Skip to main content

Vendors That Don’t Support VM’s?

From a large software vendor:

VMWare support: <vendor> applications running on VMware are supported as long as the OS running in the virtual machine is certified by <vendor> (see <vendor> Platform Availability Matrix).

That’s good.

However, if <vendor> is unable to reproduce an issue the customer may be asked to reproduce the problem running natively on the certified OS, without the use of VMware. <vendor> does not explicitly test or certify products running in a VMware environment.

That’s not good.

We’ve run into this a handful of times. In this case, I’m not sure how to interpret the nuanced difference between support and certification, but it’s pretty clear that <vendor> wants to leave open the option of blaming the vm in cases where they can’t figure out what’s broke. It’s the old ‘I have no clue what’s happening, so I’ll blame the network/firewall’ problem. In theory, one would have to maintain a non-vm'd test environment to use in the event that the vendor blames your vm'd environment for their problems.

We’ve also run into an application from a major network vendor that ran fine in a vm until we applied a minor patch (something like from version 3.4.1 to 3.4.2). After the patch, the app quit working. The vendor told us ‘no vm’s’. We ended up installing a dedicated server.

Somewhere along the line software vendors are going to have to provide the same level of support for virtualized environments as they do for non-virtualized environments.

This virtualization stuff is mainstream, isn’t it?


  1. The fact that some vendors provide quasi-support of VMware answers your question. VMware still isn't 100% mainstream yet.

    It gets even more entertaining when you start asking about other virtualization technologies. Support for the app in Hyper-V? Xen? Virtual Iron? What should the vendor do?

    There are some things that VMware cannot do. For example, direct access to fibre channel attached tape drives from a guest. Other virtualization technologies probably have other limitations.

  2. Jim -

    It was a somewhat rhetorical question. :-)

    I can see where vendors would have problems supporting a large number of virtualization environments, especially if you include less common platforms.

    I'm aiming the snarky comments at the evangelists who view anyone who doesn't have 80% of their servers on vm's as archaic, inefficient, etc.



Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Cargo Cult System Administration

Cargo Cult: …imitate the superficial exterior of a process or system without having any understanding of the underlying substance --Wikipedia During and after WWII, some native south pacific islanders erroneously associated the presence of war related technology with the delivery of highly desirable cargo. When the war ended and the cargo stopped showing up, they built crude facsimiles of runways, control towers, and airplanes in the belief that the presence of war technology caused the delivery of desirable cargo. From our point of view, it looks pretty amusing to see people build fake airplanes, runways and control towers  and wait for cargo to fall from the sky.
The question is, how amusing are we?We have cargo cult science[1], cargo cult management[2], cargo cult programming[3], how about cargo cult system management?Here’s some common system administration failures that might be ‘cargo cult’:
Failing to understand the difference between necessary and sufficient. A daily backup …

Ad-Hoc Versus Structured System Management

Structured system management is a concept that covers the fundamentals of building, securing, deploying, monitoring, logging, alerting, and documenting networks, servers and applications. Structured system management implies that you have those fundamentals in place, you execute them consistently, and you know all cases where you are inconsistent. The converse of structured system management is what I call ad hoc system management, where every system has it own plan, undocumented and inconsistent, and you don't know how inconsistent they are, because you've never looked.

In previous posts (here and here) I implied that structured system management was an integral part of improving system availability. Having inherited several platforms that had, at best, ad hoc system management, and having moved the platforms to something resembling structured system management, I've concluded that implementing basic structure around system management will be the best and fastest path to…

The Cloud – Provider Failure Modes

In The Cloud - Outsourcing Moved up the Stack[1] I compared the outsourcing that we do routinely (wide area networks) with the outsourcing of the higher layers of the application stack (processor, memory, storage). Conceptually they are similar:In both cases you’ve entrusted your bits to someone else, you’ve shared physical and logical resources with others, you’ve disassociated physical devices (circuits or servers) from logical devices (virtual circuits, virtual severs), and in exchange for what is hopefully better, faster, cheaper service, you give up visibility, manageability and control to a provider. There are differences though. In the case of networking, your cloud provider is only entrusted with your bits for the time it takes for those bits to cross the providers network, and the loss of a few bits is not catastrophic. For providers of higher layer services, the bits are entrusted to the provider for the life of the bits, and the loss of a few bits is a major problem. These …