According to IDC, the virtualization market is on target to expand to $11.7 billion by 2011. VMware is the acknowledged leader in the space, with analysts giving it anywhere from a 55% to 85% market share. (The virtualization market is notoriously tough to pin down. Major vendors give away free but limited licenses as a marketing ploy. Microsoft has its so-called virtualization tax . And then there is the slicing and dicing of server virtualization versus other virtualization including storage, virtualization-related services and the expanding, albeit at a glacial pace, desktop virtualization sector. Sometimes the figures include all segments, sometimes not.)
Suffice it to say that before the Qumranet acquisition, Red Hat was rarely mentioned as a serious virtualization player. That all changed with the acquisition. From Red Hats perspective, this is a good fit both philosophically and strategically, said John Madden, research director of the analysis firm Ovum. Qumranet brings two main products to the table: its hypervisor, KVM, and its desktop virtualization solution, SolidICE.
KVM is open source and SolidICE gives Red Hat a more complete end-to-end virtualization portfolio, Madden added.
Sources within Red Hat pretty much agree with Maddens assessment. We purchased Qumranet for three reasons, said Scott Crenshaw, Red Hats VP of the Platform Business Unit. One, we want to ensure that virtualization technology remains open source. Two, Qumranets product portfolio and team will help us accelerate time to market, and, three, were looking ahead to desktop virtualization, and SolidICE is a great VDI [Virtual Desktop Infrastructure].
While VMware still dominates this nascent market, Red Hat sees the real competition coming from Microsoft and is positioning itself as the open-source alternative to Hyper-V. Red Hat claims that with the acquisition it can deliver a comprehensive solution integrated with the operating system, while virtualization-only vendors cannot.
Its a philosophical war as much as anything else, Madden said. You have the bare-metal hypervisor approach, represented by VMware, versus the OS-dependent approach, favored by Microsoft. [And now Red Hat.] Its hardware versus software.
Much of the OS-dependent approach is premised on the idea that the hypervisor is quickly becoming a commodity. The opposing view, expressed in a recent conversation by VMwares Senior Product Marketing Manager, Leena Joshi, is that its not the hypervisor, but the operating system, that is becoming a commodity.
Does it really matter whether one or the other is a commodity? Probably not. Both efforts seek to compress and optimize one of the key layers (be it hypervisor or OS) that bridges pools of hardware resources at the lowest level and applications/services at the highest.
The goal is the same, but how to get there is in dispute. End users wont care one whit about how resources are optimized and services delivered, of course. What theyll care about is performance and cost.