Thoughts on uses of YouTube … and virtualization

More on VMware and YouTube

James O'Neill's blog — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 15:30:07 GMT

A few weeks back I posted about VMware’s conduct in posting a video which of some tests which appear

re: Thoughts on uses of YouTube … and virtualization

James ONeill — Tue, 26 May 2009 14:57:54 GMT

Paul, I notice that talks about the 1990s or is it the 1980s. When Paul Maritz (VMware CEO) was held a senior post at Microsoft. If you're saying VMware is behaving like the Microsoft of the 1990s I might have to agree. We came to see that as wrong Microsoft behavior today isn't the same as it was when I joined in 2000. (Although claiming no current Microsoft employee ever resorts to FUD would be difficult). You do seem to be arguing that two wrongs make a right.

re: Thoughts on uses of YouTube … and virtualization

Paul — Sun, 24 May 2009 07:26:38 GMT

And to also quote wikipedia,

"Although once it was usually attributed to IBM, in the 1990s and later the term became most often associated with industry giant Microsoft. Said Roger Irwin:[8]

“ Microsoft soon picked up the art of FUD from IBM, and throughout the 80's used FUD as a primary marketing tool, much as IBM had in the previous decade. They ended up out FUD-ding IBM themselves during the OS2 vs Win3.1 years."

Point is that everyone knows that Microsoft employs FUD (I gave some examples in the previous post). Therefore for them to try and take a righteous position when someone is giving them a taste of their own medicine is somewhat laughable and hypocritical.

re: Thoughts on uses of YouTube … and virtualization

James ONeill — Fri, 22 May 2009 14:21:57 GMT

We credited with inventing all sorts of things. But to quote wikipedia

FUD was first defined (circa 1975) by Gene Amdahl after he left IBM to found his own company, Amdahl Corp.: "FUD is the fear, uncertainty, and doubt that IBM sales people instill in the minds of potential customers who might be considering Amdahl products." The term has also been attributed to veteran Morgan Stanley computer analyst Ulrich Weil, though it had already been used in other contexts as far back as the 1920s.

If the VMware have a reproducible method to crash Hyper-V they would publish the method. They got an error which has only ever been reported with an out of date bios ; let's not kid ourselves: if Hyper-V were crashable on demand every VMware presales support person would be crashing it in front of customers every day of the week.

VMware shows all the signs of running scared. The thing is, when you do that you need to watch yourself or you fall in the gutter.

re: Thoughts on uses of YouTube … and virtualization

Paul — Thu, 21 May 2009 16:38:18 GMT

Sorry. I can't help being amused by Microsoft, the inventor of FUD playing the innocent card.

http://www.microsoft.com/video/en/us/details/f8c3314f-c82d-4f8d-8b19-6a59733670f8

http://www.rtfm-ed.co.uk/?p=615

There will be endless arguments about bios versions, IDE/SCSI and who knows what else. However at the end of the day, this video shows a) a cascade failure within supposedly isolated VMs b) failure of the entire host c) that this was based around performance load i.e. it didn't happen all the time.

I would argue that these things shouldn't be able to happen regardless of whether its IDE/SCSI etc.

re: Thoughts on uses of YouTube … and virtualization

James ONeill — Mon, 18 May 2009 21:03:59 GMT

Shawn, sorry I can be a bit slow checking and approving comments, and it's worse round the weekend.

They compared ONE drive against TWO drives. On the basis of comparing a single IDE against an IDE and a SCSI together they said SCSI was faster. Without the comparison point of two IDE drives that's not a valid conclusion. I would never have passed the science exams I did aged 15 with method like that.

Who is to say that if they had run a 1xSCSI + 1xIDE config on VMware that wouldn't have blue screened.

Etc etc etc.

There is also no getting away that VMware is behaving like a 2 bit company, not a billion dollar one. (see Jeff for more on this http://blogs.technet.com/virtualization/archive/2009/05/17/vmware-fud-fiasco-part-3.aspx )

and anyone doing an objective test would have talked to the company who's software they are testing before rushing to you-tube

re: Thoughts on uses of YouTube … and virtualization

Shawn — Sun, 17 May 2009 16:54:20 GMT

What happened to my last comment?

re: Thoughts on uses of YouTube … and virtualization

Paul — Sat, 16 May 2009 08:34:37 GMT

I thought they tested both scenarios,

"As you can see below, IDE-only exhibited higher utilization (except at saturation as expected) and lower throughput at every data point. Based on these and other results, we standardized on the IDE/SCSI dual-disk solution to give Hyper-V every possible advantage."

http://communities.vmware.com/blogs/bherndon

re: Thoughts on uses of YouTube … and virtualization

Shawn — Fri, 15 May 2009 19:25:17 GMT

They did do IDE only...

Quote from Bruce Herndon's repsonse:

"I think most folks would be interested to know that the in the course of our extensive research we tested just such a scenario. In this case the system was a Dell 2950 with dual Intel Xeon X5460 (3.16 GHz) and 32GB of RAM. As you can see below, IDE-only exhibited higher utilization (except at saturation as expected) and lower throughput at every data point. Based on these and other results, we standardized on the IDE/SCSI dual-disk solution to give Hyper-V every possible advantage.

re: Thoughts on uses of YouTube … and virtualization

James ONeill — Fri, 15 May 2009 14:58:02 GMT

Shawn, they didn't actually. They tested with two disks, IDE + SCSI instead of one disk IDE.

I've read the post - no comments were allowed, and it's pretty critical of Drummonds.

Did they call Microsoft to get the issues solved or follow any of the things they say need to be done in preparing tests for publication.