What does it cost a Small Business to Implement Virtualization?

I get this question all of the time in one form or another, so I’m trying to determine hypervisor costs for a SMB as if I’m the owner looking to implement virtualization. This is an academic exercise, so pretend it’s your company and your money and you don’t have a particular vendor preference and you’re doing research online trying to determine apples to apples.

I usually don’t work the licensing side of the street, so I’m looking for feedback and correction if the costs are off the the mark. I’m using the vendor web sites and retail prices as if I were an SMB with no vendor connections.

Here’s the scenario:

  • It is a small business, one location
  • 50 users
  • 20 total virtual machines (once P2V’d) all running Windows Server 2003/2008
  • They already have 2 physical host servers. They have 2 sockets, quad core CPUs capable of running ESX(i), XenServer or Hyper-V
  • They have a new iSCSI storage array suitable for all of the VMs and hypervisors
  • They have appropriate network equipment for a redundant setup
  • They want a 3 year support agreement to go along with server hardware depreciation rate
  • They want one of the following platforms:  ESX or ESXi, XenServer, or Hyper-V
  • Direct licensing costs is the biggest decision factor – to keep the whole ROI argument simple

From these requirements, we should  have a really simple setup:

Two Hosts Connected to Shared Storage

Two Hosts Connected to Shared Storage

  • 2 host hypervisor systems connected to shared storage
  • Live Migration capability
  • High Availability if one of the host systems fail.

Hyper-V

I went to the Microsoft Licensing assistance site to help me determine what I would need:

It said I need the Datacenter Edition because I was running more than 4 VMs per host.

Product Edition Advisor from Microsoft's Site

Product Edition Advisor from Microsoft's Site

I worked my way through the tool and it recommended the Open Licensing with Software Assurance on the Server 2008 Datacenter version. The total was $8,094.

Not because the site really says so, but I think I need to add in the System Center with Virtual Machine Manager to be more on par with the other vendor’s management interfacesproducts.

I’m really not sure if I got all of the things included, but I bought Software Assurance with the Windows Server 2008 Datacenter, so I believe for Systems Center it will be $744 , plus I think I can use the Workgroup edition of Virtual Machine Manager for $505, plus I I think I’ll need CALs at $40 each of the 20 VMs for a total of $800. So for the management side of Hyper-V, I think the cost will be $2,049, plus whatever two more years will cost in maintenance.

I think I’ve met most of the requirements. Here is the link to the Hyper-V feature grid. But I couldn’t seem to select 3 years of support with their tools, so there will be more costs each year for maintenance. For one year I think the total is $10,143.

VMware ESX or ESXi

VMware has done  a good job with packaging their products for small businesses.  The Essentials Plus pack would be perfect at $4,905 except for some reason, it doesn’t include VMotion. So I guess we need to step up to the next level which is  VMware vSphere 4 Advanced with 3 years platinum support for $3,675 each, for a total of $7,350 for the servers.

But wait, it’s only for 1 CPU, so I’ll need to contact someone to see how much a second one is to add to my order.

Only 1 CPU, I'll have to add another one.

Only 1 CPU, I'll have to add another one.

To get VMotion and centralized management, I’ll need vCenter. They have vCenter Foundations for up to 3 hosts for $3,139 for a total of $10,489 for 3 years plus whatever a second physical CPU costs per physical host for the additional two years.

Citrix XenServer

Citrix has the technical product packaged pretty cleanly.

XenServer Enterprise has the technical features

XenServer Enterprise has the technical features

XenServer with XenMotion is free, but I need High Availability and support for 3 years, so I need XenServer Advanced, Citrix Essentials Advanced with 1 year preferred support for $8,500.

I still need 2 more years of support

I still need 2 more years of support

I still need 2 more years of support though. If it is linear, it should be $6,000 for 2 more years for a total of $14,500 to meet all of my requirements including 3 years of support.

Summary and To Do List

I don’t think I selected an unusual set of requirements in this as far as the hardware goes. I’ve seen plenty of dual CPU servers as the standard platform for virtualization projects. The 3 year support requirement didn’t seem to be out of line, but it seems to not be a frequent enough option for 2 of the 3 vendors to be in their online check out.

Microsoft – I need 2 more years of support costs. It wasn’t broken out where I could extrapolate it over 2 more years. I also would like for someone to validate that I have the right components and licenses for SCVMM.

VMware – I need to get the costs of adding the second socket CPU into the $7,530 server price

Citrix – I need to confirm that the support costs are $6,000 for two years

SQL server – I should note that both VMware vCenter and Microsoft’s Systems Center should be running with SQL server for production. Citrix XenServer does not require SQL server for XenCenter, so the cost of SQL Server can be deducted to the total for XenServer. For this exercise, I checked with CDW and SQL 2005 Standard was about $2,600.

  • I’ll have to contact each vendor’s licensing partner to get the cost of the missing pieces. Fortunately, I work for a company that is a partner to each vendor so it will be an inside job, but for the SMB owner, they’ll have to research further on the vendor’s site to locate a partner to talk over the specifics.
  • I invite comments from people that actually implement and license these platforms to steer me in the right direction if you see I’ve got the wrong edition of the platform.
  • I’m not interested in trying to sell why I should use one over the other as it appears that each vendor produces a platform that meet the requirements. If more components are required to produce a similar experience to the other two, then please let me know and I can add that in to the cost structure

It makes sense that the vendors would want to drive the larger organizations to partners to discuss pricing options. For the straightforward purchases like this scenario, it seems they might want to add just a few more options in their shopping carts for longer support warranties and more CPUs.

Doubletake Product Suite Announcement

Whenever you are trying to come up with the best solution for physical to virtual (P2V) migrations, there are several things to consider. Depending on your downtime window, you sometimes have to get really creative. When the downtime window is very short, it also shortens the list of suitable methods to accomplish the P2V task. In that mix of options to have in your solution arsenal, Doubletake is a good one. I recently talked with Bob Roudebush from Doubletake about their new product suite.

Replication often happens at the hardware level with SAN mirroring but that can be costly or just not practical, depending on the project requirements. “Figuring out a way to replicate Exchange from one site to another is always a challenge. We do it with real time data replication with software. Because it’s software, some of the biggest benefits are the cost savings and no big costs with hardware.”

I asked about what host systems Doubletake works with currently and what is on their roadmap. “Our software works with virtual machines as well as physical. We’ve figured out with software what a SAN normally does. We have an edition of our product for ESX and one for Hyper-V, and XenServer is on the roadmap. The Linux version allows for block-level replication.”

Doubletake started out with a nice replication offering, but with this recent announcement, they’re seeking to become more. According to Bob, “The Company we’ve become over the years is much different than when we started. We aren’t just a point problem solver. We now have the ability to move data around in real time without the users knowing about it. For the first time, we are unveiling a workload product suite.”

The suite’s key capabilities include:

  • Workload Portability (Double-Take Move): Move workloads between any combination of physical and virtual hardware (P2P, P2V, V2P or V2V) within datacenters for hardware refreshes, or across locations for datacenter migrations and consolidations.
  • Workload Backup (Double-Take Backup): Continuously backup workloads and recover them on-demand to a new physical or virtual machine. Using CDP capabilities, recovery can also be done at the item level to any point in time.
  • Workload Availability (Double-Take Availability): Ensure the availability of critical IT workloads for disaster recovery and business continuity using real-time replication and failover that can protect individual applications, entire servers or virtualized workloads running on VMware ESX or Microsoft Hyper-V.
  • Workload Flexibility (Double-Take Flex): Easily manage any workload by booting it from iSCSI SANs, regardless of hardware.

I think Doubletake Flex is an interesting product. Bob said, “The idea is to make it easier to manage a workload to boot from network instead of local disks. Using the standard hardware you can boot to the iSCSI SAN. Blade servers are a good example. You may not have a lot of storage, and you can boot to an iSCSI LUN. We have a central console and assign MAC address to LUNs and it contacts to our management server to see where it needs to boot from and then it boots from the iSCSI SAN. ”

So, whenever you are faced with a ridiculous downtime window for your conversions, make sure to check out Doubletake’s solutions.

I’d like to thank Bob for taking his time to discuss the new Doubletake product suite.

Does XenApp run faster on VMware? It depends on who you ask.

VMware posted a blog about a study they conducted where they concluded that XenApp actually runs faster on ESX.  I read through the compelling results and charts in the blog with interest.

I was so interested, I even read the comments section and was surprised by the level of skepticism I saw being posted from people claiming to be using ESX. Further down in the comments, I found this link where Simon Crosby from Citrix called outright shenanigans on VMWare’s Performance Team. Simon thoroughly refuted each claim point by point in his blog response.

Now I know that you twist numbers to say anything you want to support your position, but the one point that I think deserves a real response from VMware is Simon’s ongoing complaint that VMware’s EULA does not allow competitors to post performance results against ESX

In his reponse, Simon didn’t beat around the bush and addressed the CTO of VMware, Stephen Herrod directly with a clear challenge:

VMware’s continued blunders in the performance arena are nothing short of embarrassing.    So I’ve decided to issue an open challenge to VMware CTO Stephen Herrod: Steve, it’s time to rein in the monkeys behind the keyboard, end VMware’s indefensible EULA restrictions and allow independent performance comparisons of your products with others, by third parties with a vested interest in accuracy and independence.  This sort of nonsense does nothing for VMware’s brand credibility, its customers, channel partners or competitors other than give us all a hearty laugh at your expense. 

I work with all the products mentioned in the test, and I find they each have their place as the right solution depending on the actual requirements of our clients. That being said, I would like to see VMware change their EULA where independent parties can test the hypervisors and post vendor neutral results. Until then, I won’t accept VMware’s results as facts because the way they apparently have the game rigged, the results don’t pass the smell test.

ESX 3.5 U3 Scripted Install Improvement

For those of us that prefer to script our installs instead of creating hand crafted environments, you’ll be thrilled to see that VMware has addressed a pretty annoying bug that has existed in 3.5 regarding vSwitch creation. No more jumping through hoops to make vmnics active. From the release notes :

Network adapters lose bonding during scripted installation
The esxcfg-vswitch -L command now works as expected and with the same functionality as in 3.0.x.

During a scripted installation, the following two commands did not result in a bonded pair of active network adapters on virtual switch VS_VM1. Instead, vmnic3 became the active adapter and vmnic4 became the standby adapter.
esxcfg-vswitch -L vmnic3 VS_VM1
esxcfg-vswitch -L vmnic4 VS_VM1