IT is the Magpie of the Business World

I have a request. I hope it is not too onerous, because something is really starting to grind my gears.

Can we in IT please all stop claiming that any technology is going to kill another?

The latest I am reading, for example, is that NoSQL (for want of a better term) will kill off SQL.

No, it won’t.

My hyperbole aside, I know this with complete and utter certainty,  even though I am barely conversant in database technologies. Seriously, SQL hasn’t even killed off VSAM – first released in 1974 – which is still the foundation for a huge volume, perhaps even the majority, of our daily financial, logistics, retail, and government business. In fact, not only are we still storing data in VSAM, we are still programming in COBOL, and even doing it on 20 year old mainframes. So realistically, an upstart like NoSQL has no chance of killing anything.

Similarly, virtualization will not kill the physical computing infrastructures that came before it. Even most early adopters are struggling to get over 50% of their servers virtualized, while the average penetration is, by some reports, as low as 16%. Meanwhile, the percentage of desktops that have been virtualized is still in single digits. In some cases, so-called ‘legacy’ systems are actually becoming their own hypervisors (e.g. Windows, z/VM, Solaris, and Linux).

The same is true of cloud computing. Even if, as Gartner predicts, by 2012, 20 percent of businesses will own no IT assets – which I find highly dubious; and even if the cloud computing market will be worth $160bn by 2011 – also somewhat dubious; then still a vast majority of organizations will continue to own their IT assets. Even allowing for some substantial private cloud deployment (much less dubious), there is no chance cloud computing will kill the on-premise, installed and owned, IT environment.

Historically, this has always been true. Distributed computing never fully replaced mainframe computing. Indeed, the mainframe is actually experiencing record levels of growth (.pdf) in particular among heavy mainframe users (over 500 MIPS). Personal computing never replaced distributed computing either. The Internet did not kill local computing; thin clients did not kill desktops; Firefox did not kill IE (although IE did eventually kill Netscape); Java did not kill COBOL, let alone C; disk did not kill tape; Salesforce.com did not kill Siebel; Google did not kill Yahoo; Gmail did not kill Exchange.

In fact, it is really quite rare that any new technology completely kills off any other. We in IT are the magpies of the business world, collecting and hoarding all the shiny technologies we can. These are not just collector items or museum pieces though; these are real, mission-critical systems and applications. So we end up with a hybrid of critical technologies spanning not just years, but decades.

(Which is why I am such a strong proponent of heterogeneous IT management … but that is another article)

Perhaps it is just semantics, or a philosophical distaste for absolutes. Perhaps the rampant pace of IT development just makes it seem like we don’t replace technology (when of course we do).

But I would still be really happy if we could all refrain from declaring the death of any technology.

Because chances are it is simply never going to happen.

The other day I saw someone post a poll question, “Is KVM a credible choice for x86 virtualization?” My immediate response was – “Is that even a credible question?” If you read my many contributions to TechTarget, you will know I am no great supporter of KVM (Kernel Virtual Machine). In my analysis, it does not offer any significant advantages to the many alternatives. It does, however, introduce many significant challenges.

The only significant and unique benefit of KVM for server virtualization (as noted by Sander van Vugt in our (virtual) debate on Xen vs.KVM Linux Virtualization Hypervisors) is that KVM is part of the Linux kernel. This ensures broad standardization, patch compatibility, simpler upgrades, and a low-impact on-ramp for existing Linux IT shops.

Yet this is a solution for a problem that does not really exist.

Large enterprises already run thousands of components, from services/daemons to drivers to applications, all as additions to various kernels. Maintaining one more (or even several more) non-kernel components like Hyper-V, XenServer, ESX, etc., is not a net negative. On the contrary, EMA data shows that virtualization actually improves the productivity of server administrators, and by an average of around 10% – up to 20% or more for best performers. For competent administrators with good lifecycle management tools, the time they spend to learn, test, and maintain hypervisors is a significant effort, but it is time paid back with interest.

On the other hand, many downsides to KVM are all too apparent.

It is easy to point to the lack of technology features and maturity in KVM – areas like live migration, paravirtualization, networking, isolation, performance, security, or a host of other  features which KVM (in some cases arguably) lacks. I have only some doubt that KVM will meet these low-level functional requirements eventually, but it will not be anytime soon. Yet they are essentially table stakes in server virtualization today.

The inherent dependency on Linux would also require a major shift in  platforms for the average datacenter (where Windows outnumbers Linux by  150:1), and a major investment in resourcing, training, and software. This is hardly an attractive proposition for a data center manager. Still, existing Linux staff will be able to pick it up, and could even have some success on their (relatively few) existing Linux platforms.

However, even if these weaknesses are overcome, KVM has a much more strategic problem – the gaping void in the KVM management ecosystem. There is almost no third-party support for KVM from management vendors. Even stated support from key partner vendors like IBM, HP, and of course Red Hat is basic at best. What’s more, EMA data suggests KVM will not foster a significant management ecosystem in the future, either.

EMA’s research on Virtual System Management showed convincingly how important management is to virtualization. Across 18 different management disciplines, almost all correlated with measurably better outcomes in metrics like MTTR, provisioning time, availability, VM density, migration speed, and more.

EMA’s new cloud research shows a similar importance. Applying mature automation and management disciplines to virtual systems is directly correlated with positive cloud outcomes like reduced CapEx, reduced OpEx, improved operational maturity and more.

Not surprising then, that over 80% of enterprises consider manageability an important or very important factor in their virtualization and cloud technology decisions.

Unfortunately, KVM ranks anywhere from 4^th to 10^th in enterprise preferences for virtualization and cloud technology providers. It comes behind first ESX, then Hyper-V or Xen (multiple implementations), often various UNIX hypervisors (PowerVM, Integrity VMs or vPars, Solaris Containers), and even z/VM. No enterprise demand means that management vendors have little incentive to support KVM.

In fact, in my conversations with management software vendors, most generally put KVM around 5th in line for support – which, realistically, means it is not even on the current roadmap. What’s more, for better or worse several of them have a vested interest in not supporting KVM (no points for guessing who).

This means KVM has little or no prospect of gaining third-party support for virtualization management tools like VM-aware backup and restore, VM provisioning, virtual resource management, VM configuration auditing, virtual performance monitoring, VM lab management, VM image control, storage management,network automation and more. The same holds true for integration with higher-level virtual systems management tools for virtual and physical data center automation and service management disciplines.

For any IT group, sophisticated management tools deliver many proven benefits. For larger enterprises especially, they are simply not optional.  Without even the prospect of a robust management ecosystem, KVM is simply a non-starter in most large-scale deployments. For my enterprise clients at least, it is certainly not a credible choice for x86 server virtualization.