The Calm Before the Storm

Rakesh Kumar of Gartner published a white paper last fall entitled "U.S. Data Centers: The Calm Before the Storm".

In it he says U.S. Data Centers "are facing considerable disruption during the next three or more years" and they are facing it from a few things:

• Energy
• Green IT initiatives
• Floor space demands
• New technology

No mention of virtualization unless it's the source of all of the above - impacting energy, trying to be a green IT initiative, trying to help with floor space and it is a new technology.

What should CIOs be going now to prepare for this storm?

• Consider Data Center Colocation - see who has a data center nearby and see who has fiber to it - you will need 1 GB or 10 GB links depending on the size of your enterprise and hire some good financial people to determine if there is a decent ROI on moving your Data Center to a third party provider.
  
  Also ask the beancounters to factor in running your own fiber, this may not be as expensive as it once was, carriers may have available strands and you may only have to do the last mile to your location.
  
  
• Worry about your power bill - energy costs have increased, consider off peak times, VMware's introduction of DPM is the ability to power on ESX hosts and then move VMs to take advantage of lower density environments (think your overnight routines that chew up alot of CPU) with DPM you can spread them out to take advantage of lower power costs.
  
  
  Before 6 AM and after 6 PM may be lower rates ($$ per kw/hr).
  
  
  
• Invest in Systems Management tools - get something that helps you identify who is using your resources and driving up your costs. Chargeback by VM will allow you to fairly delivery charges for Data Center usage by the business unit using the most resources.
  
  This type of transparency will priortize which business unit needs to fix their Data Center problems - be it running highly transactional reports during the day that could be run at night, poorly coded applications that use too much memory, too much CPU, etc.
  
  Start a list of power supplies in the Data Center - servers, SANs, etc - you will be shocked to see newer servers may have power supplies running at 900-1300 watts - that's nearly 1 KW per hour per server.

Remember its this simple:

Servers = Power A = Heat = Cooling = Power B.

To fix this:

1. Reducing your physical servers
2. Reduces your power A
3. Reduces your heat
4. Reduces your cooling
5. Reduces your power B.

Now just get the financial data lined up to show that a server reduction project (i.e. virtualization) may costs some $$ but it be offset by the cost saving of reducing power A and B.

Killer VMs on the loose.

I have been hearing more and more about the "Killer VMs" - think of this as the lovechild of Virtualization and the industry term "Killer Apps".

Wikipedia has it as "is an application so compelling that someone will buy the hardware or software components necessary to run it."

Basically virtualize the "Killer App" and its becomes the "Killer VM".

This will make you visible, put your name on the map, your CIO will thank you, your CEO may even wave at you once in recognition of your stellar service.

Don't get cocky. These "Killer Apps" often have problems and are the application server than when it hiccups, goes down, causing your business pain and makes everyone go "We really should do something about that" but no one does.

Alot of IT departments may spend a ton of money on Active/Passive Clustering, etc - remember its a favorite child, it may get all sorts of resources, dollars spent on it, trying to ensure application SLA's or increase its uptime and performance.

I have seen new servers, more memory, faster CPUs, even SAN's purchased to manage "Killer Apps".

I have seen investment in high-end clustering, low-end clustering for "Killer Apps" - when at the end of the day the "Killer App" may just be a Windows 2000 Server running SQL with an application that is mission critical.

Enter VMWare, enter DRS, VMotion, HA, etc and you pick up some amazing tools to manage these "Killer Apps" and they become "Killer VMs".

Mark Brunnel writes about putting Navision and SQL 2005 into a VM, and had the v-piphany (virtualization epiphany):

"It is amazing to see VMWare running and the management and failover capabilities. For me it means the end of active passive clusters."

Mark's done some rough benchmarking and found that "VMWare is just slightly slower in posting but only 5% maximum." that's compared to the application running in Windows.

More and more people are going past their initial P2V consolidation effors, alot more are building VMs without every having a physical server, and now folks are optimizing environments, in this 2nd or 3rd phase of Virtualization, the Killer VMs are going to start showing up - these VMs will be more important than some others, require more attention, more care and feeding and better capacity management of the resources.

No CIO is going to like to hear that a VM used by 10 people took down a "Killer VM".

No CIO wants to hear that you could have prevented it but hadn't rolled out Resource Pools yet or don't have the right systems management tools to manage/monitor resource utilization.

Water Cooled Doors / Datacenters

On the third day of cloudy skies and rain, I figured it appropriate to talk about water and how its returning to provide cooling in datacenters.

With virtualization usage increasing, server capacity increasing, and VM densities on the rise (100:1 anyone?).

The amount of power in a rack is going to change from 7-8 kW to 30+ kW or more.

That's 300-400% increases in power densities inside a single rack. This explains the increase in discussion/slides on water cooling data centers - IBM has a Rear Door Heat eXchanger and I saw Vette Corp talking about their Rear Door Heat Exchanger.

I also think more folks start looking at Deep Lake Water Cooling (DLWC), which they are doing up at Cornell and Ontario.

Metro Hall, a 27 story office building in Toronto, went online with Enwave's Deep Lake Water Cooling system in June 2006. Energy consumption at Metro Hall will be reduced by 3 million kilowatt-hours per year and reduce CO2 emissions by 732 tons annually - equivalent to taking 160 cars off the road.

I am heading to Kitchener, Ontario (near Toronto) for a VMUG and I am going to try and get over to Toronto and check it out - Enwave distributes steam and chilled water to over 140 buildings via a 40km underground pipe network that covers most of the city's downtown core.

What's great is that they don't take water out of the lake, they use the "coldness" of the deep lake water to chill water in a pipe loop - this is done with a drastically lower carbon footprint that using electricity from coal-fed power plants.

One Quad or Two?

One of the best resources on the Internet for VMWare implementation is the VMTN community forums - its top notch.

This week there was a discussion about budgets and performance (where finance always mixes it up with IT (that and Chargeback)).

The post asks about the value of two medium-speed (1.6 - 2 Ghz) QuadCore CPU's ($$) vs. one high speed (3.33 Ghz) QuadCore CPU ($$$$).

I liked William Bishop from Huntsville Hospital response - "You'll get better density on the dual socket". He prefers the "dual proc, quad core setup" and has been "adminning vmware from some of the first dual cores to the newest quad cores."

I wonder if he has done anything with 4 socket x QuadCores?

Density is important - it's going to help you drive down your per VM costs and generate better ROI on the dollars invested in a virtualization product.

It's all about the ratio.

VKernel is an advocate of running your hardware at high levels of capacity. I know that we would see record-breaking ratios of virtual machines to server hardware.

• A major worldwide financial services organization achieved a 12:1 consolidation ratio and increased its central processing unit utilization by 30 percent.
  
  
• An Indian petroleum refining and distribution company achieved a 17:1 consolidation ratio and expects to increase that to 30:1 with additional CPUs and RAM.
  
  
• One of Italy's largest banks improved its server utilization rates by 100 percent.
  
  
• A leading US faucet manufacturer saved $250,000 in hardware costs by reallocating existing units instead of purchasing new, achieving a 10:1 consolidation ratio.
  
  
• A South American energy company consolidated its servers by a 20:1 ratio.
  
  
• A federation of trade unions in Singapore consolidated its servers by 46:1, achieving a 26 percent savings.
  

Smallest is 10:1 and largest is 46:1.

It's all about the ratio.

I want my Availability

I wanted to do a knock off the Dire Strait's tune - Money for Nothing and then change the "I want my MTV" into "I want my Availability" - VKernel will then hire a Dire Straits cover band to perform it somewhere.

Availability vs. Capacity - is one better than the other?

Are there types of Availability?

Virtual John writes about High Availability (HA) vs. Continuous Availability (CA)

"In plain English this means, if one of your hosts in a cluster of VMWare Servers goes away the VMs will reboot elsewhere. Reboot = downtime, so is this high availability? Or just higher availability than no fault tolerance?"

It could be a important misnomer - the VM's with HA will be expected to not have any interruption of business service (enter VMotion) and voila - "I want my Availability".