In the past few years, there has been a lot of conversation around the “hypervisor becoming a commodity." It has been said that the underlying virtualization engines, whether they be ESXi, Hyper-V, KVM etc. are essentially insignificant, stressing the importance of the management and automation tools that sit on top of them.
These statements do hold some truthfulness: in its basic form, the hypervisor simply runs a virtual machine. As long as end-users have the performance they need, there's nothing else to worry about. In truth, though, the three major hypervisors on the market today (ESXi, Hyper-V, KVM) do this, and they do it well, so I can see how the “hypervisor becoming a commodity” works in these cases. But to SysAdmins, the people managing everything behind the VM, the commoditized hypervisor theory isn't bought quite so easily.
When we think about the word commodity in terms of IT, it’s usually defined as a product or service that is indistinguishable to it’s competitors, except for maybe price. With that said, if the hypervisors were a commodity, we shouldn’t care what hypervisor our applications are running on. We should see no difference between the VMs that are sitting inside an ESXi cluster or a Hyper-V cluster. In fact, in order to be commodity, these VMs should be able to migrate between hypervisors. The fact is that VMs today are not interchangeable between hypervisors, at least not without changing their underlying anatomy. While it is possible to migrate between hypervisors, the fact of the matter is that there is a process that we have to follow, including configurations, disks, etc. The files that make up that VM are all proprietary to the hypervisor they are running on and cannot simply be migrated and run by another hypervisor in their native forms.
Also, we stressed earlier the importance of the management tools that lie above the hypervisor, and how the hypervisor didn’t matter as much as the management tools did. This is partly true. The management and automation tools put in place are the heart of our virtual infrastructures, but the problem is that these management tools often create a divide in the features they support on different hypervisors. Take, for instance, a storage array providing support for VVOLs, VMware’s answer to per-vm-based policy storage provisioning. This is a standard that allows us to completely change the way we deploy storage, eliminating LUNs and making VMs and their disk first-class citizens on their subsequent storage arrays. That said, these are storage arrays that are connected to ESXi hosts, not Hyper-V hosts. Another example, this time in favor of Microsoft, is in the hybrid cloud space. With Azure stack coming down the pipe, organizations will be able to easily deploy and deliver services from their own data centers, but with azure-like agility. The VMware solution, which is similar, involving vCloud Air and vCloud Connector, is simply not at the same level as Azure when it comes to simplicity, in my opinion. They are two very different feature-sets that are only available on their respective hypervisors.
So with all that, is the hypervisor a commodity? My take: No! While all the major hypervisors on the market today do one thing – virtualize x86 instructions and provide abstraction to the VMs running on top of them - there are simply two many discrepancies between the compatible 3rd-party tools, features, and products that manage these hypervisors for me to call them commoditized. So I’ll leave you with a few questions. Do you think the hypervisor is a commodity? When/if the hypervisor fully becomes a commodity, what do you foresee our virtual environments looking like? Single or multi-hypervisor? Looking forward to your comments.