global server virtualization survey - summary report€¦ · server utilization across...

Global Server Virtualization Survey - Summary Report

Prepared for CA

June 2007

S t r i c t l y P r i v i l e g e d a n d C o n f i d e n t i a l

Table of Contents

I. Executive Summary .......................................................................................................... 1

II. Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 4 A. Research Objectives.............................................................................................................................5 B. Methodology..........................................................................................................................................6 C. Sample...................................................................................................................................................7 D. Firmographics .......................................................................................................................................7

III. Data and Analysis ............................................................................................................10 A. Virtualization Adoption........................................................................................................................11

1. Virtualization Adoption Over-Estimated?....................................................................................................11 B. Deployment Status and Areas ...........................................................................................................13

1. Current Deployment and Deployment Trends ...........................................................................................13 2. Users Define Virtualization According to What Gets the Job Done..........................................................14 3. Multiple Virtualization Solutions and Technologies....................................................................................16 4. Multiple Vendors ..........................................................................................................................................18 5. Key Virtualization Benefits ..........................................................................................................................21 6. ROI, Cost Savings and Satisfaction ...........................................................................................................24 7. Success and Best Practices........................................................................................................................26

IV. Conclusions......................................................................................................................30

S t r i c t l y P r i v i l e g e d a n d C o n f i d e n t i a l 1

I. Executive Summary


Executive Summary

Server virtualization is now a mainstream technology, having been adopted by at least 39% of worldwide organizations with more than 500 employees. It is also a technology that is experiencing tremendous growth. The results of The Strategic Counsel global survey on virtualization indicate the installed base of organizations that have deployed a server virtualization solution or technology will grow by 19%, globally, over the next 18 months.

The survey shows that the reason for this exceptional growth is clear: server virtualization has easily identifiable benefits that are strongly aligned with organizational expectations, business drivers for IT, and actual server virtualization use cases.

But significant challenges also lay ahead. Specifically, the pattern of organizational server virtualization deployment has lead to the creation of multiple, heterogeneous server virtualization environments within single organizations. This is the norm shown by the survey, not the exception.

And with heterogeneity comes management issues and constraints. Issues and constraints that are having a negative impact on organizational satisfaction with server virtualization. Issues and constraints such as server sprawl; increased configuration and administration requirements and workloads; difficulty with reporting, visibility and metrics for obtaining one consistent view on server efficiency, performance and utilization; and increased requirements to maintain more than one skill-set.

The survey also shows that ROI and cost savings have a strong influence on deployment satisfaction; but 27% of the organizations that have deployed server virtualization have either failed to realize a ROI or are unsure whether they have realized ROI, and 41% have either failed to realize documented cost savings or are unsure of the cost savings they have achieved. In fact, 45% of the organizations that have deployed server virtualization are unable to say whether or not the deployment has been successful - pointing to problems with measurement negatively influencing server virtualization satisfaction levels, e.g. measuring server and network infrastructure performance.

A key consideration identified by the survey for driving increased satisfaction is the need to reduce the costs associated with the issues and constraints of managing multiple, heterogeneous server virtualization environments by unifying server virtualization management across platforms, solutions, and technologies. Unifying server virtualization management will create significant scope for improving performance measurement, generating IT operating efficiencies, and for reducing IT capital expenditures by improving server utilization across heterogeneous virtualization environments.


Executive Summary

Another key consideration in determining satisfaction that will interest user organizations is adherence to pre-deployment best practices. Specifically, certain server virtualization pre-deployment practices such as “conducting an inventory, load identification and consolidation of all physical servers” are strongly associated with successful server virtualization deployment evaluations.

Server virtualization has definitely arrived. The issue now is best-practice management of deployment and maximizing management efficiency over multiple, heterogeneous server virtualization environments.


II. Introduction


Introduction

A. Research Objectives

The Strategic Counsel global survey on virtualization surveyed 969 private and public organizations with a minimum of 500 employees.

The survey intent was to determine the deployment incidence, trends and timetables associated with server virtualization; organizations’ motivations for moving to virtualized server environments; organizations’ IT management issues and constraints with heterogeneous virtualized server environments; and organizations’ return from server virtualization deployment.

The survey asked IT executives and managers who are specifically final and key decision-makers and influencers for server virtualization to detail their organizations’ server virtualization deployments or plans in the following areas:

• Current and future adoption and timelines;

• Implementation status and areas;

• Technology and business drivers for virtualized server environments;

• Key issues in managing virtualized environments;

• Key virtualization benefits, barriers and best practices; and,

• Return on investment and cost savings.

26%

46%

28%

Final Decision-Maker

Key Decision-Influencer

Decision-Contributor

N=969. Q1. Which of the following statements best describes your role within your organization when it comes to making or influencing decision about your IT infrastructure and servers? Source: The Strategic Counsel, 2007

Decision-Makers


Introduction

B. Methodology

The Strategic Counsel was retained by CA to undertake this server virtualization market survey.

In order to eliminate undue vendor or installed base influence on the survey results the survey questionnaire was developed independently by The Strategic Counsel, and CA was prohibited from playing any role in sample provision, respondent recruitment, or survey administration. The survey was also conducted on a double-blind basis to prevent user bias from coloring the overall survey results.

A total of 969 e-mail and telephone surveys were conducted among a random sample of IT professionals. Respondent organizations were limited by size to organizations with 500 or more employees. Quotas were set by region as follows:

• North America (United States and Canada) 250 surveys completed;

• Europe (United Kingdom, Germany, France) 300 surveys completed;

• APJ (Australia, China, Hong Kong, India, Indonesia, Korea, Malaysia, New Zealand, Philippines, Singapore, Taiwan, Thailand) 400 surveys completed.

An overage of completions resulted in the total number of completions being 969. All interviews were completed between January 2nd and February 2nd 2007. Tracking tools were used to ensure there was no occurrence of multiple responses by the same parties and to prohibit more than one respondent per organization.

26.0%

31.3%

42.6%

North America

Europe

APJ

N=969. Regional breakdown of survey population. Source: The Strategic Counsel, 2007

Regional Survey Breakdown


Introduction

C. Sample

The survey sample consisted of respondents from randomly selected organizations with 500 or more employees. All respondents were required to meet the following criteria:

Role within organization in making or influencing decisions about IT infrastructure and servers:

• To have final decision-making authority over IT infrastructure and servers;

• To play an influential role in the decision-making process for IT infrastructure and servers; or

• To be actively involved in the information gathering process for IT infrastructure and server decisions.

Knowledge of server virtualization:

• Expert knowledge;

• Strong but not expert knowledge; or

• Good, basic working knowledge in the area of server virtualization.

To agree with any combination of the following, or at least one of the following, statements:

• Operating system virtualization (also known as OS partitioning) and/or para-virtualization solutions can provide a type of server virtualization;

• Hardware virtualization (also known as server virtualization) solutions can provide a type of server virtualization;

• Hard partitions or hard partitioning solutions can provide a type of server virtualization; and/or

• Clustering can be thought of as a type of server virtualization.

Server virtualization deployment:

• To have either already deployed a server virtualization solution or technology, or to be planning to deploy a server virtualization solution or technology

D. Firmographics

Organizations with 500 or more employees across a variety of vertical market segments including Accounting; Agriculture, Forestry and Fishing; Banking; Business Services; Communications; Construction; Education; Engineering, Architecture and Management Consulting; Health Care; Hospitality; Insurance; Legal; Manufacturing; Mining; Personal Services; Printing and Publishing; Government and Public Sector; Real Estate; Retail; Transportation; Utilities; and Wholesale are represented in the survey.


Introduction

No vertical quotas were set for the survey; all vertical segment completions occurred on a random basis.

Approximately twenty-three percent of the survey respondents are from organizations with 500 to 999 employees; approximately 50% are from organizations with 1,000 to 9,999 employees; and approximately 26% are from organizations with 10,000 or more employees.

In terms of infrastructure scale, approximately 12% of the survey respondents are from organizations with 1 to 9 physical servers; approximately 25% are from organizations with 10 to 24 servers; approximately 27% are from organizations with 25 to 99 servers; approximately 14% are from organizations with 100 to 199 servers; and approximately 23% are from organizations with 200 or more servers.

No weighting has been applied to the data.

23%

50%

26%

500-999

1,000-9,999

10,000+N=969. Q4. How many employees does your organization have on a worldwide basis? Source: The Strategic Counsel, 2007

Worldwide Employees


Introduction

11.5%

24.8%

14.0%

22.9%26.8%

1 to 9

10 to 24

25 to 99

100 to 199

200+

N=969. QE7. How many physical servers does your organization run? Source: The Strategic Counsel, 2007

Physical Servers

27.7%

26.8%

9.0% 12.9%

23.6%

1 to 9

10 to 24

25 to 99

100 to 199

200+

N=969. QE8. How many virtual servers does your organization run? Source: The Strategic Counsel, 2007

Virtual Servers


III. Data and Analysis


Data and Analysis

The survey results and findings fall within several primary areas of understanding:

• Current incidence of server virtualization and future deployment trends;

• The server virtualization solutions or technologies that have been deployed;

• The technology, business and management issues influencing server virtualization deployments;

• The benefits organizations derive from server virtualization deployment;

• The returns organizations can expect from virtualization; and,

• Best practices for server virtualization deployment.

A. Virtualization Adoption

1. Virtualization Adoption Over-Estimated?

Server virtualization is enjoying very strong global adoption, but the market is not mature or saturated.

One way to calculate adoption, which is similar to other recently released surveys, is to base it on the number of organizations indicating current server virtualization deployment or definite plans to deploy virtualization within the next 18 months (844), divided by the total number of survey completions (969)1 plus the number of potential interviews that were screened out of the final results (108) for responding that their organizations have no plans to deploy a server virtualization solution or technology.

This approach shows that 78% of organizations with 500 or more employees have deployed or have definite plans to deploy a server virtualization solution or technology. This result is in line with the server virtualization adoption percentages arrived at in other recently released surveys or studies.

This interpretation, however, has the potential to over-estimate adoption. If the number of potential interviews (1069) that were rejected for not agreeing to any combination of, or at least one of the following statements:

• Operating system virtualization (also known as OS partitioning) and/or para-virtualization solutions can provide a type of server virtualization;

• Hardware virtualization (also known as server virtualization) solutions can provide a type of server virtualization;

• Hard partitions or hard partitioning solutions can provide a type of server virtualization; and/or,

1 Organizations indicating current virtualization deployment, definite plans to deploy virtualization within the next 18 months, or plans to deploy virtualization but without a definite timetable.


Data and Analysis

• Clustering can be thought of as a type of server virtualization…

…are counted as organizations that have not deployed a server virtualization solution or technology, the interpretation of server virtualization adoption drops to 39%2.

Whether or not it makes sense to interpret the data this way depends largely upon the probability of server virtualization deployment occurring in environments where neither OS virtualization, OS partitioning, para-virtualization, HW virtualization, server virtualization, hard partitions, or clustering are believed to be forms of, or provide a type of server virtualization.

If it is assumed that server virtualization deployment has not occurred in these environments, then the possibility that the actual server virtualization adoption percentage is closer to 39% than it is to 78% becomes an important point to consider.

While 39% adoption for a relatively new technology such as server virtualization might indicate strong adoption with strong future growth prospects; 78% adoption might indicate a maturing technology in a relatively saturated market with little room for new customer growth. It bears noting that 78% adoption is more characteristic of “maturing” technologies such as enterprise applications and messaging systems.

There are several key market characteristics as well as anecdotal evidence and user-side conversation points that indicate server virtualization is still in a significant growth phase. Two especially important characteristics to note are the very high percentages of organizations who “do not know” whether their deployment of a server virtualization solution or technology has been successful, and who “do not know” the return on investment (ROI) or cost savings they have experienced from virtualization deployment.

These characteristics are more commonly associated with relatively new technologies; The Strategic Counsel believes the actual server virtualization adoption percentage among organizations with 500 or more employees lies closer to 39% than to 78%.

2 Number of organizations indicating current server virtualization deployment or definite plans to deploy virtualization within the next 18 months (844), divided by the total number of survey completions (969) plus the number of potential interviews that were screened out of the final results (108) for responding that their organizations have no plans to deploy a server virtualization solution or technology and for not agreeing to any combination of, or at least one of the following statements (1069): • Operating system virtualization (also known as OS partitioning) and/or para-virtualization solutions can provide a type of server virtualization; • Hardware virtualization (also known as server virtualization) solutions can provide a type of server virtualization; • Hard partitions or hard partitioning solutions can provide a type of server virtualization; and/or • Clustering can be thought of as a type of server virtualization.


Data and Analysis

B. Deployment Status and Areas

1. Current Deployment and Deployment Trends

Only organizations that have deployed a server virtualization solution or technology, have definite plans to deploy virtualization within the next 18 months, or plan to deploy virtualization but do not have a definite timetable for doing so are counted in the final result of 969 survey completions.

This has been done so that data points are reported in percentage terms that are reflective of the existing server virtualization market, i.e. actual and planned deployments.

Of those organizations that have already deployed a virtualization solution, 3% deployed in less than one month from the start of the project. Forty-one percent deployed within 1 month to six months from the start of the project, and 48% took more than 6 months to deploy. Although the indicated deployment times are within reason for a relatively new technology they are significantly longer than those indicated in other surveys and point to specific server virtualization use patterns that would tend to increase deployment time and effort (such as much greater than previously reported heterogeneity of server virtualization environments within single organizations than reported in other surveys).

2.6%

14.6%

30.5%

17.7%

8.1%

26.5%

Less than 1 month

1 month to 3 months

3 months to 6 months

6 months to 12 months

More than 12 months

DK

N=725. Q8. How long did it take your organization to deploy its server virtualization solution from the start of the project? Source: The Strategic Counsel, 2007

Deployment Time


Data and Analysis

Within the total survey population of 969 organizations, 75% have already deployed a virtualization solution or technology, 14% have definite plans to deploy a virtualization solution or technology within the next 18 months, and 11% plan to deploy a virtualization solution or technology but do not have a definite timetable for doing so.

Based on these data points, The Strategic Counsel anticipates at least 19% worldwide installed base growth in the number of organizations who have deployed a virtualization solution or technology within the next 18 months.

2. Users Define Virtualization According to What Gets the Job Done

A recurring issue in IT research is defining what specific technologies mean to user organizations. How users understand server virtualization has less to with textbook definitions than with real-world practical experience of simply making things work.

N=969. Q8 and Q9. Has your organization deployed any form of server virtualization solution or technology? If your organization is planning to deploy a server virtualization solution or technology, what is the timeframe for doing so? Source: The Strategic Counsel, 2007

75.0 14.0 11.0

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Total Survey Population

= 969

Percentage

Already Deployed

Plan to Deploy Within Next 18 Months

No Definite Timetable for Deployment

Installed Base = 725 Plan to Deploy Within Next 18 Months = 138

138/725 = 19%

Nineteen percent installed base growth over the next 18 months


Data and Analysis

Eighty-one percent of the survey respondents agreed that “operating system virtualization, OS partitioning and/or para-virtualization solutions can provide a type of server virtualization.” And 80% of survey respondents agreed that “hardware virtualization or server virtualization solutions can provide a type of server virtualization.” These two technology approaches constitute the textbook definition of server virtualization.

Moving outside of academic or technical definitions, 62% of survey respondents agreed that “hard partitions or hard partitioning solutions can provide a type of server virtualization” and 59% agreed that “clustering can be thought of as a type of server virtualization.”3

3 Respondents were screened so that all agreed to at least one, or any combination of the following statements: • Operating system virtualization (also known as OS partitioning) and/or para-virtualization solutions can provide a type of server virtualization; • Hardware virtualization (also known as server virtualization) solutions can provide a type of server virtualization; • Hard partitions or hard partitioning solutions can provide a type of server virtualization; and/or • Clustering can be thought of as a type of server virtualization

59%

62%

80%

81%

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Percentage

Clusters

Hard partitioning

HW virtualization /

server virtualization

OS virtualization / OS

partitioning / para-

virtualization

N=969. Q3. Please indicate whether you agree or disagree with the following statements about server virtualization: Operating system virtualization (also known as OS partitioning and/or para-virtualization can provide a type pf server virtualization, etc. Source: The Strategic Counsel, 2007

Server Virtualization Has Multiple Definitions


Data and Analysis

3. Multiple Virtualization Solutions and Technologies

Furthermore, 67% of survey respondents indicate they have already deployed or plan to deploy an OS virtualization or HW virtualization solution, 52% have already deployed or plan to deploy a hard partitioning solution, and 48% have already deployed or plan to deploy a clustering solution.

Upon cross-analysis, the survey results show that 71% of the organizations surveyed have already deployed or plan to deploy what they consider to be multiple server virtualization solutions or technologies. The results indicate deployment of multiple server virtualization solutions or technologies is the norm rather than the exception. The results differ from other recently released surveys in that there is significantly wider scope in the number of server virtualization solutions or technologies being deployed by organizations than previously thought.4

4 To ensure proper accounting for multiple deployments, organizations were asked to detail all server virtualization solutions or technologies they have deployed or plan to deploy without having to narrow their answer to a single primary choice. The methodological approach of allowing multiple answers is the best way to capture the full extent and variety of server virtualization solutions and technologies that have been deployed and that organizations plan to deploy.

67%

52%

48%

OS/HW virtualization

Hard partitions

Clusters

N=969. QA3, QA4, QA5. Has your organization deployed (or does it plan to deploy a HW virtualization, OS virtualization (OS partitioning), or para-virtualization solution – such as VMWare, Microsoft Virtual Server, SWSoft Virtuozzo, Solaris Containers or XEN? Has your organization deployed (or does it plan to deploy a… Source: The Strategic Counsel, 2007

Multiple Technology Deployment


Data and Analysis

The most common reasons for deploying multiple server virtualization solutions or technologies cited by survey respondents were:

• Specific solutions are best for specific tasks;

• Deploying more than one solution or technology is the best fit for our environment; and,

• Different platforms in our environment have different best-fit solutions.

These multiple server virtualization deployment cause factors share the unifying theme of “fitting best,” which indicates organizations are dedicating individual solutions or technologies to specific tasks or use cases.

This use pattern and many organizations’ real-world practical treatment of hard partitioning and clustering as types of server virtualization has significant ramifications for how the server virtualization market is analyzed and approached. More technologies and vendors have to be considered competitors for server virtualization dollars, and more solutions and technologies have to be considered in the context of managing server virtualization.

The reality of the market is that there is no movement to one, singular server virtualization platform. Instead, organizations are deploying heterogeneous server virtualization environments because this approach “fits needs and requirements best.” In this heterogeneous context, server virtualization management solutions that are able to cross solutions, technologies and server sprawl will assume a vital role in reducing capital expenditures, virtualization costs, and promoting further server virtualization adoption.

Evidence that problems in managing heterogeneous server virtualization environments are already a significant issue affecting server virtualization productivity, efficiency and ultimately return on investment, is provided by survey respondents’ identification of key server virtualization management issues and constraints:

Compared to organizations that run a single server virtualization platform, the survey results show organizations that run multiple server virtualization solutions or technologies experience significantly increased:

• Server sprawl;

• Difficulty with reporting, visibility and metrics for getting one consistent view on server efficiency; performance, utilization, etc.;

• Configuration requirements and configuration workloads; and,

• Requirements to maintain more than one skill-set.


Data and Analysis

• Eighty-four percent more organizations that run multiple server virtualization solutions or technologies suffer significantly increased server sprawl as an important IT issue or constraint to deal with versus organizations that run a single server virtualization platform. This indicates that although organizations deploy heterogeneous server virtualization environments because it “fits needs and requirements best,” there are significant manageability and utilization drawbacks to such an approach.

• Seventy-eight percent more organizations that run multiple server virtualization solutions or technologies suffer significantly increased difficulty with reporting, visibility and metrics for getting one consistent view on server efficiency, performance, utilization, etc. as an important IT issue or constraint to deal with versus organizations that run a single server virtualization platform.

• Forty-nine percent more suffer significantly increased configuration requirements and configuration workloads as an important issue or constraint to deal with versus organizations that run a single server virtualization platform.

• Forty percent more suffer significantly increased requirements to maintain more than one skill-set as an important issue or constraint to deal with versus organizations that run a single server virtualization platform.

Given the reality of multiple, heterogeneous server virtualization solution deployments, the future of server virtualization will be just as much about virtualization itself as it is about managing multiple, heterogeneous server virtualization environments.

4. Multiple Vendors

OS and HW Virtualization

Among the 67% of survey respondents who have already deployed or plan to deploy an OS virtualization or HW virtualization solution, the primary vendors are VMWare, Microsoft, and Sun. Thirty-three percent have already deployed VMWare Server/VMWare GSX, 25% have deployed VMWare ESX, and 48% have deployed Microsoft Virtual Server.5

Twenty-four percent plan to deploy VMWare Server/VMWare GSX, 26% plan to deploy VMWare ESX, and 34% plan to deploy Microsoft Virtual Server. Sun Solaris Containers is the strongest of the other vendor solutions: 17% have already deployed and 27% plan to deploy.

5 Organizations’ deployment of specific server virtualization solutions was not counted exclusive of one another, i.e. multiple responses were allowed to best account for the full extent and variety of server virtualization solutions and technologies that have been deployed.


Data and Analysis

Hard Partitions

Among the 52% of survey respondents who have already deployed or plan to deploy a hard partitioning solution, the main solutions are IBM LPAR and HP nPartitions/nPars. Forty-two percent have already deployed IBM LPAR and 40% have deployed HP nPartitions/nPars.

Thirty-four percent plan to deploy IBM LPAR compared to the 30% who plan to deploy HP nPartitions/nPars.

33%

24%

25%

26%

48%

34%

17%

27%

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

VMWare

Server/GSX

VMWare ESX Microsoft Virtual

Server

Sun Solaris

Containers

Plan to Deploy

Deployed

N=665. QA4-QA4B. Has your organization deployed or does it plan to deploy… Source: The Strategic Counsel, 2007

OS and HW Virtualization


Data and Analysis

Clusters

Among the 48% of survey respondents who have already deployed or plan to deploy a server clustering solution there is a wide variety of vendor solutions deployed. The primary vendors, however, are Microsoft, IBM and HP. Forty-one percent have deployed a Microsoft clustering solution, 31% have deployed an IBM clustering solution and 32% have deployed an HP clustering solution.

Thirty-three percent plan to deploy a Microsoft clustering solution, 26% plan to deploy an IBM clustering solution, and 26% plan to deploy an HP clustering solution. Sun is the strongest of the other vendor solutions: 25% have already deployed and 25% plan to deploy.

42%

34%

40%

30%

27%

33%

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

IBM LPAR HP nPartitions/nPars Sun Dyn Recon/Dyn Sys

Dom

Plan to Deploy

Deployed


Hard Partitions


Data and Analysis

5. Key Virtualization Benefits

The benefits of server virtualization are clear and extremely well aligned with organizational expectations and actual server virtualization use cases. Primary benefit areas include improved server / system utilization rates; improved server reliability and uptime; and improved business continuity and disaster recovery.

A strong link between server virtualization and top business drivers for IT was shown in the survey results. The top business drivers for IT identified by survey respondents will be familiar to many IT practitioners: reducing IT costs / increasing IT efficiency; improving organizational or business performance; and improving IT service levels.

When asked to rank how much server virtualization will help their organizations address the top three business drivers for IT identified in the survey, 63% of organizations responded server virtualization will be an “important or very important help” for their organizations in reducing IT costs / increasing IT efficiency; 65% responded server virtualization will be an important or very important help for their organizations in improving organizational or business performance; and 63% responded server virtualization will be an important or very important help for their organizations in improving IT service levels – showing a significant link between business drivers and server virtualization.

41%

33%

31%

26%

32%

26%

25%

25%

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Microsoft IBM HP Sun

Plan to Deploy

Deployed


Clusters


Data and Analysis

The top IT-specific drivers for deploying a server virtualization solution or technology were: improving server reliability and uptime; improving server and system utilization; and improving business continuity and disaster recovery.

The top IT-specific drivers for server virtualization deployment were almost perfectly aligned with organizations’ most strongly experienced benefits since deploying a server virtualization solution or technology which were: improved server / system utilization rates; improved business continuity and disaster recovery; and improved server reliability and uptime – showing a strong link between IT drivers and server virtualization.

N=969. QB5. On a scale of 1-5, where 1 equals “not at all important” and 5 equals “extremely important,” please rate the importance of the following server virtualization use cases to your organization… Source: The Strategic Counsel, 2007

26.7

25.0

24.7

22.2

20.3

20.4

20.0

19.5

19.4

19.2

17.8

16.9

16.2

12.4

40.7

42.2

41.7

41.4

41.5

39.2

38.1

39.2

38.8

42.5

37.2

37.5

31.6

35.5

25.7

27.6

25.3

27.6

31.0

30.5

31.1

30.1

32.8

30.9

29.9

33.4

35.9

38.2

5.3

4.1

6.2

6.6

5.8

7.8

7.5

8.6

6.9

6.2

11.6

9.3

11.4

11.8

1.7

1.1

2.2

2.3

1.4

2.0

3.3

2.6

2.1

1.2

3.6

2.9

5.0

2.2

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Improved server reliability/uptime

Improving server/system utilization/efficiency

Improved business continuity/disaster recovery

Increasing IT flexibility/responsiveness/system response speed

Simplifying/speeding-up server/application management/provisioning

Reducing hardw are purchases/maintenance

M aking supporting multiple OSs easier

Reducing IT administration costs

Server consolidation

Simplifying/speeding-up application deployment

Low er datacenter running costs, e.g. pow er usage

Reducing spending on softw are purchases/maintenance

Supporting legacy applications/platforms

Help move to utility computing/service oriented architecture

Percentage

Extremely Important

Important

Neither Important nor Unimportant

Not Important

Not at All Important

IT-Specific Server Virtualization Drivers


Data and Analysis

And they were almost perfectly aligned with organizations’ top use cases for server virtualization, specifically: business continuity and disaster recovery; managing hardware migrations/upgrades (e.g. to eliminate downtime); and resource management / load balancing /dynamic application provisioning – showing a strong link between IT drivers and actual uses for server virtualization.

In summary, the survey results indicate strong alignment between server virtualization, business drivers for IT, specific drivers for server virtualization deployment, and the benefits experienced after deploying a server virtualization solution or technology.

N=969. QB6. On a scale of 1-5, where 1 equals “not at all important” and 5 equals “extremely important,” please rate the importance of the following server virtualization use cases to your organization… Source: The Strategic Counsel, 2007

26.3

21.3

20.6

20.4

18.8

15.6

16.1

37.3

41.8

42.4

41.1

38.1

32.0

45.3

29.1

31.2

29.0

31.8

34.2

33.8

31.8

5.7

4.4

6.3

5.6

7.1

14.3

5.7

1.7

1.3

1.7

1.1

1.9

4.2

1.1

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Business continuity/disaster recovery

Manage hardware migrations/upgrades

-eliminate downtime

Server consolidation

Resource management/load

balancing/dynamic application

provisioning

Application test and development

Supporting/hosting legacy applications

Capacity planning optimization

Percentage

Extremely Important

Important

Neither Important nor Unimportant

Not Important

Not at All Important

Server Virtualization Use Cases


Data and Analysis

6. ROI, Cost Savings and Satisfaction

Considering the positive alignment between business drivers, specific drivers for server virtualization, benefits experienced, and actual use cases shown in the survey results, it would be fair to anticipate a high degree of satisfaction with server virtualization deployments. Instead, the survey results show there is a remarkable degree of organizational reluctance to categorize server virtualization deployments as successful.

When asked if their organization’s deployment of server virtualization has been successful, 45% of the organizations who have already deployed a server virtualization solution or technology responded “no” or that they “don’t know yet and need more time to determine how successful it has been.”

Furthermore, 27% responded that they have either failed to realize a ROI on server virtualization or don’t know how long it will take for their organization to realize a ROI, and 41% have either failed to realize documented cost savings or are unsure of the cost savings they have achieved.

Four percent of organizations indicate realizing ROI in less than 1 month from deployment; 55% indicate achieving it within 1 to 12 months from deployment; and 14% indicate achieving it more than a year after deployment.

55.0%

45.0%

Deployment successful

Deployment unsuccessful/DK/not sure

N=725. QD5. Do you regard your organization’s deployment of server virtualization solutions or technology as successful? Source: The Strategic Counsel, 2007

Server Virtualization Deployment Evaluation


Data and Analysis

Extending the ROI analysis (those organizations that realized ROI only), ROI realized was subject to a great degree of variability: 20% realized ROI of less than 10%; 61% realized ROI between 10% and less than 25%; and 19% realized ROI of 25% or more.

In pure capital budgeting terms, compared to alternative uses of funds (investment in the stock market or in other organizational projects for example), the 20% of organizations realizing ROI of less than 10% could be on shaky ground with regard to evaluating their server virtualization deployments as successful - as it is the ROI from alternative uses of funds that server virtualization deployment should be evaluated against. In pure capital budgeting terms, ROI is a relative measure. Simply realizing ROI does not guarantee a project will be regarded by an organization as successful.

Again in pure capital budgeting terms, the 61% of organizations realizing ROI between 10% and 25%, and 19% realizing ROI of 25% or more are on much firmer ground for considering their server virtualization deployments as successful (compared to general stock market returns, or average IT project ROI for example).

As was the case for ROI, documented cost savings realized was subject to a high degree of variability. Of the organizations surveyed who have already deployed server virtualization, 59% have realized documented cost savings. Seven percent of these organizations realized documented cost savings of less than 5%; 26% realized documented cost savings of less than 10%; 56% realized cost savings between 10% and less than 25%; and 18% realized cost savings of 25% or more.

20.0%

61.0%

19.0%

Less than 10%

10% to less than 25%

25% or more

ROI Realized

N=529. QD2. What has the ROI been? Source: The Strategic Counsel, 2007


Data and Analysis

7. Success and Best Practices

The survey results indicate a relationship between successful evaluation of server virtualization deployment, realizing ROI, and specific server virtualization pre-deployment best practices.

Of the total number of organizations that have already deployed a server virtualization solution or technology, the percentage who have evaluated their server virtualization deployment as “successful” (55%) corresponds with the percentage of organizations who have realized ROI (55%).

7.0%

26.0%

18.0%56.0%

Less than 5%

Less than 10%

10% to less than 25%

25% or more

Cost Savings Realized

N=427. QD4. What has been the document able IT cost savings due to deploying server virtualization? Source: The Strategic Counsel, 2007


Data and Analysis

Adherence to specific server virtualization pre-deployment best practices also appears to play an important role in successful evaluation of server virtualization deployments. When the survey results are analyzed by organizations who have determined their server virtualization deployments to be successful versus those who have determined their deployments to be unsuccessful, or do not know whether or not they are successful, there are significant differences.

The largest difference is for “being able to measure current server performance and network infrastructure performance, and any improvements resulting from implementation of a server virtualization solution or technology.” Seventy-nine percent of organizations who evaluated their server virtualization deployments as successful performed this best practice versus only 60% of those organizations who evaluated deployment as unsuccessful or do not know.

Other significant best practice differences included:

• “Researching and investigating all available server virtualization technologies and solutions.” Eighty-five percent of organizations who evaluated their server virtualization deployments as successful performed this best practice versus 72% of those organizations who evaluated deployment as unsuccessful or do not know.

55.0%

45.0%

Deployment successful/ROI realized Deployment unsuccessful/DK/not sure

Satisfaction Closely Matches Realizing ROI

Realized ROI (55%)

N=725. QD2, QD4, QD5. Source: The Strategic Counsel, 2007


Data and Analysis

• “Conducting an inventory, load identification and consolidation of all physical servers, e.g. to reduce potential bottlenecks by retiring servers that do not have the capacity to handle heightened workloads under virtualization.” Seventy-five percent of organizations who evaluated their server virtualization deployments as successful performed this best practice versus 64% of those organizations who evaluated deployment as unsuccessful or do not know.

• “Preparing a detailed implementation plan including capital expenditures and operating expenditures, timetables for each phase of the implementation, and organization charts defining project responsibilities and reporting structure.” Eighty-two percent of organizations who evaluated their server virtualization deployments as successful performed this best practice versus 73% of those organizations who evaluated deployment as unsuccessful or do not know.

73.0

82.0

64.0

75.0

72.0

85.0

60.0

79.0

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Percentage

Detailed implementation

plan

Researching/investigating

all technologies and

solutions

Inventory, load id'fication,

consolidation physical

servers

Measuring server /

network infrastructure

performance

Successful deployment

Rest of respondents

N=725. QD6. Please indicate whether your organization follows/followed any of the following best practices best practices for implementing a server virtualization solution or technology… Source: The Strategic Counsel, 2007

Significant differences

Server Virtualization Best Practices Rated – Successful Deployment Versus Unsuccessful/DK


Data and Analysis

An additional consideration in successful deployment indicated by the survey results revolves around cost. The survey results show that deployment of multiple, heterogeneous, server virtualization environments is the norm. Survey respondents identified specific issues and constraints associated with managing heterogeneous server virtualization environments that can impact cost and therefore ROI.

Typically, the cost impact in the affected areas is hard to quantify on an immediate basis – leading to organizations being unsure of the ROI, cost savings and success of their server virtualization deployments. As already noted, 27% of the organizations that have deployed server virtualization have either failed to realize a ROI or are unsure whether they have realized ROI, 41% have either failed to realize documented cost savings or are unsure of the cost savings they have achieved, and 45% are unable to say whether or not the deployment has been successful. But some areas could be relatively “low hanging fruit” for organizations to target for improvement if they had systems with appropriate tools: unifying server virtualization management across multiple, heterogeneous server virtualization environments for example, would help organizations immediately defer or delay server purchases and therefore reduce capital expenditures.

As previously described, the key issues and constraints in managing multiple, heterogeneous, server virtualization environments identified by survey respondents include significantly increased:

• Server sprawl;

• Difficulty with reporting, visibility and metrics for getting one consistent view on server efficiency; performance, utilization, etc.;

• Configuration requirements and configuration workloads; and,

• Requirements to maintain more than one skill-set.

The ability to drive down administration, operating and capital costs associated with these issues and constraints by unifying heterogeneous server virtualization environment management across platforms, solutions and technologies should prove to be a key future area of development for vendors and users alike – and will play a key role in increasing server virtualization deployment satisfaction levels.


IV. Conclusions


Conclusion

Organizations define technologies according to real-world practice. In the case of server virtualization, hardware partitioning and server clustering are regarded by the absolute majority of organizations who have deployed OS or HW virtualization as providing types of server virtualization. This has significant ramifications for competition in the server virtualization market, for server virtualization solution scope, and for server sprawl. Users see the server virtualization market with a wider lens than server virtualization vendors and analysts have seen it.

The real-world practical treatment of hard partitioning and server clustering as types of server virtualization means that any analysis of, or strategy for competing in the server virtualization market, must account for more technologies and vendors vying for buyers’ server virtualization dollars, and for more solutions and technologies being considered in the context of managing server virtualization. Unified management across multiple, heterogeneous server virtualization environments should become a key focus area of vendor development for driving increased user efficiency, reduced capital expenditure, and higher satisfaction with server virtualization.

The very high percentages of organizations who do not know whether their deployment of server virtualization has been successful, what ROI they have realized from server virtualization deployment, or what cost savings they have realized also sound a call to action for server virtualization vendors and users.

Since specific server virtualization benefits enjoy strong alignment with IT-specific drivers for virtualization deployment, expectations of benefit, and actual server virtualization use cases, metrics should be developed to help support business case development based on these known quantities.

In other words, IT should build what it knows to be benefits of server virtualization and is driven to deploy it for, into the business case and evaluation metrics for it. Specifically, improved server and system utilization rates, improved server reliability and uptime, and improved business continuity and disaster recovery all need metrics developed so that they can be related to business case approval and successful deployment evaluation. For example, metrics for measuring how improved server and system utilization rates, improved server reliability and uptime, and improved business continuity and disaster application have affected application performance and uptime since server virtualization deployment.

Furthermore, the survey shows that being able to measure current server performance and network infrastructure performance and any improvements resulting from implementation of a server virtualization solution or technology, is a key best-practice contributor to server virtualization deployment satisfaction. The call to action for vendors is providing organizations with this measurement capability in a multiple, heterogeneous server virtualization environments context.


Conclusion

Organizations should view reported server virtualization deployment times with due consideration. Times to deploy server virtualization in production of less than 1 week or less than 1 month for the majority of organizations are being widely circulated. While this survey has significantly different findings (majority of organizations take more than 6 months to deploy in production), it is entirely possible that deployment is occurring within the timeframes reported elsewhere. The requirement for users is to not interpret extremely rapid deployment times as an indication that pre-deployment preparation and best practices, such as measuring server performance and network infrastructure, can be short changed.

Server virtualization is enjoying tremendous growth because it has clear, known benefits. The challenge now is driving increased server virtualization deployment satisfaction levels by quantifying benefits in business-related terms and metrics, defining and following deployment best-practices, and developing and implementing management solutions for multiple, heterogeneous server virtualization environments.

global server virtualization survey - summary report€¦ · server utilization across...

Documents