Blade Watch

Computerworld

Computerworld – Jeff Allison’s company is considering desktop virtualization, and that task will most likely fall on his shoulders. In Allison’s perfect world, however, he’d leave that to the desktop experts. But virtualization has never been a perfect world, and it’s even less so now that companies are implementing multiple vendors’ virtualization software.

As a network engineer with the Florida healthcare organization Health First, Allison is charged with managing the virtual server infrastructure, and he’d like to keep it that way. He’s all for desktop virtualization; it’s just that he’d much prefer the traditional keepers of the end-user machines oversee the project, thank you very much.

Desktop virtualization can work wonderfully for many organizations and I fully support the implementation of it where it can deliver real business need. My concerns around it though are around the marginal cost areas coupled with the need to be focussing on service improvement with what we have. Long term desktop virtualization is where we want to be going, but we need to stabilize what we have, improve the service and the way we do things so that as we move towards a virtual platform, we are not replicating the issues we have currently into a virtual desktop environment.

• What changes does it bring to the support matrix – do I have more expensive people looking after the same platform – instead of a desktop guy looking after desktops, do they now need to be server guys?
• What licensing costs are there directly and indirectly – remember that many an organization has enterprise wide licensing where the desktop costs could be as low as £75 a head for Office and Windows, what is the virtual cost element, the cost of the servers, the thin clients and the storage to host user, desktop and application data.
• It’s fixed cost. Fixed. I know that my desktop infrastructure including my support teams might be a few million a year (in a large enterprise), but it’s fixed. Oh there will be the odd expenditure not expected the odd pc or laptop that needs to be purchased, but many service providers can offer a per seat service, a new desktop every year with Office and Windows for a fixed fee including support. Can we say the same in the virtual environment
• Dynamic technology is great – but will the internal IT solution be offering that, or is it a regimented replacement where all we’re doing is taking the workload off the desktop through a thin client on to a server in the data center?
• Energy efficiency – absolutely but can we look at the thin clients we are talking about, some thin clients in the past have been just as power requiring as the traditional desktop or laptop. Also is there any reason we do not currently switch off our pcs every night and have the bios turn them on in the morning before people come into the office?
• Are the applications validated as working in a virtual platform?

How much of the drive to virtual desktops is because desktop support has always been process based, in terms of support and workflow rather than delivery based? Your pc is blue screening, fine we’ll rebuild it, but because we’ve never invested properly in the desktop infrastructure, the build will take a few days to complete. In a virtual world we can deploy in minutes, but we could in the physical world if we standardized and consolidated platforms and spent the time setting it up.

The whole support matrix, the way your call gets logged determines what level of support and delivery you get. My laptop is slow, can I have more memory might be a “request” might take seventeen years for a guy to turn up and point out that your five year old Compaq Evo 400c only takes 512MB RAM and is out of support that you need to buy a new laptop. This creates two issues, you have had one cost, the guy waiting for information and resolution of his slow laptop, and the engineers time to visit run some quick diagnostics and respond to the user.

From a total cost base would it not have been better for IT simply to replace the desktops every year or two rather than wait until the user is forced to buy a new machine with little notice when all they want to do is work? By waiting for the user we transform the decision to the user and their cost center, but we also remove goodwill towards IT – “…they wont fix what I have they want me to buy a new one, I have no budget”.

Whether it’s physical or virtual should we not be operating on the least delay and least operating costs. The fundamentals regardless of the physical or virtual platform:

• Replace and renew rather than fix unless necessary – avoid user getting stuck to their pc
• Link users applications and data to their profile and active directory – their settings move with their account
• Create and follow set rules – agree set support procedures – if your machine blue screens, rebuild don’t spend eternity trying to identify, over two years old replace not upgrade
• Commoditize the platform to reduce complexity and proprietory configurations, the small, medium and large configurations for example or even the internal and external build.

Related posts:

1. Desktop virtualization – some thoughts/how we did it I was having an interesting chat with one of my...
2. Virtual desktop – the support questions/issues to consider Virtual desktops remain a topic of interest for me in...
3. Virtual desktop is energy efficient Green Tech Media Forget about cutting-edge research into more efficient...
4. Some thoughts on on the desktop virtualization debate PCWorld Organizations are finding it hard to calculate the cost...
5. Innovation of the virtual desktop must continue prurgent.com Solution uses NoMachine NX and Leostream Connection Broker to...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.