E Vm Virtualization

Industry VM Trends as They Compare with Current VM Standards

Virtualization

• End-Goal– Leverage current and viable infrastructure and process technologies

with application architecture– Expedite adoption of VM technologies and cost savings with future

technologies via more thorough application interface• Virtualization Opportunities

– Environmental Limitations• Security• Network• Operational

– More Thorough Unix Virtualization Roadmap Needed• Solaris is the only mature roadmap being investigated• Linux on VMWare has not been accepted due to limitations

– Lack of Direction Towards Storage Virtualization

Typical Virtualized Host System

VM Physical Host

Hypervisor/Host OS (ESX)

OS VM OS

VM

OS VM OS

VM

Shared Resources

CPU Memory Storage Network I/O

Virtualization Risks

VMs and Network/Security• Issues

– Network/Security standards targeted to silos– Lack of communication/relationship of a common goal

• Opportunities– Leverage current and viable technologies with cooperation with

Network/Security– Expedite VM technologies and cost savings with future

technologies or viable non standard technology• Next Steps

– Setup a COE with Network/Security• Short term goals• Long term goals

– Elicit participation from Operations, Architecture and Business Unit Teams

Verizon Internal Data Network**

DMZ

Different Network Trust Regions

Definitions:

SSN: Secure Subnet, access systems and to mgmt consoles and mgmt system is restricted. Filter request in a per application basis/submission.

DMZ: The same definition as SSN, except we have customer facing systems.

Restricted Zones: Areas where we might have cages and government security guidelines that apply to personnel. Could be in a DMZ or SSN as well as regular Network.

Server E

Server F

SSN

Server C

Server D

RestrictedZone

Server A

Server B

**Terminology might differ depending on the business unit

Server G

Server H

SSN or DMZ

Physical Host 1

IDN

Physical Host

OS OS

OS OS

A B

Physical Host 2

A B

Physical Host 3

A B

• Different IDN qualified OS/App instances can be virtualized inside the same physical servers

• SSN or DMZ OS/App instances can only be virtualized inside of physical servers dedicated for that specific application

• A new physical server required for the turn up of a new application in SSN or DMZ

• Can not bridge physical or virtual instances across network segments (IDN to SSN and/or DMZ bridging)

Legend

Instance Color Denotes Virtual Application or OS Instance

BADenotes 2 Separate Instances of Same Application or OS

Proposed Virtualization @ Segment Level

Physical Host/Hypervisor

Console Access

Secure Access

Regardless of Network Segment

Placement, OS/Zone Firewall

Required

• App/OS virtualized instances inside of a physical host are required to have their own firewall established as if they were an ordinary physical server

• Console access to the physical host/hypervisor is restricted and needs to be accessed via a secured method

• The access and standardization of such console and process will be key for network/security agreement to further VM Infrastructures

Proposed Centralized Physical Host Access and VM Firewalls

App/OS Instance B

App/OS Instance B

IDN

Physical Host 1

App A App B

Free App E

Physical Host 2

App B App C

Free App G

V-Motion like procedures allowed across different physical hosts with different applications at IDN only

Existing VM Transfers Between Physical Systems @ Internal Data Network Segment

Right hand side description points out today’s ability to migrate between physical hosts.

This is something that is allowed in our VMWare farms and could also be implemented across different non VMWare VM infrastructures

SSN or DMZ

Physical Host 1

A B

C Free

Physical Host 2

B Free

D Free

V-Motion like procedures allowed across different physical hosts as long as physical hosts are isolated to the same application

Proposed VM Transfers Between Physical Systems @ SSN and/or DMZ Segments

Right hand side description points out today’s ability to migrate between physical hosts.

In this example, we’re more constricted. We can migrate VM across physical servers, only when they’re part of the same application because each application must reside in the same subnet

Proposed Optimization of Virtualization @ Physical Layer

• We’d like to get to a point where the virtualization technologies and security allows us to mix different network environments

• Preferred technology would be integrated virtual I/O instead of dedicated interface cards

• We’ll need further reviews with security and network to allow this to happen

IDN/DMZ/SSN

Physical Host

A B

C D

App A&D Prod & Dev (IDN Dedicated NIC)

App C (SSN Dedicated NIC)

App B (DMZ Dedicated NIC)

Integrated Virtual I/O Interfaces

Example of Lack of Strategic Load Balancing Standard for VMs

Example of a recent project in which a request for Load Balancing services could not be provided due to rules regarding LB and subnets.

In this example, intelligent LB needs to be provided by BUA for systems located in BUB. Network path access from BUB users would be twice that of BUA and in the event BUB was the only user, then it would be counter productive.

Linux and VM• State Today

– Linux targeted as strategic goal for enterprise– Part of thrust into Open Source Solutions– No viable virtualization strategy for ML (Medium/Large) Linux

Requirements {Medium/Large make up most of the requests}• Linux Virtualization Opportunities

– Modification of Current Standards• Unisys Intel architecture scales vertically • IBM Intel architecture scales vertically• HP/IBM midrange offerings provide most mature Linux VM

technologies

– Accelerate Application from DB/Web Segregation• Decrease application with OS dependent footprint• Reduce size of OS dependent footprint for Linux

Goal for SUN and VMWare Virtualized Environments

VMWare Physical Host


Linux VM Linux

VM

Windows VM Windows

VM

Shared Resources


SUN Physical Host

Solaris 10 Global Zone

Solaris 10 Container

Shared Resources





Intel Based ESX Farm Benefits• Cost Effective, Large Consolidation Factor 12:1• Supports Linux, Windows, Solaris (Non Standard)• Hypervisor and Guest VM Independence

Limitations

• Large Linux VM Footprints Do Not Fit Here• Need to Maintain Large Consolidation Factor

SPARC Based SUN System Benefits• Cost Effective• Supports Large Solaris Footprints

Limitations• Only Supports Solaris 10• Global Zone and Container Dependency• Smaller Consolidation Factor (OPS Target 4:1)

Example: EOSL (end of serviceable life) to Virtualized Targets

EOSL Candidates

Legacy Tru64

HP

Legacy Solaris

SUN

Legacy AIXIBM

Port to Target OS Linux &

Solaris 10

Linux Redhat

Solaris 10

App/HW Eval

Code Port

3rd Party Port

Virtualization Target

Virtualization Assessment

VMWare Farm

Linux VM

SUN Containers

Linux VM

Linux VM

Solaris Container

Solaris Container

Solaris Container

Goal for SUN and VMWare Virtualized Environments

VMWare Physical Host


Linux VM Linux

VM

Windows VM Windows

VM

Shared Resources


SUN Physical Host

Solaris 10 Global Zone


Shared Resources





Intel Based ESX Farm Benefits• Cost Effective, Large Consolidation Factor 12:1• Supports Linux, Windows, Solaris (Non Standard)• Hypervisor and Guest VM Independence

Limitations

• Large Linux VM Footprints Do Not Fit Here• Need to Maintain Large Consolidation Factor

SPARC Based SUN System Benefits• Cost Effective• Supports Large Solaris Footprints

Limitations• Only Supports Solaris 10• Global Zone and Container Dependency• Smaller Consolidation Factor (OPS Target 4:1)

Vendor Strength’s & Weakness

HP

Strength• 4 Major OS

Offerings• Mature vPar and

Future VM Capabilities

Weakness• Dependence on

Itanium• Decreasing

OpenVMS Market

• Future ISV Support

IBM

Strength• Leaders in

Virtualization• Leaders in Mgmt

Aspects of Virtualization

• P5 and P6 Performance Unmatched

Weakness• Can be Expensive

if not Properly Used

• Limited to 2 Supported OSes

SUN

Strength• Solaris Footprint

is considerable• Lower Cost

Weakness• Reliance on

Solaris 10• Limited to 2

Supported OSes • ISV Support

VMWare

Strength• 3 Major OS

Offerings• Industry

Accepted• Mature Product• Cost

Weakness• Dependence on

AMD and X86 Architecture

• Vertical Scalability

Storage Virtualization• State Today

– 3 Business Units on Different Technologies– Centralization of Support Organizations

• Linux Virtualization Opportunities– Virtualization @ Frame Level

• Less complicated to execute• Exists today• Vendor lock possible

– Virtualization outside the frame• Outside component

– Has been proven and functional at other companies– Adds another layer of complexity

• @ Cisco/Router/Switch Level– Not as widespread as other technologies– Possibly biggest benefit as technology drives towards fiber encapsulation

Storage Virtualization Options

Most Common Storage Virtualization TechnologiesCurrent , Available and Possible Storage Virtualization Strategies

Current:

No standard storage virtualization roadmap will hinder future server virtualization technologies. Data growth is out-pacing storage cost decline due to PCI/SOX requirements.

No storage ILM direction will continue to increase cost

Future:

There are 3 viable options. Virtualize within frame, go outside of frame or possibly go with a Cisco/Switch Solution for storage virtualization

Vendors such as HDS can provide @ frame

level

Vendors such as IBM can provide @ external component

level

Virtualization @ Switch/Router Layer

Stor

age

Virt

ualiz

ation

Virtualization Would Occur Within the Cisco Layer

Future Fiber within IP

Encapsulation

IP S

witc

hing

Switch Fabric Environment

Any Frame

server @ F

ram

e Le

vel

HDSserver

Exte

rnal

Com

pone

nt

IBM

server

Technology

E Vm Virtualization