 |
 |
We are using Xen server virtualization in our data center, and we like it. We use the licensed version from Citrix in order to get professional support. This qualifies us to receive the gamut of Citrix virtualization marketing materials and invitations to Citrix events. Amusingly, none of these have anything to do with the products we use. They are entirely devoted to Xen desktop and application virtualization products. It is clear that Citrix bought Xensource from its founder and the University of Cambridge with the full intention of using it to create these products. Why? In the words of famed bank robber Willy Sutton, like banks, "It's where they keep the money." So far, I have yet to see anything other than marketing fluff to support the argument that commercial desktop virtualization products are cost effective. The big difference between server virtualization and the kind of desktop virtualization we are discussing (as opposed to, say, Parallels) is that server virtualization requires not additional hardware. The real savings, according to the sales folks, comes from IT operations. At least that is the theory. As you mention, we have seen many iterations on this theme from dumb terminals and serial distribution to virtualization, and these all depend on a belief that those solutions are cost effective. Were there not existing, cheaper ways of remotely managing desktops and desktop applications that work on inexpensive commodity hardware, it might be easier to make that argument. Thanks, Cary On Sun, Jul 10, 2011 at 7:46 AM, Karen Schneider <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > Dear C4L community, > > One of the VPs on campus asks me from time to time on trends with > virtualization in academic settings -- specifically, virtualized desktops. > > My own response (qualified with "I am not an IT person, but...") has been > that I believe, based on what I read, that this highly-promising technology > isn't more widespread for several interrelated reasons (that are also > applicable to our campus environment: > > a) ROI is not as clear, especially in smaller environments (startup cost, > network, storage); > b) university WANs are often not be robust enough to support virtualized > desktops (and I'd add, we're on an uphill Sisyphean climb with > bandwidth--there will never be enough of it); > c) outside of the lab/classroom environment (where I think an argument can > be made for virtualization, if other conditions are met, and the campus has > the expertise to deploy/manage this environment), the ROI of a virtualized > desktop may be mooted by the need for individualized desktops; > d) it's a single point of failure. > > My down-home-country-librarian observation that I always tack on (with > plenty of disclaimers) is "If virtualization were the answer, we'd see more > of it by now." I realize that's a humble insight, but given how many talks > I've been to over the past decade about what virtualization *would* be > doing, versus what it *has* done, I think it's not entirely invalid. > > I also pointed the Veep toward this article: > > http://www.networkworld.com/news/2009/061809-desktop-virtualization.html > > So... any thoughts? Resources? POVs? Etc.? (If you want more context for > this inquiry, write me off-list.) > > Thanks, dear old C4L community-- > > Karen G. Schneider > Director for Library Services > Holy Names University > http://library.hnu.edu > [log in to unmask] > -- Cary Gordon The Cherry Hill Company http://chillco.com