Virtualization Automation – A Proper Virtual World

Learning to Hate VOIP

June 16th, 2009

The Lack of a Virtualization End-User Rant?

In my opinion, I am learning to hate VOIP (Voice over IP). As an end-user of various technologies, mobile, virtual, media based, what-have-you, I have come to hold in considerable contempt some technologies with a passion, where others I have come to appreciate as innovative or even supportive to the potential for lifelong blissful use. So, as I noted above, one technology that I have learned to not enjoy is VOIP. VOIP is not evil; it is just, given my experience, not quite right. Good old analog phones where consistent, stable, and the sound quality was reasonable, compared to VOIP. Thus I have learned to view VOIP as horrible but necessary, meaning that as much as I don’t like using VOIP, I refuse to pay for analog, which was at times given my location and service providers as much as three (3) times more than any VOIP. My experience with VOIP is across many vendors, in many situations; so it is not a situation of a single provider or vendor had or did a poor job, but one of where they all are less than great, or should I say, less than good old analog.

So what does this have to do with virtualization? An interesting parallel that did not happen as yet, between VOIP and virtualization? For example, I hear on a routine basis people gripe about VOIP, the latest VOIP joke is the top topic at the being of conference calls, or the loud comment intended to be soft spoken when someone on a conference call is the latest victim of the echoing pop, static fuzzing, then line dead issue, that VOIP seems to suffer from more often than I would like. Where is the parallel to virtualization? Why are we not buried in a cascade of angry end-users deploring negative aspects of virtualization? I always think of the angry mob in original black and white Frankenstein movie, where the local villagers are out for blood, with pitch forks and flaming torches, to avenge the good Doctor, at the expense of the monster, when the idea of a virtualization end-user revolt comes to mind. I wonder if other technical resource people feel the same? Sure there is griping about virtualization, but it has not reached critical mass? I don’t see a flood of Google hits discussing the reversal of virtualization in Fortune 50 companies, where the volume of bad VOIP experience is growing slowly. So why does VOIP seem to have an image issue, where virtualization does not?

The easy answer one could submit is that the management above said, to the technology teams… Virtualization is going to happen or else, make it work, or we will find someone that can. Similar in tone, management above said, to the end-user population… Choice is not an option, use virtualization, deal with it, or we will find someone else that can. This is real, everyone, I have been in meetings and conference calls where these comments were made. But then again, this is the easy answer, and although true to a reasonable degree, it is not the full rationale for why we have never seen an anti-virtualization revolt of any significance.

The hard answer is that everyone, technical support or end-user alike knew virtualization makes sense, we had too much capacity and scale, that computing resources where not used effectively. But was this a fault of the technology, or the architects, project managers, design engineers? Again this is true but is it the entire answer? Management is convinced there is waste in computing, this is the new religion, and unfortunately this qualified waste, more than quantified, is extracted often by the reduction of FTE (Full Time Equivalency) in man hours. People cost too much. So enters the 100s of life cycle vendors and publishers, saying we can do more with less, meaning their application or solution suite eliminates people. Back in my MBA course days, I remember a professor smiling while saying… 80% of your business cost is people, most of the time. Is that the real answer? Reduce head count? For near 10 years, processor scaling has grown in the vertical direction, faster, more IOP based processors. But the cost curve has been near flat. So there was no logical reason not to chase the best computing platform, in reference to processors and related components, because after all no project manager wants to be responsible for implementing a slow system, right? And of course project x, y, z eliminates FTE on the end-user side! Bingo, we end up with extensive capacity, at the same time that networking and storage system performance has made some modest gains. In short, the computing industry has never done well with the idea of doing with less at the beginning versus at the end?

The slick, smooth, answer is that virtualization is cool, feels kewl, and makes management happy, no matter how effective it is. Tangible cost avoidance is a result of a good virtualization strategy and even better tactical implementation and support. But it can go wrong. What ineffective virtualization? Oh, yeah, do a bit of research, mucking up virtualization is not hard, it happens. The emphasis becomes cost saving, not customer quality, and/or the technical team that had the skills and knowledge to support strong virtualization deployment and support, is eliminated or out-sourced, so customer experience is impacted, all true, all has happened, just no one wants to acknowledge this. Imagine what a poor implementation of cloud computing is going to be like? Ha!

So, back to VOIP, yes, VOIP is doing more with less, which is a fact? No, it is providing some features at the expense of quality, with less cost. The quality is less, the performance is less, the stability and consistency is less, but, important to remember, the cost is less. Virtualization is the same idea, even cloud computing is the same basic mindset, doing more with less. What, wait, I can hear many yelling… You are wrong! Virtualization is doing more with what you already have. But is that true? I question it. Yes, having servers idling during the middle of the night was unused capacity. Yes, being able to re-provision systems on the fly, in a stateless model is nice, but is it really more effective or efficient? Would it not be more efficient to just purchase less equipment and lease less capacity up front? And achieve the same result without all the expensive virtualization components, tools, and added complexity? Oh, but this means the architecture and engineering has to get it right in the beginning? Yes!

Don’t be fooled, the end-users are not thrilled with virtualization so far; they have been pushed, threatened, and kicked into accepting the following perspective… It is just good enough computing resource model. Virtualization no matter how good the tools and procedures, requires smart, dynamic, and quality support, without this, expect to have a sinkhole in your respective technical support organization, that absorbs issues and problems, but never solves all issues or problems, so confusion then frustration builds. With VOIP it may be more visible, because VOIP is an average consumer level product. Just consider an end-user revolt against Cloud computing based on virtualization? It maybe more painful when it happens, than say the VOIP revolt? Is VOIP the, Canary in a coal mine? The warning indicator to how virtualization will be regarded in the future? Maybe, or will we all accept less overall believing we are getting more for less?

Entry Filed under: A Proper Virtual World