Virtualization of desktops differs from the server

Desktop virtualization differs from server virtualization 
CRN Wrote an article on Desktop Virtualization and Force Fusion was interviewed for this as technology provider next to VMware, Citrix and Microsoft. 

Below is the full text of the article translated in to english: 

Original Source: CRN www.channelweb.nl 

"Wednesday, June 23, 2010 

Desktop virtualization is different from server virtualization

While the virtualization of desktop systems seems a logical follow-up to server virtualization, is it not that simple. Each vendor uses a different approach, depending on its history and portfolio. In addition, server virtualization is a one-dimensional affair, but as it appears desktop virtualization is split into three layers: operating system, applications and user profile. 

You'd think by now everyone works with virtualization. This technology allready years ago has been successfully deployed and provides substantial cost savings. However, there are still companies at present who have no system virtualized. William Enter, Director for VMware in the Benelux, expresses his surprise. "It's also a fairly large group who do not have virtualization in-house, not even for their servers. That's amazing, especially in the light of the savings and flexibility that virtualization brings. Luckily people people are slowly waking up . 

The other two groups of customers which Enter mentions, are much further. Some companies now look to the desktop as a sequel to the virtualization of their servers."This group is quite big." There are also clients who are allready virtualizing their desktops. They have their servers, storage and networks already virtualized.
According Enter no specific sectors or product segments within this subdivision stand out. "Virtualization is everywhere, even in manufacturing where the budgets are very limited. It has mainly to do with the type of business: how you see yourself and how innovative are you?" 

Cost Effective 
Then what exactly is desktop virtualization depends on who you ask. Or rather what one sells. Citrix has grown with XenApp-extensions (formerly MetaFrame) in what is now called Microsoft Remote Desktop Services (formerly known as Terminal Services). That product line was expanded two years ago with the acquisition of XenSource. Citrix desktop virtualization is based on desktop virtual machines next to server-based computing (SBC). 
"For us, the experience of end users is central," said Peter van Leest, Director Enterprise Accounts for Citrix in the Benelux. "If VDI (virtual desktop interface) leads users back to their old desktop, you have not done it  well." He believes the low cost, are still a very important argument for choosing an SBC solution, especially for so-called task workers (the old terminal users). "The cost-effectiveness is unmatched. And with each successive generation of Intel processors, the application density continues to improve." According to Van Leest Office servers where you can put four hundred users in SBC compared to sixty, seventy VDI users on a server. 

Mix 
Citrix sees sbc, vdi, streaming applications and operating system and blade PCs or even different models of desktop virtualization technology to deploy desktops to endusers. What company selects, depends on its users. "We do not believe in a technology for all scenarios. Smaller customers will minimize various technologies, but a larger company does not get away with it. They will have to make a mix." 
Microsoft shares this view. "SBC will often be a lower TCO (total cost of ownership) than vdi" said Olivier van Noort, product solutions manager, Windows Client Business Marketing Organization. "VDI is interesting for workplaces with more flexibility. This can be for users who have their own applications to install, for instance contract employees, software developers and education. In the latter case, a user quickly must be able to start with a clean. Vdi makes it easy because of the easyness to create a new virtual machine. "

Dynamic 
With VMware, that has no SBC in its portfolio, people obviously see things very differently."SBC and VDI are very different," Van Enter. "We think that users should be transfered to one technology. Maintaining more makes managing both unnecessarily complex." 
Van Enter stresses the scalability of their View-client. "The strong integration in vSphere allows us to accomodate a lot of users on a server. PCoverIP Our recently introduced protocol adds new features to it. The underlying philosophy is to always make maximum use of available resources. If only one user is present, we try to give him the full network bandwidth. Are there more users, it is automatically scaled. This makes our solution much more dynamic. " 

Split
See the same dichotomy is also reflected in the way that VMware and Citrix approach their channel. According to the latter is a partner with extensive knowledge of server virtualization is not necessarily a good reseller for desktop virtualization. "This is really a separate discipline," Van Leest. "Besides it is all about users, their desktops and their applications. We also see customers struggling, who think they can be virtualizing their desktops as easy or along side the virtualization of their servers. That's wrong. There is now dues paid. Hence  we help our clients Rescue for VMware VDI program. Together with Microsoft we compensate their license. " Customers can play their VMware View license and freely exchange this for a license Standard Suite Microsoft VDI and Citrix XenDesktop VDI Edition license. 
"We see it very differently ," says Van Enter. "Instead, we have many partners who do both server and desktop. We think from the infrastructure and see desktop virtualization as a next step towards the (internal or external) cloud. The desktop is a different knowledge area, but ultimately it's all in the same datacenter. We have many partners who are also certified on the desktop. We select them based on their knowledge of desktop virtualization. " 

Different markets 
Luc van Stappershoef, Director of Business Development Force Fusion, does only agree for 50% with both vendors. "Server and desktop virtualization are different markets indeed. They should be approached differently, but based on the same virtualization technology." According to him, desktop virtualization is more complex. "You're dealing with users and their needs, in an organization and its policies and the application managers. In order to align them all, you need to have have knowledge of organizations and people." 
Technically he sees little difference between Van Stappershoef VDI and SBC. "SBC is desktop virtualization. The big difference with VDI is that in VDI hardware resources are assigned to users. They don't experience the load on the server by other users. This way, they both technically and visually (background and other institutions) have their own environment."

The latter is crucial. "You want your applications completely extracted out of the operating system." The same applies to user settings (its profile). Thus, Van Stappershoef indirectly Classifies SBC as legacy. "I do not think that is where the future lies." The same goes for streaming operating systems and applications to the thin client of the end user. In the future only the user interface runs on the client. 

Own story 
Werner van Unen, director of Quest Netherlands, notes that all suppliers indeed have their own story, based mainly on the technology they sell themselves. For him it is important that customers build an open structure, for example, independent of the hypervisor. However they mainly work on Microsoft's technology. "You still try to tie in with the most common platform." 
Microsoft calls Citrix and Quest indeed important partners, especially in the provisioning of the connection broker. "Desktop virtualization is now offered as a total solution, cost reduction and flexibility are the main arguments," according Van Noort. "The focus is now on the virtualization of operating systems, this centrally from the datacenter to provide and simplifying management. Other developments are 64-bit application virtualization with App-V (formerly SoftGrid), in combination with VDI." 

Management 
Finally something about the management. According to Van Noort, there is little difference in the handling of virtual desktops in a VDI environment and a physical desktop. "There will be the maintenance of server-park, virtual machines and storage. This increase its costs." 
While with server virtualization the entire operating system is virtualized at once, the desktop virtualization is therefore more complicated. There, operating system, application and userprofile are apart. 

Blade PCs 
Blade PCs offer a solution that does not comply fully for virtualized desktops. This is especially the case for processor-intensive applications. The workstations are not virtualized, but centralized. Users can access the same way as they would get access to a virtualized desktop. In this case the hardware is not shared with others and there is always enough processing power available. The advantage is that through the connection broker's high-end hardware at session level can be shared by several users, they log on only on a blade PCs at the time that they really need it. In this not the case , then they will log on to a simple virtual desktop. 
None of the interviewees is very enthusiastic about the blade PCs. Werner Unen (Quest) has recently worked with a client tried AutoCAD workstations migrate to blade PCs. The performance of the RDP + OEP protocol proved good enough, but there were problems with the appearance of the cursor. RGS had no problems with that, but consumes more bandwidth and is expensive. 
According to Microsoft the blade PCs are not even a valid solution. "They offer little advantages over a VDI environment," said Olivier van Noort. "The operating system is still fused with the hardware. The few organizations that use blade PCs, they've already phased out or are planning to." 

Trends 
- The physical workplace is increasingly removed from the desktop 
- That development is part of a much broader social development, 
- This Takes a lot more flexibility of IT infrastructure, but also greatly improves security 
- Applications and user profiles are separated from the operating system 
- Blade PCs are still used, but relatively limited 
- Desktop and other virtualization is seen as the next step toward cloud-based IT 
- The motive behind desktop virtualization is not always cost savings, security and sometimes legal arguments 
- Despite the economic crisis since the second half of last year large projects are launched 
- However, the decision processes has considerably extended 
- Especially manufacturing sector appears to be a difficult area

Opportunities 
- Because of the cost and reduction of complexity, (desktop) virtualization also sells well in difficult times 
- The underlying virtualization technology is stable, on top of that everything is still in development 
- In the coming years there are still a lot of virtualization projects implemented 
- Desktop virtualization requires knowledge of users and applications 
- Moreover, one can choose between several technologies for implementation 
- Partners towards take the roll on as advisors, the business case and assist their clients in the implementation 
- The user experience and desktop performance are important 
- Every dollar invested in software to provides 10 dollar in services 

The final touch 
End customers often only convert seventy, eighty percent of their users to desktop virtualization. The remaining piece is is limited because of applications that require specific hardware or graphics or processor intensive applications - such as CAD (computer aided design), GIS (geographical information systems), or the analysis of medical scans. 
For workstation virtualization solutions are all available. VMware recently introduced the protocol PCoIP in its last View software. The technology comes from Teradici and divides the screen into different blocks for different media types. Optionally, the (de) coding can be done with a hardware accelerator for speed. 
HP delivers some time RGS (Remote Graphics Software). The technology was developed for the images of the Mars Pathfinder to transmit to earth. Licenses are expensive and the technology still requires considerable bandwidth. 
Another vendor is Red Hat. The Spice protocol, part of the KVM virtualization suite, recently became available as open source. "If they get it right, they are placing a bomb under the proprietary protocols," said Luc van Stappershoef (Force Fusion).He also called Pano Logic as a provider of true zero-client technology. "

---

Add this page to your favorite Social Bookmarking websites

| More...