| Vendor | Claim to Fame | Key Products | Pros/Cons |
|
Advanced Micro Devices (AMD) |
Tweaked microprocessors to make virtualization doable on x86 machines. |
Infrastructure
|
Pros VM-capable microprocessors are key enablers of virtual server host hardware; dual- and quad-core chips continue to add power to servers destined to run many VMs as their key task. Cons Little expertise in virtualization beyond the chip; Intel still leads in most market arenas. |
|
Akorri |
Early and eager supplier of virtual infrastructure performance managment products. |
Management
|
Pros Tools to consolidate server, storage and software issues to help with capacity planning; sophisticated analysis of performance data can spot and troubleshoot VM problems early. Cons Software is somewhat pricey; company was formed only in 2005; venture funding raises potential for buyouts or cash-out changes in strategy. |
|
B-hive Networks |
Appliance-based network and performance management for VMs. |
Management
|
Pros Appliance monitors loads; maps transactions and creates database to compare real-time performance to past; load balancer shifts load to un-maxed VMs and reboots hanging ones. Cons Startup (2005) taking a non-standard approach to an increasingly common problem; performance of appliance should be tested in a customer’s unique environment. |
|
Blue Lane Technologies |
Security tool resists intruders and makes up for VMs that are unpatched or have other problems that would otherwise require help from administrators. |
Security
|
Pros Designed its security product to protect VMs regardless of the state of the patches in each individual guest OS. Runs in close integration with VMware’s hypervisor, preventing attacks on known vulnerabilities from penetrating to the VMs. Cons Demonstrated effectiveness in VMware not yet proven with Hyper-V. |
|
CiRBA |
Released planning software designed to allow scenario-planning for migration to virtual servers and management of VMs. |
Management
|
Pros CiRBA’s tools help forecast how apps and servers will coexist, including evaluations of middleware, database and other factors; custom criteria help plan for OS virtualization, application stacking and migrations to blade-server setups. Cons It’s a startup planning to use its latest round of funding to expand globally and continue its technological development—with all of the risks those two factors bring with them. |
|
Citrix |
Was virtual before virtualization was cool; continues to be a leader in application virtualization. |
Infrastructure
|
Pros Direct support of wide range of enterprise applications; can virtualize applications, servers, desktops or all three; close alliances with all major hardware and OS vendors; longest experience in thin-client computing of all the major virtualization vendors; signed on as major partner in Microsoft’s Hyper-V release push; deep expertise in storage and desktop virtualization. Cons Bought XenServer to compete in hypervisors, but will become less competitive as Hyper-V ships commercially; alliance with Microsoft may become conflict as Microsoft advances both server virtualization and its own terminal services. |
|
Dell |
Resells VMware, supplies hardware under VMs. Recently purchased storage virtualization firm EqualLogic. |
Infrastructure
|
Pros Range of hardware on which to build virtual servers; expertise in packaging and customizing commodity-level hardware for virtual or other uses. Cons Little expertise in virtualization itself or virtualization-related integration services. |
| Vendor | Claim to Fame | Key Products | Pros/Cons |
|
Double-Take Software |
Physical-server recovery vendor shifts to virtualization. |
Disaster recovery
|
Pros Supports both VMware and Microsoft; long track record in critical reliability functions; fail-over and disaster recovery for both physical and virtual servers from one vendor. Cons Still adapting physical server-based licensing to accommodate virtual servers as well. |
|
Embotics |
Applies policy-based management to virtualized environments. |
Management
|
Pros Policy-based security and automated administration hits compliance and administration requirements for big users; close alliance with Microsoft; time saved automating server administration is multiplied by the number of VMs for which it can do the same. Cons It’s a startup whose sustainability is unproven; products support VMware architecture, but Embotics was also recently named part of Microsoft’s Startup Accelerator Program, and Microsoft protégé status could come with pressure to favor Hyper-V and Redmond interpretations of the virtual world. |
|
EqualLogic |
Added iSCSI to the fiber-only SAN world, drastically reducing virtual storage cost and complexity. |
Infrastructure
|
Pros History of solid performance and presence in a must-have part of the virtualization market; low-cost consolidated servers little good without low-cost storage; now has backing of Dell’s deep pockets. Cons Dell is focusing heavily on the mid-market right now. |
|
FalconStor |
Adding VTL capability to virtual environments. |
Disaster Recovery
|
Pros Long history and installed base of storage and disaster recovery products; record of reliability; range of applicable products; partnerships with Virtual Iron, other hot virtualization companies. Cons Strongest in mid-market, not among larger customers; best-known for software, all-in-one packages, which could leave the integration headache with the customer. |
|
Hewlett-Packard |
Has maintained partnerships with VMware, Citrix and other virtualization vendors since at least 2003, and offered virtualization on its own server and Unix variant as well. |
Infrastructure
|
Pros Multi-OS support; menu of sophisticated systems and network management products; alliances with Microsoft, VMware, most other significant players. Cons Relies on vendor and channel partners for most of its virtualization expertise; with no specialization in virtualization, HP runs the risk of being outpaced if VMware, Microsoft or others opt out of alliances. |
|
IBM |
Ideally placed supplier of high-end hardware, systems and network management for virtual environments. |
Infrastructure
|
Pros Wide range of high-end servers, terminals, thin-client infrastructure and management products makes for a potent source for virtualization products. Cons Relies, as does HP, on partners for most of its expertise in virtualization technology; risks being left behind by more nimble vendors. |
|
Intel |
Tweaked microprocessors to make virtualization doable on x86 machines. |
Infrastructure
|
Pros IVT is a key enabler of virtualization; dual- and quad-core chips continue to add power to servers destined to run many VMs as their key task. Cons Little expertise in virtualization beyond the chip; AMD nips as close on its heels in virtulization as in other areas of chipmaking. |
|
Leostream |
P2V migration tools |
Management
|
Pros Combination of migration tools and off-site hosting makes shift as easy as possible for customers. Cons Handles primarily Linux servers; in the past has lagged in feature development behind competitor Platespin, whose development is now funded by new parent Novell. |
| Vendor | Claim to Fame | Key Products | Pros/Cons |
|
ManageIQ |
Added high-level manager-of-managers approach to VM monitor and management. |
Management
|
Pros Focused tightly on non-agent-based configuration management; monitors VM activity from a module outside the VM itself, tracking patches, applications, users and other factors. Cons Only two years old; manager-of-managers approach requires extensive development and help from other vendors; introduction of Hyper-V will challenge ManageIQ’s ability to keep up with rapid market shifts. |
|
Marathon Technologies |
Released real-time replication and failover for virtual servers. |
Disaster recovery
|
Pros As virtual servers host ever-more-critical applications, fail-over and recovery will become an absolute requirement Cons Today, Marathon’s technology works only with Xen-based hypervisors; no plans to work with VMware. |
|
Microsoft |
Had to scramble in early 2000s to avoid being left behind as VMware caught a wave of server consolidation and centralized management. Used marketing, acquisitions and new emphasis in Windows Server development to fight back. |
Infrastructure
|
Pros Choosing Microsoft’s Hyper-V hypervisor and Windows Server 2008 may offer some cost advantages compared to VMware; keep in mind products have yet to ship. Cons 64-bit only; runs only on x64 or via Server Core; VM management console is limited, most users will have to use VM-enabled version of System Center Virtual Machine Manager (VMM); no built-in failover capability; requires Windows drivers as platform; no bare-metal operation. |
|
Novell |
In addition to developing and selling the Xen hypervisor with its own products, Novell has been a key ally of both Microsoft and VMware in the virtualization market. Its Linux-Windows virtualization-integration efforts and cross-platform management products have helped Microsoft keep its toehold in the market while waiting for the release of its own Hyper-V. Novell is one of the few virtualization vendors whose strategy clearly includes more than one OS. |
Infrastructure
|
Pros Relative neutrality in the virtualization market lets it play nice with both VMware and Microsoft; owns its own distribution of Linux and can tune it and its VM code to enhance each other; solid management tools of its own, plus recent acquisition of Platespin’s physical-to-virtual (P2V) conversion tools to migrate Windows systems into XenSource’s XenEnterprise Virtual Machines. Cons Still a second-tier player among virtualization vendors; hypervisor is built into Novell’s enterprise version of Linux, forcing customers to pay relatively high prices for Xen technology; startups and virtualization specialists could outstrip Novell’s VM-management tools and leave it behind as market moves beyond simple migration to virtual servers. |
|
Opalis Software |
Server provisioning and management for VMs |
Management
|
Pros Experience and customer base in server provisioning; applies ITIL and ITSM to virtual servers; incident and change management and maintenance reduce hands-on-server time. Cons Not the only fish in this particular sea; competition from Opsware got more intense when Opsware was acquired by HP. |
|
Oracle |
A latecomer to the virtualization market, Oracle announced in November that it is offering its version of a Xen hypervisor, designed to run with Oracle Enterprise Linux servers, as a free download. |
Infrastructure
|
Pros Focus on adding virtualization support underneath Oracle products lets Oracle concentrate its development efforts; prices are relatively low for that reason; competition with Microsoft and VMware is purely titular — Oracle’s VM effort is designed to prevent either company from taking over the lowest-level software on a server running other Oracle products. Cons Not an operating system or virtualization specialist; focus only on its databases and applications limits potential support for other uses of Oracle’s VM; continuing effort to buy BEA Systems could interfere with BEA’s Java deal with VMware; Oracle’s tendency to go head-to-head with Microsoft whenever possible may draw its focus away from its core strengths and lead it into direct competition for VM OS market. |
|
Parallels |
Mac-based virtualization. |
Infrastructure
|
Pros Not much competition to put VMs on the Mac. Cons Will there be broad-market demand for VMs on the Mac? That’s still to be determined. |
|
Platespin |
Provides disaster recovery and physical-to-virtual conversion for VMs. |
Disaster recovery
|
Pros Relatively long history as a virtualization ISV; workload management, disaster recovery, physical-to-virtual server conversion will all continue to be important add-on management functions. Cons Just bought by Novell; future of standalone products and alliances, pricing, licensing and other issues remain in question. |
| Vendor | Claim to Fame | Key Products | Pros/Cons |
|
Platform Computing |
Longtime grid player makes the shift to virtual servers. |
Management
|
Pros History of expertise in multi-server management and load balancing; good integration with VMware’s Distributed Resource Scheduler; longer track record than most competitors. Cons History of lackluster marketing left IT audience unaware of its potential; powerful tools often complex, requiring deep expertise on staff to use them effectively. |
|
Red Hat |
Built hypervisor into core of its Linux server. |
Infrastructure
|
Pros Open source credibility, stability, lower cost than closed-source software products. Cons Competing against Microsoft, VMware and almost every other big systems or OS company in the business. |
|
Reflex Security |
Security tool to prevent intrusion in VMware servers. |
Security
|
Pros Serves as a kind of virtual intrusion detection system, adding layer of security policies inside the physical boxes where the VMs live. May be useful to block potential threats like hypervisor attacks, among other possible future troubles. Cons It’s still early days for virtualization security. |
|
Scalent Systems |
Real-time deployment and recovery of ESX and associated network and storage connections. |
Management
|
Pros Speed benefits for deployment and disaster recovery; IP address management tools. Cons Lots of competition in the tools and management space right now. |
|
Sun Microsystems |
Perpetual “thin client” advocate that built virtualization into core of its servers. |
Infrastructure
|
Pros Leading vendor of “pure” Unix—which is well suited to virtualization; built hypervisors and arrangement deeply into its OS; main business is the class of servers most often chosen for consolidation projects. Cons Historic enmity with Microsoft might disrupt Solaris/Windows VM integration; commoditization of Xen hypervisor reduces attractiveness of Solaris; focus on SPARC may turn off integration-minded customers. |
|
Virtual Iron Software, Inc. |
VM load balancing. |
Infrastructure
|
Pros Ability to spread computing load across VMs residing on different physical servers; focus on peak-load management as well as data center consolidation and business continuity. Cons Reliance on Xen hypervisor as Red Hat, Novell and others make it almost a commodity; competing with VMware at the height of that company’s market dominance. |
|
Vizioncore |
Focus on reliability, backup and performance management. |
Disaster Recovery
Management
|
Pros One of a relatively small number of ISVs offering performance management, disaster recovery and server replication. Cons As hypervisors become more common, hypervisor vendors continue to add more management, recovery and other functions, squeezing companies like Vizioncore; main competitor Platespin was acquired by comparatively deep-pocketed Novell. |
|
VMware |
Made ‘virtualization’ a hot topic with low-cost x86-based hypervisor and promise of cost-saving server consolidation capabilities. |
Infrastructure
Management
|
Pros Holds more than 80 percent of server virtualization market; wider support from third-party vendors than any other virtualization vendor; multiple-OS support; software-only, doesn’t require microprocessor enhancements; fewer restrictions on licensing and format than Microsoft; no requirement for a specific OS. Cons Increasing competition with Microsoft may create integration problems for IT; VMware is slow to add support for SATA and other hardware enhancements; requires special clustered file system and storage area network space. |
| Vendor | Claim to Fame | Key Products | Pros/Cons |
|
Advanced Micro Devices (AMD) |
Tweaked microprocessors to make virtualization doable on x86 machines. |
Infrastructure
|
Pros VM-capable microprocessors are key enablers of virtual server host hardware; dual- and quad-core chips continue to add power to servers destined to run many VMs as their key task. Cons Little expertise in virtualization beyond the chip; Intel still leads in most market arenas. |
|
Akorri |
Early and eager supplier of virtual infrastructure performance managment products. |
Management
|
Pros Tools to consolidate server, storage and software issues to help with capacity planning; sophisticated analysis of performance data can spot and troubleshoot VM problems early. Cons Software is somewhat pricey; company was formed only in 2005; venture funding raises potential for buyouts or cash-out changes in strategy. |
|
B-hive Networks |
Appliance-based network and performance management for VMs. |
Management
|
Pros Appliance monitors loads; maps transactions and creates database to compare real-time performance to past; load balancer shifts load to un-maxed VMs and reboots hanging ones. Cons Startup (2005) taking a non-standard approach to an increasingly common problem; performance of appliance should be tested in a customer’s unique environment. |
|
Blue Lane Technologies |
Security tool resists intruders and makes up for VMs that are unpatched or have other problems that would otherwise require help from administrators. |
Security
|
Pros Designed its security product to protect VMs regardless of the state of the patches in each individual guest OS. Runs in close integration with VMware’s hypervisor, preventing attacks on known vulnerabilities from penetrating to the VMs. Cons Demonstrated effectiveness in VMware not yet proven with Hyper-V. |
|
CiRBA |
Released planning software designed to allow scenario-planning for migration to virtual servers and management of VMs. |
Management
|
Pros CiRBA’s tools help forecast how apps and servers will coexist, including evaluations of middleware, database and other factors; custom criteria help plan for OS virtualization, application stacking and migrations to blade-server setups. Cons It’s a startup planning to use its latest round of funding to expand globally and continue its technological development—with all of the risks those two factors bring with them. |
|
Citrix |
Was virtual before virtualization was cool; continues to be a leader in application virtualization. |
Infrastructure
|
Pros Direct support of wide range of enterprise applications; can virtualize applications, servers, desktops or all three; close alliances with all major hardware and OS vendors; longest experience in thin-client computing of all the major virtualization vendors; signed on as major partner in Microsoft’s Hyper-V release push; deep expertise in storage and desktop virtualization. Cons Bought XenServer to compete in hypervisors, but will become less competitive as Hyper-V ships commercially; alliance with Microsoft may become conflict as Microsoft advances both server virtualization and its own terminal services. |
|
Dell |
Resells VMware, supplies hardware under VMs. Recently purchased storage virtualization firm EqualLogic. |
Infrastructure
|
Pros Range of hardware on which to build virtual servers; expertise in packaging and customizing commodity-level hardware for virtual or other uses. Cons Little expertise in virtualization itself or virtualization-related integration services. |
| Vendor | Claim to Fame | Key Products | Pros/Cons |
|
Double-Take Software |
Physical-server recovery vendor shifts to virtualization. |
Disaster recovery
|
Pros Supports both VMware and Microsoft; long track record in critical reliability functions; fail-over and disaster recovery for both physical and virtual servers from one vendor. Cons Still adapting physical server-based licensing to accommodate virtual servers as well. |
|
Embotics |
Applies policy-based management to virtualized environments. |
Management
|
Pros Policy-based security and automated administration hits compliance and administration requirements for big users; close alliance with Microsoft; time saved automating server administration is multiplied by the number of VMs for which it can do the same. Cons It’s a startup whose sustainability is unproven; products support VMware architecture, but Embotics was also recently named part of Microsoft’s Startup Accelerator Program, and Microsoft protégé status could come with pressure to favor Hyper-V and Redmond interpretations of the virtual world. |
|
EqualLogic |
Added iSCSI to the fiber-only SAN world, drastically reducing virtual storage cost and complexity. |
Infrastructure
|
Pros History of solid performance and presence in a must-have part of the virtualization market; low-cost consolidated servers little good without low-cost storage; now has backing of Dell’s deep pockets. Cons Dell is focusing heavily on the mid-market right now. |
|
FalconStor |
Adding VTL capability to virtual environments. |
Disaster Recovery
|
Pros Long history and installed base of storage and disaster recovery products; record of reliability; range of applicable products; partnerships with Virtual Iron, other hot virtualization companies. Cons Strongest in mid-market, not among larger customers; best-known for software, all-in-one packages, which could leave the integration headache with the customer. |
|
Hewlett-Packard |
Has maintained partnerships with VMware, Citrix and other virtualization vendors since at least 2003, and offered virtualization on its own server and Unix variant as well. |
Infrastructure
|
Pros Multi-OS support; menu of sophisticated systems and network management products; alliances with Microsoft, VMware, most other significant players. Cons Relies on vendor and channel partners for most of its virtualization expertise; with no specialization in virtualization, HP runs the risk of being outpaced if VMware, Microsoft or others opt out of alliances. |
|
IBM |
Ideally placed supplier of high-end hardware, systems and network management for virtual environments. |
Infrastructure
|
Pros Wide range of high-end servers, terminals, thin-client infrastructure and management products makes for a potent source for virtualization products. Cons Relies, as does HP, on partners for most of its expertise in virtualization technology; risks being left behind by more nimble vendors. |
|
Intel |
Tweaked microprocessors to make virtualization doable on x86 machines. |
Infrastructure
|
Pros IVT is a key enabler of virtualization; dual- and quad-core chips continue to add power to servers destined to run many VMs as their key task. Cons Little expertise in virtualization beyond the chip; AMD nips as close on its heels in virtulization as in other areas of chipmaking. |
|
Leostream |
P2V migration tools |
Management
|
Pros Combination of migration tools and off-site hosting makes shift as easy as possible for customers. Cons Handles primarily Linux servers; in the past has lagged in feature development behind competitor Platespin, whose development is now funded by new parent Novell. |
| Vendor | Claim to Fame | Key Products | Pros/Cons |
|
ManageIQ |
Added high-level manager-of-managers approach to VM monitor and management. |
Management
|
Pros Focused tightly on non-agent-based configuration management; monitors VM activity from a module outside the VM itself, tracking patches, applications, users and other factors. Cons Only two years old; manager-of-managers approach requires extensive development and help from other vendors; introduction of Hyper-V will challenge ManageIQ’s ability to keep up with rapid market shifts. |
|
Marathon Technologies |
Released real-time replication and failover for virtual servers. |
Disaster recovery
|
Pros As virtual servers host ever-more-critical applications, fail-over and recovery will become an absolute requirement Cons Today, Marathon’s technology works only with Xen-based hypervisors; no plans to work with VMware. |
|
Microsoft |
Had to scramble in early 2000s to avoid being left behind as VMware caught a wave of server consolidation and centralized management. Used marketing, acquisitions and new emphasis in Windows Server development to fight back. |
Infrastructure
|
Pros Choosing Microsoft’s Hyper-V hypervisor and Windows Server 2008 may offer some cost advantages compared to VMware; keep in mind products have yet to ship. Cons 64-bit only; runs only on x64 or via Server Core; VM management console is limited, most users will have to use VM-enabled version of System Center Virtual Machine Manager (VMM); no built-in failover capability; requires Windows drivers as platform; no bare-metal operation. |
|
Novell |
In addition to developing and selling the Xen hypervisor with its own products, Novell has been a key ally of both Microsoft and VMware in the virtualization market. Its Linux-Windows virtualization-integration efforts and cross-platform management products have helped Microsoft keep its toehold in the market while waiting for the release of its own Hyper-V. Novell is one of the few virtualization vendors whose strategy clearly includes more than one OS. |
Infrastructure
|
Pros Relative neutrality in the virtualization market lets it play nice with both VMware and Microsoft; owns its own distribution of Linux and can tune it and its VM code to enhance each other; solid management tools of its own, plus recent acquisition of Platespin’s physical-to-virtual (P2V) conversion tools to migrate Windows systems into XenSource’s XenEnterprise Virtual Machines. Cons Still a second-tier player among virtualization vendors; hypervisor is built into Novell’s enterprise version of Linux, forcing customers to pay relatively high prices for Xen technology; startups and virtualization specialists could outstrip Novell’s VM-management tools and leave it behind as market moves beyond simple migration to virtual servers. |
|
Opalis Software |
Server provisioning and management for VMs |
Management
|
Pros Experience and customer base in server provisioning; applies ITIL and ITSM to virtual servers; incident and change management and maintenance reduce hands-on-server time. Cons Not the only fish in this particular sea; competition from Opsware got more intense when Opsware was acquired by HP. |
|
Oracle |
A latecomer to the virtualization market, Oracle announced in November that it is offering its version of a Xen hypervisor, designed to run with Oracle Enterprise Linux servers, as a free download. |
Infrastructure
|
Pros Focus on adding virtualization support underneath Oracle products lets Oracle concentrate its development efforts; prices are relatively low for that reason; competition with Microsoft and VMware is purely titular — Oracle’s VM effort is designed to prevent either company from taking over the lowest-level software on a server running other Oracle products. Cons Not an operating system or virtualization specialist; focus only on its databases and applications limits potential support for other uses of Oracle’s VM; continuing effort to buy BEA Systems could interfere with BEA’s Java deal with VMware; Oracle’s tendency to go head-to-head with Microsoft whenever possible may draw its focus away from its core strengths and lead it into direct competition for VM OS market. |
|
Parallels |
Mac-based virtualization. |
Infrastructure
|
Pros Not much competition to put VMs on the Mac. Cons Will there be broad-market demand for VMs on the Mac? That’s still to be determined. |
|
Platespin |
Provides disaster recovery and physical-to-virtual conversion for VMs. |
Disaster recovery
|
Pros Relatively long history as a virtualization ISV; workload management, disaster recovery, physical-to-virtual server conversion will all continue to be important add-on management functions. Cons Just bought by Novell; future of standalone products and alliances, pricing, licensing and other issues remain in question. |
| Vendor | Claim to Fame | Key Products | Pros/Cons |
|
Platform Computing |
Longtime grid player makes the shift to virtual servers. |
Management
|
Pros History of expertise in multi-server management and load balancing; good integration with VMware’s Distributed Resource Scheduler; longer track record than most competitors. Cons History of lackluster marketing left IT audience unaware of its potential; powerful tools often complex, requiring deep expertise on staff to use them effectively. |
|
Red Hat |
Built hypervisor into core of its Linux server. |
Infrastructure
|
Pros Open source credibility, stability, lower cost than closed-source software products. Cons Competing against Microsoft, VMware and almost every other big systems or OS company in the business. |
|
Reflex Security |
Security tool to prevent intrusion in VMware servers. |
Security
|
Pros Serves as a kind of virtual intrusion detection system, adding layer of security policies inside the physical boxes where the VMs live. May be useful to block potential threats like hypervisor attacks, among other possible future troubles. Cons It’s still early days for virtualization security. |
|
Scalent Systems |
Real-time deployment and recovery of ESX and associated network and storage connections. |
Management
|
Pros Speed benefits for deployment and disaster recovery; IP address management tools. Cons Lots of competition in the tools and management space right now. |
|
Sun Microsystems |
Perpetual “thin client” advocate that built virtualization into core of its servers. |
Infrastructure
|
Pros Leading vendor of “pure” Unix—which is well suited to virtualization; built hypervisors and arrangement deeply into its OS; main business is the class of servers most often chosen for consolidation projects. Cons Historic enmity with Microsoft might disrupt Solaris/Windows VM integration; commoditization of Xen hypervisor reduces attractiveness of Solaris; focus on SPARC may turn off integration-minded customers. |
|
Virtual Iron Software, Inc. |
VM load balancing. |
Infrastructure
|
Pros Ability to spread computing load across VMs residing on different physical servers; focus on peak-load management as well as data center consolidation and business continuity. Cons Reliance on Xen hypervisor as Red Hat, Novell and others make it almost a commodity; competing with VMware at the height of that company’s market dominance. |
|
Vizioncore |
Focus on reliability, backup and performance management. |
Disaster Recovery
Management
|
Pros One of a relatively small number of ISVs offering performance management, disaster recovery and server replication. Cons As hypervisors become more common, hypervisor vendors continue to add more management, recovery and other functions, squeezing companies like Vizioncore; main competitor Platespin was acquired by comparatively deep-pocketed Novell. |
|
VMware |
Made ‘virtualization’ a hot topic with low-cost x86-based hypervisor and promise of cost-saving server consolidation capabilities. |
Infrastructure
Management
|
Pros Holds more than 80 percent of server virtualization market; wider support from third-party vendors than any other virtualization vendor; multiple-OS support; software-only, doesn’t require microprocessor enhancements; fewer restrictions on licensing and format than Microsoft; no requirement for a specific OS. Cons Increasing competition with Microsoft may create integration problems for IT; VMware is slow to add support for SATA and other hardware enhancements; requires special clustered file system and storage area network space. |
| Vendor | Claim to Fame | Key Products | Pros/Cons |
|
Advanced Micro Devices (AMD) |
Tweaked microprocessors to make virtualization doable on x86 machines. |
Infrastructure
|
Pros VM-capable microprocessors are key enablers of virtual server host hardware; dual- and quad-core chips continue to add power to servers destined to run many VMs as their key task. Cons Little expertise in virtualization beyond the chip; Intel still leads in most market arenas. |
|
Akorri |
Early and eager supplier of virtual infrastructure performance managment products. |
Management
|
Pros Tools to consolidate server, storage and software issues to help with capacity planning; sophisticated analysis of performance data can spot and troubleshoot VM problems early. Cons Software is somewhat pricey; company was formed only in 2005; venture funding raises potential for buyouts or cash-out changes in strategy. |
|
B-hive Networks |
Appliance-based network and performance management for VMs. |
Management
|
Pros Appliance monitors loads; maps transactions and creates database to compare real-time performance to past; load balancer shifts load to un-maxed VMs and reboots hanging ones. Cons Startup (2005) taking a non-standard approach to an increasingly common problem; performance of appliance should be tested in a customer’s unique environment. |
|
Blue Lane Technologies |
Security tool resists intruders and makes up for VMs that are unpatched or have other problems that would otherwise require help from administrators. |
Security
|
Pros Designed its security product to protect VMs regardless of the state of the patches in each individual guest OS. Runs in close integration with VMware’s hypervisor, preventing attacks on known vulnerabilities from penetrating to the VMs. Cons Demonstrated effectiveness in VMware not yet proven with Hyper-V. |
|
CiRBA |
Released planning software designed to allow scenario-planning for migration to virtual servers and management of VMs. |
Management
|
Pros CiRBA’s tools help forecast how apps and servers will coexist, including evaluations of middleware, database and other factors; custom criteria help plan for OS virtualization, application stacking and migrations to blade-server setups. Cons It’s a startup planning to use its latest round of funding to expand globally and continue its technological development—with all of the risks those two factors bring with them. |
|
Citrix |
Was virtual before virtualization was cool; continues to be a leader in application virtualization. |
Infrastructure
|
Pros Direct support of wide range of enterprise applications; can virtualize applications, servers, desktops or all three; close alliances with all major hardware and OS vendors; longest experience in thin-client computing of all the major virtualization vendors; signed on as major partner in Microsoft’s Hyper-V release push; deep expertise in storage and desktop virtualization. Cons Bought XenServer to compete in hypervisors, but will become less competitive as Hyper-V ships commercially; alliance with Microsoft may become conflict as Microsoft advances both server virtualization and its own terminal services. |
|
Dell |
Resells VMware, supplies hardware under VMs. Recently purchased storage virtualization firm EqualLogic. |
Infrastructure
|
Pros Range of hardware on which to build virtual servers; expertise in packaging and customizing commodity-level hardware for virtual or other uses. Cons Little expertise in virtualization itself or virtualization-related integration services. |
| Vendor | Claim to Fame | Key Products | Pros/Cons |
|
Double-Take Software |
Physical-server recovery vendor shifts to virtualization. |
Disaster recovery
|
Pros Supports both VMware and Microsoft; long track record in critical reliability functions; fail-over and disaster recovery for both physical and virtual servers from one vendor. Cons Still adapting physical server-based licensing to accommodate virtual servers as well. |
|
Embotics |
Applies policy-based management to virtualized environments. |
Management
|
Pros Policy-based security and automated administration hits compliance and administration requirements for big users; close alliance with Microsoft; time saved automating server administration is multiplied by the number of VMs for which it can do the same. Cons It’s a startup whose sustainability is unproven; products support VMware architecture, but Embotics was also recently named part of Microsoft’s Startup Accelerator Program, and Microsoft protégé status could come with pressure to favor Hyper-V and Redmond interpretations of the virtual world. |
|
EqualLogic |
Added iSCSI to the fiber-only SAN world, drastically reducing virtual storage cost and complexity. |
Infrastructure
|
Pros History of solid performance and presence in a must-have part of the virtualization market; low-cost consolidated servers little good without low-cost storage; now has backing of Dell’s deep pockets. Cons Dell is focusing heavily on the mid-market right now. |
|
FalconStor |
Adding VTL capability to virtual environments. |
Disaster Recovery
|
Pros Long history and installed base of storage and disaster recovery products; record of reliability; range of applicable products; partnerships with Virtual Iron, other hot virtualization companies. Cons Strongest in mid-market, not among larger customers; best-known for software, all-in-one packages, which could leave the integration headache with the customer. |
|
Hewlett-Packard |
Has maintained partnerships with VMware, Citrix and other virtualization vendors since at least 2003, and offered virtualization on its own server and Unix variant as well. |
Infrastructure
|
Pros Multi-OS support; menu of sophisticated systems and network management products; alliances with Microsoft, VMware, most other significant players. Cons Relies on vendor and channel partners for most of its virtualization expertise; with no specialization in virtualization, HP runs the risk of being outpaced if VMware, Microsoft or others opt out of alliances. |
|
IBM |
Ideally placed supplier of high-end hardware, systems and network management for virtual environments. |
Infrastructure
|
Pros Wide range of high-end servers, terminals, thin-client infrastructure and management products makes for a potent source for virtualization products. Cons Relies, as does HP, on partners for most of its expertise in virtualization technology; risks being left behind by more nimble vendors. |
|
Intel |
Tweaked microprocessors to make virtualization doable on x86 machines. |
Infrastructure
|
Pros IVT is a key enabler of virtualization; dual- and quad-core chips continue to add power to servers destined to run many VMs as their key task. Cons Little expertise in virtualization beyond the chip; AMD nips as close on its heels in virtulization as in other areas of chipmaking. |
|
Leostream |
P2V migration tools |
Management
|
Pros Combination of migration tools and off-site hosting makes shift as easy as possible for customers. Cons Handles primarily Linux servers; in the past has lagged in feature development behind competitor Platespin, whose development is now funded by new parent Novell. |
| Vendor | Claim to Fame | Key Products | Pros/Cons |
|
ManageIQ |
Added high-level manager-of-managers approach to VM monitor and management. |
Management
|
Pros Focused tightly on non-agent-based configuration management; monitors VM activity from a module outside the VM itself, tracking patches, applications, users and other factors. Cons Only two years old; manager-of-managers approach requires extensive development and help from other vendors; introduction of Hyper-V will challenge ManageIQ’s ability to keep up with rapid market shifts. |
|
Marathon Technologies |
Released real-time replication and failover for virtual servers. |
Disaster recovery
|
Pros As virtual servers host ever-more-critical applications, fail-over and recovery will become an absolute requirement Cons Today, Marathon’s technology works only with Xen-based hypervisors; no plans to work with VMware. |
|
Microsoft |
Had to scramble in early 2000s to avoid being left behind as VMware caught a wave of server consolidation and centralized management. Used marketing, acquisitions and new emphasis in Windows Server development to fight back. |
Infrastructure
|
Pros Choosing Microsoft’s Hyper-V hypervisor and Windows Server 2008 may offer some cost advantages compared to VMware; keep in mind products have yet to ship. Cons 64-bit only; runs only on x64 or via Server Core; VM management console is limited, most users will have to use VM-enabled version of System Center Virtual Machine Manager (VMM); no built-in failover capability; requires Windows drivers as platform; no bare-metal operation. |
|
Novell |
In addition to developing and selling the Xen hypervisor with its own products, Novell has been a key ally of both Microsoft and VMware in the virtualization market. Its Linux-Windows virtualization-integration efforts and cross-platform management products have helped Microsoft keep its toehold in the market while waiting for the release of its own Hyper-V. Novell is one of the few virtualization vendors whose strategy clearly includes more than one OS. |
Infrastructure
|
Pros Relative neutrality in the virtualization market lets it play nice with both VMware and Microsoft; owns its own distribution of Linux and can tune it and its VM code to enhance each other; solid management tools of its own, plus recent acquisition of Platespin’s physical-to-virtual (P2V) conversion tools to migrate Windows systems into XenSource’s XenEnterprise Virtual Machines. Cons Still a second-tier player among virtualization vendors; hypervisor is built into Novell’s enterprise version of Linux, forcing customers to pay relatively high prices for Xen technology; startups and virtualization specialists could outstrip Novell’s VM-management tools and leave it behind as market moves beyond simple migration to virtual servers. |
|
Opalis Software |
Server provisioning and management for VMs |
Management
|
Pros Experience and customer base in server provisioning; applies ITIL and ITSM to virtual servers; incident and change management and maintenance reduce hands-on-server time. Cons Not the only fish in this particular sea; competition from Opsware got more intense when Opsware was acquired by HP. |
|
Oracle |
A latecomer to the virtualization market, Oracle announced in November that it is offering its version of a Xen hypervisor, designed to run with Oracle Enterprise Linux servers, as a free download. |
Infrastructure
|
Pros Focus on adding virtualization support underneath Oracle products lets Oracle concentrate its development efforts; prices are relatively low for that reason; competition with Microsoft and VMware is purely titular — Oracle’s VM effort is designed to prevent either company from taking over the lowest-level software on a server running other Oracle products. Cons Not an operating system or virtualization specialist; focus only on its databases and applications limits potential support for other uses of Oracle’s VM; continuing effort to buy BEA Systems could interfere with BEA’s Java deal with VMware; Oracle’s tendency to go head-to-head with Microsoft whenever possible may draw its focus away from its core strengths and lead it into direct competition for VM OS market. |
|
Parallels |
Mac-based virtualization. |
Infrastructure
|
Pros Not much competition to put VMs on the Mac. Cons Will there be broad-market demand for VMs on the Mac? That’s still to be determined. |
|
Platespin |
Provides disaster recovery and physical-to-virtual conversion for VMs. |
Disaster recovery
|
Pros Relatively long history as a virtualization ISV; workload management, disaster recovery, physical-to-virtual server conversion will all continue to be important add-on management functions. Cons Just bought by Novell; future of standalone products and alliances, pricing, licensing and other issues remain in question. |
| Vendor | Claim to Fame | Key Products | Pros/Cons |
|
Platform Computing |
Longtime grid player makes the shift to virtual servers. |
Management
|
Pros History of expertise in multi-server management and load balancing; good integration with VMware’s Distributed Resource Scheduler; longer track record than most competitors. Cons History of lackluster marketing left IT audience unaware of its potential; powerful tools often complex, requiring deep expertise on staff to use them effectively. |
|
Red Hat |
Built hypervisor into core of its Linux server. |
Infrastructure
|
Pros Open source credibility, stability, lower cost than closed-source software products. Cons Competing against Microsoft, VMware and almost every other big systems or OS company in the business. |
|
Reflex Security |
Security tool to prevent intrusion in VMware servers. |
Security
|
Pros Serves as a kind of virtual intrusion detection system, adding layer of security policies inside the physical boxes where the VMs live. May be useful to block potential threats like hypervisor attacks, among other possible future troubles. Cons It’s still early days for virtualization security. |
|
Scalent Systems |
Real-time deployment and recovery of ESX and associated network and storage connections. |
Management
|
Pros Speed benefits for deployment and disaster recovery; IP address management tools. Cons Lots of competition in the tools and management space right now. |
|
Sun Microsystems |
Perpetual “thin client” advocate that built virtualization into core of its servers. |
Infrastructure
|
Pros Leading vendor of “pure” Unix—which is well suited to virtualization; built hypervisors and arrangement deeply into its OS; main business is the class of servers most often chosen for consolidation projects. Cons Historic enmity with Microsoft might disrupt Solaris/Windows VM integration; commoditization of Xen hypervisor reduces attractiveness of Solaris; focus on SPARC may turn off integration-minded customers. |
|
Virtual Iron Software, Inc. |
VM load balancing. |
Infrastructure
|
Pros Ability to spread computing load across VMs residing on different physical servers; focus on peak-load management as well as data center consolidation and business continuity. Cons Reliance on Xen hypervisor as Red Hat, Novell and others make it almost a commodity; competing with VMware at the height of that company’s market dominance. |
|
Vizioncore |
Focus on reliability, backup and performance management. |
Disaster Recovery
Management
|
Pros One of a relatively small number of ISVs offering performance management, disaster recovery and server replication. Cons As hypervisors become more common, hypervisor vendors continue to add more management, recovery and other functions, squeezing companies like Vizioncore; main competitor Platespin was acquired by comparatively deep-pocketed Novell. |
|
VMware |
Made ‘virtualization’ a hot topic with low-cost x86-based hypervisor and promise of cost-saving server consolidation capabilities. |
Infrastructure
Management
|
Pros Holds more than 80 percent of server virtualization market; wider support from third-party vendors than any other virtualization vendor; multiple-OS support; software-only, doesn’t require microprocessor enhancements; fewer restrictions on licensing and format than Microsoft; no requirement for a specific OS. Cons Increasing competition with Microsoft may create integration problems for IT; VMware is slow to add support for SATA and other hardware enhancements; requires special clustered file system and storage area network space. |
