KP: Our current plan is to implement Microsoft's Hyper-V technology with our next cycle of replacement purchases. Consolidation efficiencies on the X64 platform will allow us explore the possibilities of expansive load balancing that we, as a small business, could not previously justify. Our software engineers will have the ability to take advantage of the virtualization platform, as will the systems administrators in that sharing of disks and resources will encourage not-before-seen efficiencies.

LinuxWorld: What applications and workloads do you plan to leave on their own physical hardware?

CW: We don't specifically target any workloads to remain on dedicated physical hardware. Really, it's more of an ISV support question...will the ISV support the application in a virtual environment, and if not, how comfortable are we that we can support it in-house?

WC: Apps that require very specific hardware access or that are not supported for virtualization. We are going to live applications that are processor intensive and input/output intensive. Having database application will be left on their own hardware. An application that requires its own hardware that wouldn't be served well in a virtual environment is something that should be considered.

JF: Generally, we use dedicated services (such as managed firewall and security, intrusion detection, web, database, and remote server management) for all of our customer servers due to the size of traffic they generate. Virtualization does not make sense in these environments due to the overhead.

KP: We have custom-developed several processor and RAM intensive system applications that could possibly cause resource issues at the budget level we would invest in. For this reason these applications would require us to segregate them as independent from our virtualization platform. Thus providing the applications the affordable resources they require.

Don't misunderstand our assessment. We are not insinuating that the virtualization platform could not handle our requirements. We are making a decision that our budgets will not allow us to identify and analyze risk assessment tests with the possibility that our test platforms could not fully and efficiently perform. This is the decision-making environment of the small business CIO. R&D is not a commonly affordable luxury.

LinuxWorld: If an ISV supports a software product on Platform X, and you run virtual Platform X on Platform Y, do you still get the same level of support? Are any ISVs making you replicate bugs on physical hardware?

CW: No, you do not get the same level of support, but it is definitely getting better over time. Where just 3 years ago, an ISV would explicitly deny support if it was discovered that the application was running virtual. Now, most ISV's are willing to help support and troubleshoot apps on a virtual server, but typically won't escalate the problem as high as if the app were running on dedicated hardware. Yes, I have had to replicate bugs to physical hardware on several occasions...in every one of the instances, the problem was with the application itself, not the fact that it was running on a virtual server.

WC: Support levels vary based on vendor knowledge of platforms. If they know the platform and have made it work then support is the same, if not, then no. No on 2nd part.