Good Enough: Virtualisation on a Budget
Business Context Version 1 Central IT Service; Local IT Functions in Faculties Multiple Server Operating Systems Windows Linux (Slackware; Red Hat; SUSE; CentOS; Ubuntu) Solaris Increasingly MS-centric Infrastructure Active Directory; Exchange, SCOM, SCCM, SQL Server, Sharepoint
Business Drivers Version 1 Green ICT (lower energy and CO 2 ) Cost Reduction Better Space Utilisation Improve Speed of Service Provision Improve Business Continuity
What We Did Version 1 Blade Servers Platform Evaluation Microsoft Hyper-V R1: not very good... VMware: market leader; excellent product Implemented VMware Worked very well Some issues with Windows Servers Bit worried about the cost... VMware
Business Context Version 2 Project Amundsen Focussed on delivering our 2010-2015 Corporate Plan IT Work Package aimed at centralising, standardising and realising 1,000,000 efficiency savings IT Centralisation & Restructure All localised IT support now under a single, central service Tighter Business Focus Previously seen as an IT initiative; now seen as a business initiative
Business Drivers Version 2 Cost Reduction Very much top priority; realisable savings must be achieved and maximised Standardisation Reduce the diversity of server OSs to deliver staff savings Consolidation Bring all servers and services under central management Improve Service Delivery Faster provisioning of new servers Better business continuity
What We Did Version 2 Standardised the Server OSs Windows first policy; fewer Linux variants supported Virtualisation first policy Re-Evaluated Virtualisation Platforms VMware: we were only using the basic features Hyper-V: R2 now available; much improved product Cost Comparison (64 * 2CPU servers) Hyper-V: 188 / server; VMware: 2,200 / server + OSs Hyper-V Total: 12,032; VMware Total: 140,800 + OSs
Hyper-V Licensing Options Re-Evaluated Virtualisation Platforms Microsoft Hyper-V R2: much improved product Cost Comparison Hyper-V: 95 / server blade VMWare: 2,200 / server blade Standardisation Windows first policy; fewer Linux variants supported Virtualisation first policy
Hyper-V: Pros & Cons Low Cost 94 / Host CPU Flexible Licence Model Unlimited VMs Fast Disk I/O Comparable to Physical Disk Scalable Large Memory (1TB) > 4 CPU Support No Memory Ballooning Linux Support Limited Enterprise Linux Only (Red Hat etc.) Clustering is Tricky Needs Careful Design No Storage vmotion
Integration is Key
Where Are We Now? Savings Target Achieved Contributing 200K annual saving against baseline physical service Staff reduction of 12% (1 FTE) in the server team Approximately 220 Servers Virtualised on Hyper-V Equates to roughly 85% of the server estate Includes business critical services such as Exchange; Sharepoint; Moodle; HR & Payroll; Student Records etc. We are now cloud ready Improved Service Delivery Service Continuity as standard for all virtualised servers Standard server provisioning down from 3 months to 1 day
And What are the Problems? User Expectations As VMs are more or less free, demand has surged Virtual server sprawl Cloud Vendors Have Been Slow To Adopt Only a few cloud vendors have offered Hyper-V This is now changing and it is becoming much more prevalent Cultural Change Physical access to servers no longer possible or desirable
Take Away Understand your Business Context & Drivers For us, this radically altered our choice of platform and direction Opportunities for Standardisation & Consolidation It s a fundamental change, so there is an opportunity to be a little bit radical Consider the Wider IT Infrastructure Having an MS-centric infrastructure meant that Hyper-V made sense, but it s not for everyone Demand Management Increased capability increases user expectations
Questions?