Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Platform Computing
www.platform.com
Background: Methodology
Objective: Examine the challenges of managing Test/Dev environments and the opportunity for server virtualization and cloud computing to address them Fielded: Jun-Aug 2009 Method: Telephone surveys Sample: IT architecture and operations managers responsible for development and test infrastructure (N=83), at North American firms, cross-industry.
SMB: n=57 (<500 Test/Dev servers) large enterprise: n=25 (>500 Test/Dev servers)
2.
3.
4.
5.
Industry Breakdown
Industry Breakdown: ALL
Pharma Other 2% 1% Health 8% Banking 20%
Telco 12%
Takeaway: Broad industry representation. Banking and Software segments dominate the Large category with a combined 60% of respondents.
4 Copyright 2009 Platform Computing Corporation. All Rights Reserved.
Takeaway: Broad coverage of infrastructure scale. Banking accounts for 40% of the environments that are greater than 1000 servers.
5 Copyright 2009 Platform Computing Corporation. All Rights Reserved.
39 14 8 9
53% of respondents have virtualized less than 25% of their physical servers
50-75%
75-100% Dont know/Refused
Takeaway: While virtualization is used heavily in Test/Dev environments, there remains a significant amount of work being done on non-virtualized infrastructure. Server virtualization prevalence matches industry estimates of 20-30% market penetration.
6 Copyright 2009 Platform Computing Corporation. All Rights Reserved.
1-10
20
Microsoft
18
Average: 20
11-20
Citrix
15
Other
16
> 20
13
Takeaway: VMware prevalence is 95%, but 35% run at least one other hypervisor. Consolidation ratios: 20/host on average is high (with respect to production server virtualization consolidation ratios), indicating dense, highly shared environments and significant contention for limited, shared physical server resources.
7 Copyright 2009 Platform Computing Corporation. All Rights Reserved.
Resource Sharing
Objectives: Determine the types of resources currently shared Determine use cases for shared resources Explore prevalence of internal (private cloud) sharing and external (hosted, outsourced, public cloud) sharing Establish current views of limitations and challenges in Test/Dev for both internal shared and external hosting
No 14%
Yes 92%
Yes 86%
Takeaway: Development teams have a high degree of comfort using shared infrastructure. Of the small group that dont (8%), most plan to within 2 years. Teams share across nearly all phases (86% share across at least Dev, Unit Test, Integration Test & Performance Test phases).
9 Copyright 2009 Platform Computing Corporation. All Rights Reserved.
Training
53
No 31%
Yes 69%
Demos, Prototyping
47
Disaster Recovery
Takeaway: Sharing is prevalent, even for non-Test/Dev activities. Disaster Recovery is likely an emerging use case, based on separate Taneja Group research.
10
24 19 13 10 3 3 2
Takeaway: Few firms have adopted a hosted environment outside the firewall. Lack of Control and Immature Technology are the top functional blockers, but a significant number have not been effectively sold on benefits (We Dont Have Need)
11 Copyright 2009 Platform Computing Corporation. All Rights Reserved.
No 82%
Yes 18%
71%
29%
Takeaway: Of those who have outsourced, 71% have outsourced less than 25% of their Test/Dev servers. Only a few vendors were named: Amazon (3), Savvis (2), Skytap (1), Surgient (1), ADP (1)
12 Copyright 2009 Platform Computing Corporation. All Rights Reserved.
No 24%
Yes 76%
Different Pools
Same Pools
30%
70%
Takeaway: Application teams are using shared infrastructure in production today, supporting the theory that Cloud Computing is more about a new business model for IT delivery than new technology. 30% of shared pools host both Test/Dev and Production applications, indicating a rising comfort level with sharing overall. Taneja Group experience confirms emergence of Test/Dev/Prod sharing.
13 Copyright 2009 Platform Computing Corporation. All Rights Reserved.
CRM
21 20 19 15
Finance
Web
ERP
Intranet HR Business Critical System Software Web 2.0 2 3 8
13 8
Takeaway: Supporting the virtualization trend, enterprise applications that are within the firewall continue to be the primary production applications that are sharing resources. Business critical applications are at the early stage of moving to a shared environment.
14 Copyright 2009 Platform Computing Corporation. All Rights Reserved.
Yes 76%
No 24%
No 45%
Yes 55%
Takeaway: Of the 24% who are not sharing, 70% have plans to do so in the next 12 months (70%, N=7/10). Top apps planned to share resources: ERP, Finance, CRM, Web
15 Copyright 2009 Platform Computing Corporation. All Rights Reserved.
Intranet
Finance
Business Critical
System Software Web 2.0 CRM HR ERP
35
34
30
30 28
Takeaway: Broad mix, focused on web/intranet, finance, and business critical (specific to the industry/business). Finance and Web apps are also in the top 3 types of apps currently shared in production.
16 Copyright 2009 Platform Computing Corporation. All Rights Reserved.
Test/Dev Challenges
Objectives Determine the types of user and IT support challenges Focus on server & virtual machine lifecycle management issues (vs. SDLC management) Explore current projects, future planning, and funding to address Test/Dev challenges
No/Low Impact
55% 47% 46% 45% 42% 36%
45% 53% 54% 55% 58% 64%
33%
67%
Takeaway: Top challenge: the need to manage virtual and physical resources separately. The top three challenges relate to lack of cross-domain management, server lifecycle management, and lab automation.
18 Copyright 2009 Platform Computing Corporation. All Rights Reserved.
13 12
No 59%
Yes 41%
11 11 8
Takeaway: Top projects focus on configuration (both IT and user configuration efforts), the need for self-service (wait too long), and better environment sharing across the software development lifecycle.
19 Copyright 2009 Platform Computing Corporation. All Rights Reserved.
6
6 5
No 67%
Yes 33%
Sharing environments is difficult
5
Managing virtual and physical separately
Takeaway: Delivering good configurations to Test/Dev teams quickly, and allowing them to recreate and share them with a minimum of configuration, are the focus of most current and planned projects.
20 Copyright 2009 Platform Computing Corporation. All Rights Reserved.
Takeaway: Less time is lost by Test/Dev users than by IT support, but for both the loss is significant (50% agree that more than 10% of both user and admin time is lost due to challenges).
21 Copyright 2009 Platform Computing Corporation. All Rights Reserved.
No/Low Impact
59%
41%
51%
49%
51%
49%
Takeaway: Significant recession effect (highest impact of all challenges) is likely retarding the market for Test/Dev solutions more than any other factor in 2009. Many respondents indicated they would have explored a solution except for time/budget.
22
Assumptions:
Fully-burdened developer at $150K per year
Implication: 50% of respondents lose more than $15K per developer per year Implication: 30% of respondents lose more than $10K per admin per year
Cost Analysis:
For an environment with 100 developers/testers, with 5 admins 50% will lose at least $1.5M per year in developer time 49% will lose at least $50K per year in IT admin time
Takeaway: Lost developer/tester time is a much bigger challenge and cost issue than lost IT admin time
* Source: Gartner IT Spending and Staffing Report, 2009
23 Copyright 2009 Platform Computing Corporation. All Rights Reserved.
None 34%
Takeaway: There is a clear lack of vendor penetration for automated provisioning tools in Test/Dev environments, which explains the high level of reported challenges and the lack of experience with lifecycle or lab automation (higher-order mgmt tools).
25 Copyright 2009 Platform Computing Corporation. All Rights Reserved.
Effectiveness of Virtualization
Will server virtualization on its own address the most important challenges in your Test/Dev environment?
Doesn't take in to account integration and interoperability issues these are the real challenges. Need a good service-based orientation managing business services not hardware.
Yes 28%
No 72%
Takeaway: Virtualization on its own was expected to solve the challenges only by those respondents new to using the technology. The majority of experienced users confirmed that virtualization is an enabler, but adds several layers of control and cost issues that must be addressed by process, workflow, sharing and other management capabilities.
26 Copyright 2009 Platform Computing Corporation. All Rights Reserved.
Which ones?
27 4 2 2 2
No 69%
40% have not evaluated due to Lack of Time or Budget
Yes 31%
Takeaway: VMware Lab Manager dwarfs other solutions, but budgetary issues have stalled a large percentage of evaluations. Few respondents indicated functional problems with lab management solutions.
27 Copyright 2009 Platform Computing Corporation. All Rights Reserved.
No 58%
Yes 42%
Takeaway: Significant investment is being allocated to solve Test/Dev operational and budgetary challenges.
28 Copyright 2009 Platform Computing Corporation. All Rights Reserved.
If No, do you have one planned to start this year or next year?
Yes 42%
No 58%
Yes 38%
No 62%
Takeaway: 38% of respondents that are not investing to solve Test/Dev challenges today plan to do so in the next two years. 50% of respondents will have a funded project start in 2009, while 66% of respondents will have a funded project started by end of 2010.
29 Copyright 2009 Platform Computing Corporation. All Rights Reserved.
30
Sharing of Resources
Solution Opportunity
31
Government
High sharing between Test/Dev and Prod: 56% (vs. 30% avg.) High use of Test/Dev for other non-prod work, i.e. demos: 91% (vs. 69% avg.) Low projects around operational challenges: 18% (vs. 41% avg.) More believe virtualization is enough to solve problems: 55% (vs. 28% avg.) High number with planned funding for next year: 50% (vs. 27% avg.)
32
Software
Only 70% share servers (vs. 92% avg.) Lighter outsourcing: 10% (vs. 18% avg.) No sharing between Test/Dev and Prod: 0% (vs. 30% avg.) Low projects around operational challenges: 20% (vs. 41% avg.) High number have tested lab automation: 50% (vs. 31% avg.)
33
Health Care
Only 57% share servers (vs. 92% avg.) No outsourcing: 0% (vs. 18% avg.) No sharing between Test/Dev and Prod: 0% (vs. 30% avg.) Low use of Test/Dev for other non-prod work, i.e. demos: 29% (vs. 69% avg.) High number have tested lab automation: 71% (vs. 31% avg.) No planned funding for next year: 0% (vs. 27% avg.)
34
35