Veeam Quarterly report virtualization market facing shuffle

Server virtualization may not be as widespread as many people think, and customers are not as tightly tied to the hypervisor of a particular vendor as many companies peddling the arcane software layer might want.

This information comes from Veeam's recent Quarterly Virtualization Industry Survey (V-INDEX), a software company that developed a companion management tool attachment for VMware's ESXi virtual machine management program. The survey is conducted quarterly, with surveys of the United States, Britain, France and Germany.

The survey is aimed only at companies of a sizable size, that is, the number of employees who are not less than 1000. About One-third of the companies surveyed had more than 3,000 employees. Veeam investigates not only its own customer base, but also most companies that use servers, and they use other vendors ' hypervisor for virtual machines.

In the September Virtual quarterly survey of the industry, 86.5% of the 578 companies surveyed used some kind of server virtualization technology in their data centers. For all enterprises, including those that do not use server virtualization technology at all, an average of 38.9% of servers are virtualized, with an average of 701 servers in the data center.

After observing the data, it was found that the object of investigation was only x86 server and hypervisor. Given the large number of UNIX and proprietary systems currently in the big business, this is a big problem.

Just for fun, the virtualization industry quarterly survey asked how many physical servers and virtual machines the companies had, and then asked them how much consolidation they got on their machines. You can work out the actual integration ratio by the former, which is the sensory integration ratio-at least veeam thinks so. The Virtualization industry quarterly survey found that sensory integration is usually higher than the actual integration ratio.

Looking at the four major geographical areas and all subjects surveyed, the sensory integration ratio is 9.8 virtual machines per physical machine. But if you count and calculate the actual penetration rate, the company actually plugs into just 5.1 virtual machines on each host.

The penetration rate of various virtual machine managers on x86 servers depends on whether virtualization technology is used to run Virtual Desktop Infrastructure (VDI) or to run more traditional server workloads.

VMware is still the leader in traditional server systems, with 67.6% of those companies using virtual machine management programs saying that one version of ESX server or ESXi is their main hypervisor, and only 14.4% have chosen XenServer, Another 16.4% chose Microsoft's Hyper-V. The red-cap KVM is classified as "other vendors," and it accounts for only 1.6% of the poor.

If you change to talk about virtual machine management programs that run on servers and are dedicated to streaming the VDI desktop, 24.9% of companies mention that XenServer is its main hypervisor, and that Hyper-V and ESX are the main virtual machine management programs, representing 20.3% and 54.2%.

Now look at the interesting number: 38% of companies that use virtualization technology to handle traditional workloads say they plan to replace the hypervisor next year.

58.9% of the companies that have replaced the existing virtual machine hypervisor platform mention that the high cost of existing platforms is the main reason for the change; nearly half said they dislike the licensing model of existing virtualization technology vendors, but prefer the functional features offered by other technologies, or that alternative technologies are mature enough to consider replacing them. While VMware is not specifically named as a company that many companies are considering discarding, KVM, Hyper-V and XenServer have struggled to catch up for some time and are basically rushing up.

But of course, VMware is committed to cloud architecture (cloud fabrics), infrastructure cloud, and platform cloud, Jie, Microsoft and Red Hat are still catching up in these areas.

(Responsible editor: The good of the Legacy)