h6. *[Enterprise Open Source Magazine: Sun Extends Virtualization with Open Source xVM VirtualBox|http://opensource.sys-con.com/node/781200]*
{quote}
Sun Microsystems announced a new version of Sun xVM VirtualBox, its free and open source desktop virtualization software for developers and enterprise users.
xVM VirtualBox software lets users create "virtual machines" into which they can install their operating system (OS) of choice. As a result, users can access their favorite software using any OS and developers can build, test and run cross-platform, multi-tier applications on a single laptop or desktop computer. xVM VirtualBox software supports popular host OSs, including Windows, Mac OS X, Linux, Solaris and OpenSolaris.
A key component of Sun's desktop-to-datacenter virtualization portfolio, xVM VirtualBox 2.1 software, a 30 megabyte download, features a number of new enhancements, including: accelerated 3D graphics, improved network performance, and storage support. In addition, xVM VirtualBox 2.1 software offers improved support for:
Mac OS X on Intel Virtualization Technology (VT-x), VMware's and Microsoft's Virtualization Formats, Intel Core i7 processor, and 64-bit guest OS on 32-bit host platforms.
{quote}
h6. *[TheRegister: Flash cells near shrinkage limit|http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/12/16/mlc_cpm_pcm/]*
{quote}
by Rik Myslewski
IEDM You call it flash memory. The engineers at this week's International Electron Device Meeting (IEDM) in San Francisco call it non-volatile memory.
According to Stefan Lai of BeingAMC, there's plenty of money to be made in non-volatile memory, whether it's based on the common flash technology or on emerging replacements. A cool $20bn was spent on non-volatile memory in 2008, with $25bn expected next year, financial Armageddon or no financial Armageddon.
There's one big problem, though: Current non-volatile technology is running up against a "natural limit," Lai said during an IEDM talk entitled "Non-Volatile Memory Technologies: the Quest for Ever Lower Cost". And, no, it's not that it is getting harder and harder to make smaller and smaller non-volatile memory chips. Lai says that the lithographic technologies needed to shrink the chip elements are good down to at least 22nm, maybe even further.
No, the problem is much simpler - and more intractable - than that. Memory-cell sizes are getting so small that they soon won't have room for enough electrons to keep the non-volatile memory, well, non-volatile.
"When I started," the veteran memory designer said, "I had a hundred thousand electrons [in a cell], so if I lost one per day, I had no problem." Today, there's a problem. As Lai puts it, in upcoming memory cells, "you're counting tens of electrons."
It doesn't take a statistical genius to see that losing one electron out of tens will be a far bigger deal than losing one electron out of 100,000. The problem will be - do the math - 10,000 times bigger.
Something needs to be done - and it needs to be done cheaply and reliably. Chip elements are now around 1000 times smaller than they were when non-volatile memory started to make its move in the mid-1980s. Prices have shrunk as well - they're now about one two-thousandth of what they were in 1986, said Lai.
According to Lai, the $1-per-gigabyte price threshold is the "tipping point" for flash acceptance - and he made a point of saying "and as those of you in business understand, price and cost are not the same thing." We're at that $1/GBybte point today - and there's no going back.
So how will the non-volatile industry keep things cheap while continuing to expand capacity? Before you read on, be forewarned: The acronyms will come thick and fast.
{quote}
h6. *[InfoWorld: The tricky math of server virtualization ROI|http://www.infoworld.com/article/08/12/17/51NF-virtualization-cost_1.html]*
{quote}
by Tom Kaneshige
Server virtualization is supposed to save buckets of cash, largely from server reduction. After all, consolidating some 20 physical servers to three host servers means less hardware, power and cooling, and management overhead.
But wait! The math is much trickier than that -- and unless you're a large business, there's a good chance it'll cost you more than you save, at least from the outset. "Probably 50 percent of the small- and medium- business virtualization implementations I see are not cheaper than simply replacing the physical servers already there," says Matt Prigge, a virtualization consultant and InfoWorld Test Center contributor.
Let's do the math. If you buy 20 spanking-new servers at $5,000 to grow your datacenter or replace your current boxes the traditional way, that's a $100,000 outlay. Server virtualization's cost equivalent: three powerful host servers with hardware memory chips from the likes of AMD or Intel at $16,000 each; a SAN at $40,000; and assorted costs in staff training, management software, virtualization licenses, and consultants. That'll all run about $100,000 as well. (Operating systems and apps aren't included, but their costs are the same for either approach.)
Shared storage investments and new Intel or AMD servers, along with redundant network connectivity upgrades, constitute the lion's share of the cost of virtualization. Software licenses from vendors such as EMC VMware, Microsoft, and Citrix -- though several thousand dollars per host server -- pale in comparison with these infrastructure costs, though you do have to factor in ongoing maintenance costs.
{quote}
{quote}
Sun Microsystems announced a new version of Sun xVM VirtualBox, its free and open source desktop virtualization software for developers and enterprise users.
xVM VirtualBox software lets users create "virtual machines" into which they can install their operating system (OS) of choice. As a result, users can access their favorite software using any OS and developers can build, test and run cross-platform, multi-tier applications on a single laptop or desktop computer. xVM VirtualBox software supports popular host OSs, including Windows, Mac OS X, Linux, Solaris and OpenSolaris.
A key component of Sun's desktop-to-datacenter virtualization portfolio, xVM VirtualBox 2.1 software, a 30 megabyte download, features a number of new enhancements, including: accelerated 3D graphics, improved network performance, and storage support. In addition, xVM VirtualBox 2.1 software offers improved support for:
Mac OS X on Intel Virtualization Technology (VT-x), VMware's and Microsoft's Virtualization Formats, Intel Core i7 processor, and 64-bit guest OS on 32-bit host platforms.
{quote}
h6. *[TheRegister: Flash cells near shrinkage limit|http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/12/16/mlc_cpm_pcm/]*
{quote}
by Rik Myslewski
IEDM You call it flash memory. The engineers at this week's International Electron Device Meeting (IEDM) in San Francisco call it non-volatile memory.
According to Stefan Lai of BeingAMC, there's plenty of money to be made in non-volatile memory, whether it's based on the common flash technology or on emerging replacements. A cool $20bn was spent on non-volatile memory in 2008, with $25bn expected next year, financial Armageddon or no financial Armageddon.
There's one big problem, though: Current non-volatile technology is running up against a "natural limit," Lai said during an IEDM talk entitled "Non-Volatile Memory Technologies: the Quest for Ever Lower Cost". And, no, it's not that it is getting harder and harder to make smaller and smaller non-volatile memory chips. Lai says that the lithographic technologies needed to shrink the chip elements are good down to at least 22nm, maybe even further.
No, the problem is much simpler - and more intractable - than that. Memory-cell sizes are getting so small that they soon won't have room for enough electrons to keep the non-volatile memory, well, non-volatile.
"When I started," the veteran memory designer said, "I had a hundred thousand electrons [in a cell], so if I lost one per day, I had no problem." Today, there's a problem. As Lai puts it, in upcoming memory cells, "you're counting tens of electrons."
It doesn't take a statistical genius to see that losing one electron out of tens will be a far bigger deal than losing one electron out of 100,000. The problem will be - do the math - 10,000 times bigger.
Something needs to be done - and it needs to be done cheaply and reliably. Chip elements are now around 1000 times smaller than they were when non-volatile memory started to make its move in the mid-1980s. Prices have shrunk as well - they're now about one two-thousandth of what they were in 1986, said Lai.
According to Lai, the $1-per-gigabyte price threshold is the "tipping point" for flash acceptance - and he made a point of saying "and as those of you in business understand, price and cost are not the same thing." We're at that $1/GBybte point today - and there's no going back.
So how will the non-volatile industry keep things cheap while continuing to expand capacity? Before you read on, be forewarned: The acronyms will come thick and fast.
{quote}
h6. *[InfoWorld: The tricky math of server virtualization ROI|http://www.infoworld.com/article/08/12/17/51NF-virtualization-cost_1.html]*
{quote}
by Tom Kaneshige
Server virtualization is supposed to save buckets of cash, largely from server reduction. After all, consolidating some 20 physical servers to three host servers means less hardware, power and cooling, and management overhead.
But wait! The math is much trickier than that -- and unless you're a large business, there's a good chance it'll cost you more than you save, at least from the outset. "Probably 50 percent of the small- and medium- business virtualization implementations I see are not cheaper than simply replacing the physical servers already there," says Matt Prigge, a virtualization consultant and InfoWorld Test Center contributor.
Let's do the math. If you buy 20 spanking-new servers at $5,000 to grow your datacenter or replace your current boxes the traditional way, that's a $100,000 outlay. Server virtualization's cost equivalent: three powerful host servers with hardware memory chips from the likes of AMD or Intel at $16,000 each; a SAN at $40,000; and assorted costs in staff training, management software, virtualization licenses, and consultants. That'll all run about $100,000 as well. (Operating systems and apps aren't included, but their costs are the same for either approach.)
Shared storage investments and new Intel or AMD servers, along with redundant network connectivity upgrades, constitute the lion's share of the cost of virtualization. Software licenses from vendors such as EMC VMware, Microsoft, and Citrix -- though several thousand dollars per host server -- pale in comparison with these infrastructure costs, though you do have to factor in ongoing maintenance costs.
{quote}