1 Answer

• Posted by Deane Barker of Gadgetopia

  Date: February 6th, 2009 at 6:48 pm

  On one hand, not at all. On the other hand, it’s made it better.

  What I mean is that users that we move from a physical to a virtual machine often don’t even know they’ve been moved. We notify them, of course, but when the new instance comes up, nothing has changed in their environments. So, net-net, as far as the user is concerned, no change. We’ve gotten to the point where we can swap new machines in with the users almost completely unaware that they no longer running on dedicated hardware.

  However, virtualized machines makes for a better overall experience in the long term. More virtual machines means less physical machines, less infrastructure, more agility in changing configurations, and a higher quality of service across the board. If the users need more RAM, more processors, more space on the SAN, we can swap those in, effectively in real-time. In that sense, the user benefits. Not having to tear down a server to increase processing capacity is an enormous benefit in terms of keeping users happy.

  Beyond servers, virtualizing desktops has a proven record of ROI and more satisfaction at the user level. In larger environment, desktop support gets spread too thin trying to manage thousands of desktop machine — not only in terms of raw numbers, but hardware footprints and configurations can vary wildly. A virtual environment for users usually results in far less downtime and frustration at the desktop level.

Add Your Answer