-22
Stack-based buffer overflow in the date_from_ISO8601 function in ext/xmlrpc/libxmlrpc/xmlrpc.c in PHP before 5.2.7 allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service (application crash) or possibly execute arbitrary code by including a timezone field in a date, leading to improper XML-RPC encoding...

CVE-2014-8710
Published: 2014-11-22
The decompress_sigcomp_message function in epan/sigcomp-udvm.c in the SigComp UDVM dissector in Wireshark 1.10.x before 1.10.11 allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service (buffer over-read and application crash) via a crafted packet.

CVE-2014-8711
Published: 2014-11-22
Multiple integer overflows in epan/dissectors/packet-amqp.c in the AMQP dissector in Wireshark 1.10.x before 1.10.11 and 1.12.x before 1.12.2 allow remote attackers to cause a denial of service (application crash) via a crafted amqp_0_10 PDU in a packet.

Best of the Web
Dark Reading Radio
Archived Dark Reading Radio
Now that the holiday season is about to begin both online and in stores, will this be yet another season of nonstop gifting to cybercriminals?