The present disclosure is directed to optimizing cost of operating system licenses in a virtual data center.
Cloud-computing facilities provide computational bandwidth and data-storage services in much the same utility companies provide electrical power and water to consumers. Cloud computing provides enormous advantages to customers without the devices to purchase, manage, and maintain in-house data centers. In particular, cloud-computing customers can avoid the overhead of maintaining and managing physical computer systems, including hiring and periodically retraining information-technology (“IT”) specialists and paying for operating system licenses and database-management-system upgrades. Customers typically run their applications in virtual machines (“VMs”) that may be organized into virtual data centers (“VDCs”). The VMs may be provisioned with customer defined parameters for computing power, storage, and guest operating systems (“guest OSs”). Cloud-computing interfaces allow for easy and straightforward configuration of virtual computing facilities, such as VDCs, flexibility in the types of applications and operating systems that can be configured, and other functionalities that are useful even for owners and administrators of the cloud-computing facilities used by a customer. Computational and storage cost of a VDC is typically optimized by selecting a particular cluster of host server computers or a storage tier to run the VMs. However, costs do not include guest OS licensing costs in determining the overall costs of cloud-computer customers' VDCs.
Methods and systems assist cloud-computing customer to plan virtual data center (“VDC”) configurations, create purchase recommendations to achieve either an expansion or contraction of a VDC, and optimize VDC cost. Recommendations that lower the cost of combinations of virtual machine (“VM”) guest OS licenses, server computer hardware and VM software are generated. Methods also generate customer plans for adding additional VMs for a projected period of time, provide recommendations on lower cost combinations of guest OS licenses, server hardware, and VM software in order to optimize VDC costs. Methods may report any underutilized licensed server computers and provide recommendations for cost savings when volume licenses can be replaced by instance-based software licenses. Methods may generate VM placement recommendations to cloud-computing customers while the customers attempt to manually migrate one or more VMs to different server computers.
This disclosure presents computational methods and systems that optimize operating system costs in a virtual data center. In a first subsection, computer hardware, complex computational systems, and virtualization are described. Methods and systems to optimize operating system costs in a virtual data center are described in a second subsection.
Computer Hardware, Complex Computational Systems, and Virtualization
The term “abstraction” is not, in any way, intended to mean or suggest an abstract idea or concept. Computational abstractions are tangible, physical interfaces that are implemented, ultimately, using physical computer hardware, data-storage devices, and communications systems. Instead, the term “abstraction” refers, in the current discussion, to a logical level of functionality encapsulated within one or more concrete, tangible, physically-implemented computer systems with defined interfaces through which electronically-encoded data is exchanged, process execution launched, and electronic services are provided. Interfaces may include graphical and textual data displayed on physical display devices as well as computer programs and routines that control physical computer processors to carry out various tasks and operations and that are invoked through electronically implemented application programming interfaces (“APIs”) and other electronically implemented interfaces. There is a tendency among those unfamiliar with modern technology and science to misinterpret the terms “abstract” and “abstraction,” when used to describe certain aspects of modern computing. For example, one frequently encounters assertions that, because a computational system is described in terms of abstractions, functional layers, and interfaces, the computational system is somehow different from a physical machine or device. Such allegations are unfounded. One only needs to disconnect a computer system or group of computer systems from their respective power supplies to appreciate the physical, machine nature of complex computer technologies. One also frequently encounters statements that characterize a computational technology as being “only software,” and thus not a machine or device. Software is essentially a sequence of encoded symbols, such as a printout of a computer program or digitally encoded computer instructions sequentially stored in a file on an optical disk or within an electromechanical mass-storage device. Software alone can do nothing. It is only when encoded computer instructions are loaded into an electronic memory within a computer system and executed on a physical processor that so-called “software implemented” functionality is provided. The digitally encoded computer instructions are an essential and physical control component of processor-controlled machines and devices, no less essential and physical than a cam-shaft control system in an internal-combustion engine. Multi-cloud aggregations, cloud-computing services, virtual-machine containers and virtual machines, communications interfaces, and many of the other topics discussed below are tangible, physical components of physical, electro-optical-mechanical computer systems.
Of course, there are many different types of computer-system architectures that differ from one another in the number of different memories, including different types of hierarchical cache memories, the number of processors and the connectivity of the processors with other system components, the number of internal communications busses and serial links, and in many other ways. However, computer systems generally execute stored programs by fetching instructions from memory and executing the instructions in one or more processors. Computer systems include general-purpose computer systems, such as personal computers (“PCs”), various types of servers and workstations, and higher-end mainframe computers, but may also include a plethora of various types of special-purpose computing devices, including data-storage systems, communications routers, network nodes, tablet computers, and mobile telephones.
Until recently, computational services were generally provided by computer systems and data centers purchased, configured, managed, and maintained by service-provider organizations. For example, an e-commerce retailer generally purchased, configured, managed, and maintained a data center including numerous web servers, back-end computer systems, and data-storage systems for serving web pages to remote customers, receiving orders through the web-page interface, processing the orders, tracking completed orders, and other myriad different tasks associated with an e-commerce enterprise.
Cloud-computing facilities are intended to provide computational bandwidth and data-storage services much as utility companies provide electrical power and water to consumers. Cloud computing provides enormous advantages to small organizations without the devices to purchase, manage, and maintain in-house data centers. Such organizations can dynamically add and delete virtual computer systems from their virtual data centers within public clouds to track computational-bandwidth and data-storage needs, rather than purchasing sufficient computer systems within a physical data center to handle peak computational-bandwidth and data-storage demands. Moreover, small organizations can completely avoid the overhead of maintaining and managing physical computer systems, including hiring and periodically retraining information-technology specialists and continuously paying for operating-system and database-management-system upgrades. Furthermore, cloud-computing interfaces allow for easy and straightforward configuration of virtual computing facilities, flexibility in the types of applications and operating systems that can be configured, and other functionalities that are useful even for owners and administrators of private cloud-computing facilities used by a single organization.
While the execution environments provided by operating systems have proved to be an enormously successful level of abstraction within computer systems, the operating-system-provided level of abstraction is nonetheless associated with difficulties and challenges for developers and users of application programs and other higher-level computational entities. One difficulty arises from the fact that there are many different operating systems that run within various different types of computer hardware. In many cases, popular application programs and computational systems are developed to run on only a subset of the available operating systems, and can therefore be executed within only a subset of the various different types of computer systems on which the operating systems are designed to run. Often, even when an application program or other computational system is ported to additional operating systems, the application program or other computational system can nonetheless run more efficiently on the operating systems for which the application program or other computational system was originally targeted. Another difficulty arises from the increasingly distributed nature of computer systems. Although distributed operating systems are the subject of considerable research and development efforts, many of the popular operating systems are designed primarily for execution on a single computer system. In many cases, it is difficult to move application programs, in real time, between the different computer systems of a distributed computer system for high-availability, fault-tolerance, and load-balancing purposes. The problems are even greater in heterogeneous distributed computer systems which include different types of hardware and devices running different types of operating systems. Operating systems continue to evolve, as a result of which certain older application programs and other computational entities may be incompatible with more recent versions of operating systems for which they are targeted, creating compatibility issues that are particularly difficult to manage in large distributed systems.
For all of these reasons, a higher level of abstraction, referred to as the “virtual machine,” (“VM”) has been developed and evolved to further abstract computer hardware in order to address many difficulties and challenges associated with traditional computing systems, including the compatibility issues discussed above.
The virtualization layer 504 includes a virtual-machine-monitor module 518 (“VMM”) that virtualizes physical processors in the hardware layer to create virtual processors on which each of the VMs executes. For execution efficiency, the virtualization layer attempts to allow VMs to directly execute non-privileged instructions and to directly access non-privileged registers and memory. However, when the guest OS within a VM accesses virtual privileged instructions, virtual privileged registers, and virtual privileged memory through the virtualization-layer interface 508, the accesses result in execution of virtualization-layer code to simulate or emulate the privileged devices. The virtualization layer additionally includes a kernel module 520 that manages memory, communications, and data-storage machine devices on behalf of executing VMs (“VM kernel”). The VM kernel, for example, maintains shadow page tables on each VM so that hardware-level virtual-memory facilities can be used to process memory accesses. The VM kernel additionally includes routines that implement virtual communications and data-storage devices as well as device drivers that directly control the operation of underlying hardware communications and data-storage devices. Similarly, the VM kernel virtualizes various other types of I/O devices, including keyboards, optical-disk drives, and other such devices. The virtualization layer 504 essentially schedules execution of VMs much like an operating system schedules execution of application programs, so that the VMs each execute within a complete and fully functional virtual hardware layer.
In
It should be noted that virtual hardware layers, virtualization layers, and guest OSs are all physical entities that are implemented by computer instructions stored in physical data-storage devices, including electronic memories, mass-storage devices, optical disks, magnetic disks, and other such devices. The term “virtual” does not, in any way, imply that virtual hardware layers, virtualization layers, and guest OSs are abstract or intangible. Virtual hardware layers, virtualization layers, and guest OSs execute on physical processors of physical computer systems and control operation of the physical computer systems, including operations that alter the physical states of physical devices, including electronic memories and mass-storage devices. They are as physical and tangible as any other component of a computer since, such as power supplies, controllers, processors, busses, and data-storage devices.
A VM or virtual application, described below, is encapsulated within a data package for transmission, distribution, and loading into a virtual-execution environment. One public standard for virtual-machine encapsulation is referred to as the “open virtualization format” (“OVF”). The OVF standard specifies a format for digitally encoding a VM within one or more data files.
The advent of VMs and virtual environments has alleviated many of the difficulties and challenges associated with traditional general-purpose computing. Machine and operating-system dependencies can be significantly reduced or entirely eliminated by packaging applications and operating systems together as VMs and virtual appliances that execute within virtual environments provided by virtualization layers running on many different types of computer hardware. A next level of abstraction, referred to as virtual data centers or virtual infrastructure, provide a data-center interface to virtual data centers computationally constructed within physical data centers.
The virtual-data-center management interface allows provisioning and launching of VMs with respect to device pools, virtual data stores, and virtual networks, so that virtual-data-center administrators need not be concerned with the identities of physical-data-center components used to execute particular VMs. Furthermore, the virtual-data-center management server 706 includes functionality to migrate running VMs from one physical server to another in order to optimally or near optimally manage device allocation, provide fault tolerance, and high availability by migrating VMs to most effectively utilize underlying physical hardware devices, to replace VMs disabled by physical hardware problems and failures, and to ensure that multiple VMs supporting a high-availability virtual appliance are executing on multiple physical computer systems so that the services provided by the virtual appliance are continuously accessible, even when one of the multiple virtual appliances becomes compute bound, data-access bound, suspends execution, or fails. Thus, the virtual data center layer of abstraction provides a virtual-data-center abstraction of physical data centers to simplify provisioning, launching, and maintenance of VMs and virtual appliances as well as to provide high-level, distributed functionalities that involve pooling the devices of individual physical servers and migrating VMs among physical servers to achieve load balancing, fault tolerance, and high availability.
The distributed services 814 include a distributed-device scheduler that assigns VMs to execute within particular physical servers and that migrates VMs in order to most effectively make use of computational bandwidths, data-storage capacities, and network capacities of the physical data center. The distributed services 814 further include a high-availability service that replicates and migrates VMs in order to ensure that VMs continue to execute despite problems and failures experienced by physical hardware components. The distributed services 814 also include a live-virtual-machine migration service that temporarily halts execution of a VM, encapsulates the VM in an OVF package, transmits the OVF package to a different physical server, and restarts the VM on the different physical server from a virtual-machine state recorded when execution of the VM was halted. The distributed services 814 also include a distributed backup service that provides centralized virtual-machine backup and restore.
The core services 816 provided by the VDC management server 810 include host configuration, virtual-machine configuration, virtual-machine provisioning, generation of virtual-data-center alarms and events, ongoing event logging and statistics collection, a task scheduler, and a device-management module. Each physical server 820-822 also includes a host-agent VM 828-830 through which the virtualization layer can be accessed via a virtual-infrastructure application programming interface (“API”). This interface allows a remote administrator or user to manage an individual server through the infrastructure API. The virtual-data-center agents 824-826 access virtualization-layer server information through the host agents. The virtual-data-center agents are primarily responsible for offloading certain of the virtual-data-center management-server functions specific to a particular physical server to that physical server. The virtual-data-center agents relay and enforce device allocations made by the VDC management server 810, relay virtual-machine provisioning and configuration-change commands to host agents, monitor and collect performance statistics, alarms, and events communicated to the virtual-data-center agents by the local host agents through the interface API, and to carry out other, similar virtual-data-management tasks.
The virtual-data-center abstraction provides a convenient and efficient level of abstraction for exposing the computational devices of a cloud-computing facility to cloud-computing-infrastructure users. A cloud-director management server exposes virtual devices of a cloud-computing facility to cloud-computing-infrastructure users. In addition, the cloud director introduces a multi-tenancy layer of abstraction, which partitions VDCs into tenant-associated VDCs that can each be allocated to a particular individual tenant or tenant organization, both referred to as a “tenant.” A given tenant can be provided one or more tenant-associated VDCs by a cloud director managing the multi-tenancy layer of abstraction within a cloud-computing facility. The cloud services interface (308 in
Considering
Operating system vendors sell a variety of different types of guest OS licenses:
1. Instance based license. A data center customer pays a vendor for each new instance of an OS. For example, Microsoft® Windows® desktop OS license is tied to the device on which the OS is installed. As a result, the OS license cannot be reassigned to a different physical or virtual system. Red Hat® Enterprise Linux® Virtual Guest pricing requires a subscription for each VM, but there is no restriction on migration of the OS to another server computer. This is the same OS license that is purchased for a bare metal server and can be used for bare metal installs as well. Instance based OS license may be cost effective for a small number of guest OSs.
2. Volume based license. A data center customer purchases an OS license for N instances. No more than N VMs can run the guest OS.
3. Processor or socket license. An OS license is purchased for a cluster of server computers or an entire data center based on the total number of physical processor cores in the cluster or data center. In this case, a data center customer may run up to a threshold (or even infinite) number of VMs on the cluster or the data center. Core-based licensing provides a precise measure of computing power and a consistent licensing metric, regardless of whether solutions are deployed on physical server computers or in a virtual or a cloud computing environment. The number of core licenses depends on whether licenses are applied to a physical server computer or individual virtual OS environments (“OSEs”) described above with reference to
Individual Virtual OSE—
For each virtual OSE, the number of licenses equals the number of virtual cores in the virtual OSE, subject to a minimum requirement of four licenses per virtual OSE. In addition, if any of the virtual cores is at any time mapped to more than one hardware thread, a license for each additional hardware thread maps to the virtual core. The licenses count toward the minimum requirement of four licenses per virtual OSE.
Physical Cores on a Server Computer—
The number of licenses equals the number of physical cores on the server computer multiplied by an applicable core factor. For example, certain processors have a core factor of 0.75.
Red Hat® Enterprise Linux® Advanced Platform—
Subscription runs as a VMM for each server computer and comes with unlimited guest entitlements per server computer. Guest OSs can be migrated only to another server computer with the same license. Red Hat® Enterprise Linux® as a Virtual Guest 4 Packs per server computer—One four pack license for each server computer that can be pooled among licensed server computers.
The guest OS cost optimization module 1204 executes methods that generate recommendations for a low-cost combination of guest OS licenses, server hardware, and VM software in order to optimize the data center costs.
The server computer recommendation lists can be used to consolidate VMs with guest OSs that can be placed on server computers that have compatible OSs and are of lower cost to operate. In particular, VMs of a particular type of processor based guest OS may be consolidated on one lower cost, processor-based license server computers, which reduces the number of licensed server computers for guest OS licenses. The guest OS cost optimization module 1204 may use the server computer recommendation lists to migrate VMs to the lower cost server computers.
The guest OS cost optimization module 1204 executes methods that may be used to aid data center customers and data center administrators to plan for additional guest OS VMs over a projected period of time (e.g., next six months or next financial year), provide recommendations on low cost combinations of VM guest OS licenses, server computer hardware and VM software to optimize the cost.
The method of
The guest OS cost optimization module 1204 includes methods that determine when a customer is not using DRS 1206, lowers overall costs by using DRS 1206 to reduce vendor licensing cost when the customer is not using DRS 1206. The DRS licensing cost may be offset and result in a cost savings by using DRS 1206 to optimize the overall data center software licensing cost. When DRS 1206 is activated, DRS 1206 reorganizes the distributed computing load. If there are a number of VMs with guest OS requiring socket based license are running, considering the guest OS licensing cost may be important to avoid licensing a large number of server computers and keep optimal hardware redundancy and load. By extending the DRS 1206 to consider guest OS licensing cost, and present a trial duration to customers that demonstrates DRS 1206 can lower cost to data center customers, even when the load on the data center is optimally deployed. Occasionally, a less optimal load may lead to significant savings, therefore this feature can dynamically show models opportunity to balance optimal usage along with cost savings.
The guest OS cost optimization module 1204 includes methods to report underutilized licensed server computers and provide recommendations of cost savings if the volume licenses can be replaced by instance based software licenses. Methods periodically scan a data center and collect the inventory, usage history, and expenses, which includes hardware costs, licensing costs, and labor. Methods then perform an analysis to show that a customer who bought guest OS licenses is not utilizing them effectively. For example, suppose a data center customer purchased unlimited instance licenses for an enterprise. However, based on the historic usage, there is an opportunity to save cost by moving away from unlimited licensing to limited instances licensing. As another example, consider a number of servers that have been licensed to run a particular guest OS based on socket based licensing. However, over a period of time those services are no longer available and these server computers need not be licensed for the guest OS. As a result, a recommendation may be generated to avoid renewing licenses for such servers.
The guest OS cost optimization module 1204 includes methods to calculate configuration recommendations that optimize the cost to data center customers while deploying new services. The input is a plan for new application services, which includes types of VMs, the type of licensed software, the types of guest OSs. Method generate a plan to optimize server computer utilization based on licensing, including recommendations to buy new computer hardware.
The guest OS cost optimization module 1204 provides VM placement recommendations to data center customers while a customer attempts to manually performing VM migration.
It is appreciated that the various implementations described herein are intended to enable any person skilled in the art to make or use the present disclosure. Various modifications to these implementations will be readily apparent to those skilled in the art, and the generic principles defined herein may be applied to other implementations without departing from the spirit or scope of the disclosure. For example, any of a variety of different implementations can be obtained by varying any of many different design and development parameters, including programming language, underlying operating system, modular organization, control structures, data structures, and other such design and development parameters. Thus, the present disclosure is not intended to be limited to the implementations described herein but is to be accorded the widest scope consistent with the principles and novel features disclosed herein.
Number | Date | Country | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
201641021832 | Jun 2016 | IN | national |
201743013132 | Apr 2017 | IN | national |
This application is a Continuation of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 15/603,492 entitled “METHODS AND SYSTEMS TO OPTIMIZE OPERATING SYSTEM LICENSE COSTS IN A VIRTUAL DATA CENTER”, filed May 24, 2017, which is a Continuation-in-part of patent application Ser. No. 14/604,679 entitled “MINIMIZING GUEST OPERATING SYSTEM LICENSING COSTS IN A VOLUME BASED LICENSING MODEL IN A VIRTUAL DATACENTER”, filed on Jan. 24, 2015, which claims the benefit under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) to Indian Provisional Application number 201641021832 entitled “METHODS AND SYSTEMS TO OPTIMIZE OPERATING SYSTEM LICENSE COSTS IN A VIRTUAL DATA CENTER” filed on Jun. 24, 2016, and Indian Application number 201743013132 entitled “METHODS AND SYSTEMS TO OPTIMIZE OPERATING SYSTEM LICENSE COSTS IN A VIRTUAL DATA CENTER” filed on Apr. 12, 2017, by VMware, Inc., all of which are herein incorporated by reference in their entireties for all purposes.
Number | Name | Date | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
5623598 | Voigt | Apr 1997 | A |
5805166 | Hall | Sep 1998 | A |
6496948 | Smorodinsky | Dec 2002 | B1 |
6606658 | Uematsu | Aug 2003 | B1 |
6810367 | Barnard | Oct 2004 | B2 |
6880002 | Hirschfeld | Apr 2005 | B2 |
7016972 | Bertram | Mar 2006 | B2 |
7051098 | Masters | May 2006 | B2 |
7092985 | Hubbard | Aug 2006 | B2 |
7117499 | Kawamoto | Oct 2006 | B2 |
7203944 | van Rietschote | Apr 2007 | B1 |
7243145 | Poortman | Jul 2007 | B1 |
7283935 | Pritchard | Oct 2007 | B1 |
7313512 | Traut | Dec 2007 | B1 |
7392360 | Aharoni | Jun 2008 | B1 |
7401012 | Bonebakker | Jul 2008 | B1 |
7437459 | Chidambaran | Oct 2008 | B2 |
7480773 | Reed | Jan 2009 | B1 |
7484208 | Nelson | Jan 2009 | B1 |
7503031 | Chang | Mar 2009 | B2 |
7552438 | Werme | Jun 2009 | B1 |
7561514 | Elmasry | Jul 2009 | B2 |
7617375 | Flemming | Nov 2009 | B2 |
7730486 | Herington | Jun 2010 | B2 |
7738129 | Bansal | Jun 2010 | B2 |
7793288 | Sameske | Sep 2010 | B2 |
7831820 | Winner | Nov 2010 | B2 |
7836348 | Buccella | Nov 2010 | B2 |
7890951 | Vinberg et al. | Feb 2011 | B2 |
7933987 | Aidun | Apr 2011 | B2 |
7966614 | Chodroff | Jun 2011 | B2 |
7984108 | Landis | Jul 2011 | B2 |
7996696 | Haney | Aug 2011 | B1 |
8013859 | Cannon | Sep 2011 | B2 |
8032780 | Koh | Oct 2011 | B2 |
8065676 | Sahai | Nov 2011 | B1 |
8099487 | Smirnov | Jan 2012 | B1 |
8112527 | Kawato | Feb 2012 | B2 |
8112756 | Cherkasova | Feb 2012 | B2 |
8161475 | Araujo | Apr 2012 | B2 |
8185893 | Hyser | May 2012 | B2 |
8209687 | Yuyitung | Jun 2012 | B2 |
8214838 | Cherkasova | Jul 2012 | B2 |
8229999 | Devarakonda | Jul 2012 | B2 |
8234640 | Fitzgerald, II | Jul 2012 | B1 |
8234641 | Fitzgerald | Jul 2012 | B2 |
8245140 | Barber | Aug 2012 | B2 |
8261277 | Prabhakar | Sep 2012 | B2 |
8296760 | Magenheimer | Oct 2012 | B2 |
8336054 | Cherkasova | Dec 2012 | B2 |
8347297 | Mateo | Jan 2013 | B2 |
8355407 | Wookey | Jan 2013 | B2 |
8386495 | Sandler | Feb 2013 | B1 |
8448006 | Floyd | May 2013 | B2 |
8584131 | Wong | Nov 2013 | B2 |
8601471 | Beaty, I | Dec 2013 | B2 |
8606886 | Kerr | Dec 2013 | B2 |
8612971 | Fitzgerald | Dec 2013 | B1 |
8650296 | Herington | Feb 2014 | B1 |
8661438 | Ding | Feb 2014 | B2 |
8667500 | Ji | Mar 2014 | B1 |
8676956 | Johnson | Mar 2014 | B1 |
8707194 | Jenkins | Apr 2014 | B1 |
8707383 | Bade | Apr 2014 | B2 |
8732699 | Hyser | May 2014 | B1 |
8738333 | Behera | May 2014 | B1 |
8738972 | Bakman | May 2014 | B1 |
8775593 | O'Sullivan | Jul 2014 | B2 |
8776050 | Plouffe | Jul 2014 | B2 |
8805647 | Smirnov | Aug 2014 | B2 |
8806480 | Araujo | Aug 2014 | B2 |
8875266 | Chambers | Oct 2014 | B2 |
8880682 | Bishop | Nov 2014 | B2 |
8903888 | Hyser | Dec 2014 | B1 |
8903983 | Bakman | Dec 2014 | B2 |
8918783 | Mattiocco | Dec 2014 | B2 |
8935493 | Dolan | Jan 2015 | B1 |
8949364 | Miloushev | Feb 2015 | B2 |
8949825 | Fitzgerald | Feb 2015 | B1 |
8949826 | Fitzgerald | Feb 2015 | B2 |
9218047 | Oney | May 2015 | B2 |
9086917 | Fitzgerald, I | Jul 2015 | B1 |
9092250 | Hyser | Jul 2015 | B1 |
9098333 | Obrecht | Aug 2015 | B1 |
9124488 | Wong | Sep 2015 | B2 |
9210141 | Anderson | Dec 2015 | B2 |
9225610 | Murase | Dec 2015 | B2 |
9275172 | Ostermeyer | Mar 2016 | B2 |
9495270 | Wong | Nov 2016 | B2 |
9547485 | Suzuki | Jan 2017 | B2 |
9606821 | Robinson | Mar 2017 | B2 |
9654367 | Hillier | May 2017 | B2 |
9697019 | Fitzgerald | Jul 2017 | B1 |
9727440 | Suit | Aug 2017 | B2 |
9858123 | Dailianas | Jan 2018 | B1 |
10069680 | Wylie | Sep 2018 | B1 |
10936976 | Ginis | Mar 2021 | B2 |
20030006988 | Alford | Jan 2003 | A1 |
20030233391 | Crawford | Dec 2003 | A1 |
20040061701 | Arquie | Apr 2004 | A1 |
20040221176 | Cole | Nov 2004 | A1 |
20050060590 | Bradley | Mar 2005 | A1 |
20060069761 | Singh | Mar 2006 | A1 |
20060107087 | Sieroka | May 2006 | A1 |
20060184936 | Abels | Aug 2006 | A1 |
20060195715 | Herington | Aug 2006 | A1 |
20060277206 | Bailey | Dec 2006 | A1 |
20070204266 | Beaty, II | Aug 2007 | A1 |
20070245348 | Araujo, Jr. | Oct 2007 | A1 |
20070260723 | Cohen | Nov 2007 | A1 |
20070262994 | Meighan | Nov 2007 | A1 |
20070271560 | Wahlert | Nov 2007 | A1 |
20080059556 | Greenspan | Mar 2008 | A1 |
20080133324 | Jackson | Jun 2008 | A1 |
20080134176 | Fitzgerald | Jun 2008 | A1 |
20080196043 | Feinleib | Aug 2008 | A1 |
20080025653 | Ben-Yehuda | Oct 2008 | A1 |
20080243699 | Hilerio | Oct 2008 | A1 |
20080271019 | Stratton | Oct 2008 | A1 |
20080306786 | Lonowski | Dec 2008 | A1 |
20090019316 | Buccella | Jan 2009 | A1 |
20090172666 | Yahalom | Jul 2009 | A1 |
20090228984 | Sterin | Sep 2009 | A1 |
20090237404 | Cannon | Sep 2009 | A1 |
20090300173 | Bakman | Dec 2009 | A1 |
20090328056 | McCune | Dec 2009 | A1 |
20100080129 | Strahan | Apr 2010 | A1 |
20100125665 | Simpson | May 2010 | A1 |
20100205303 | Chaturvedi | Aug 2010 | A1 |
20100262974 | Uyeda | Oct 2010 | A1 |
20100306382 | Cardosa | Dec 2010 | A1 |
20110055399 | Tung | Mar 2011 | A1 |
20110072253 | Iqbal | Mar 2011 | A1 |
20110113136 | Phaal | May 2011 | A1 |
20110119191 | Stern | May 2011 | A1 |
20110145657 | Bishop | Jun 2011 | A1 |
20110161858 | Barber | Jun 2011 | A1 |
20110219118 | Cowan | Sep 2011 | A1 |
20110261055 | Wong | Oct 2011 | A1 |
20110296429 | Segmuller | Dec 2011 | A1 |
20120053925 | Geffen | Mar 2012 | A1 |
20120059917 | Dawson | Mar 2012 | A1 |
20120131578 | Ciano | May 2012 | A1 |
20120203590 | Deb | Aug 2012 | A1 |
20120272234 | Kaiser | Oct 2012 | A1 |
20120297236 | Ziskind | Nov 2012 | A1 |
20120297307 | Rider | Nov 2012 | A1 |
20120324444 | Gulati | Dec 2012 | A1 |
20120331114 | Garg | Dec 2012 | A1 |
20130007760 | O'Sullivan | Jan 2013 | A1 |
20130042003 | Franco | Feb 2013 | A1 |
20130055262 | Lubsey | Feb 2013 | A1 |
20130198370 | Aguchi | Aug 2013 | A1 |
20130262250 | Lingafelt | Oct 2013 | A1 |
20130297964 | Hegdal | Nov 2013 | A1 |
20140007093 | Deshpande | Jan 2014 | A1 |
20140164594 | Crowell | Jun 2014 | A1 |
20140196038 | Kottomtharayil | Jul 2014 | A1 |
20140200953 | Mun | Jul 2014 | A1 |
20140278820 | Dantuma | Sep 2014 | A1 |
20140310817 | Chen | Oct 2014 | A1 |
20140344440 | Dutta | Nov 2014 | A1 |
20150067143 | Babakhan | Mar 2015 | A1 |
20150286492 | Breitgand | Oct 2015 | A1 |
20150339146 | Ponsford | Nov 2015 | A1 |
20160077860 | Machida | Mar 2016 | A1 |
20160147550 | McWilliams | May 2016 | A1 |
20170097845 | Kouznetsov | Apr 2017 | A1 |
20170353364 | Kreiner | Dec 2017 | A1 |
Number | Date | Country |
---|---|---|
2637980 | Aug 2007 | CA |
2019358 | Jan 2009 | EP |
2008209994 | Sep 2008 | JP |
WO2003032125 | Apr 2003 | WO |
WO2006077215 | Jul 2006 | WO |
Entry |
---|
S. K. Shrivastava, P. Kumar and A. Pandey, “Impact of Software Licenses in Cloud Computing Based E-Governance Initiatives,” 2014 Fourth International Conference on Communication Systems and Network Technologies, Bhopal, India, 2014, pp. 592-596, doi: 10.1109/CSNT.2014.125. (Year: 2014). |
Credle et al. “Simplify Software Audits and Cut Costs by Using the IBM License Metric Tool”, IBM Redbooks, An IBM Redpaper publication, Published Sep. 17, 2014, http://www.redbooks.ibm.com/abstracts/redp5107.html?Open (Year: 2014). |
Manoel et al. “Implementation Best Practices for IBM Tivoli License Manager”, IBM Redbooks, An IBM Redbooks publication, Published May 16, 2006, http://www.redbooks.ibm.com/abstracts/SG247222.html (Year: 2006). |
G. C. Deka, “Cost-Benefit Analysis of Datacenter Consolidation Using Virtualization,” in IT Professional, vol. 16, No. 6, pp. 54-62, Nov.-Dec. 2014, doi: 10.1109/MITP.2014.89 (Year: 2014). |
Deng, Wei, Fangming Liu, Hai Jin, Xiaofei Liao, and Haikun Liu. “Reliability-Aware Server Consolidation for Balancing Energy-Lifetime Tradeoff in Virtualized Cloud Datacenters.” International Journal of Communication Systems 27, No. 4 (Apr. 2014): 623-42. doi:10.1002/dac.2687. (Year: 2014). |
X. Li, Y. Li, T. Liu, J. Qiu and F. Wang, “The Method and Tool of Cost Analysis for Cloud Computing,” 2009 IEEE International Conference on Cloud Computing, 2009, pp. 93-100, doi: 10.1109/CLOUD.2009.84. (Year: 2009). |
Whalley, Ian, and Malgorzata Steinder. “Licence-aware management of virtual machines.” 12th IFIP/IEEE International Symposium on Integrated Network Management (IM 2011) and Workshops. IEEE, (Year: 2011). |
Huang, Wei, et al., “A Case for High Performance Computing with Virtual Machine”, Computer Science and Engineering, The Ohio State University, Jun. 28, 2006. |
Keahey, K. , et al., “Virtual Playgrounds: Managing Virtual Resources in the Grid”, 2006. |
Khanna, Gunjan , et al., Application Performance Management in Virtualized Server Environments, 2006. |
Koh, Younggyun , et al., An Analysis of Performance Interference Effects in Virtual Environments. |
Korelc, Justin , et al., “Analyzing performance in virtualized environments”. |
Li, Jianxin , “An Efficient Resource Management System for On-Line Virtual Cluster Provision”, Jan. 2009. |
Liao, Qi, et al., “Visualizing Graph Dynamics and Similarity for Enterprise Network Security and Management”, Sep. 14, 2010. |
Lindholm, Tim , et al., The Java® Virtual Machine Specification, Feb. 13, 2015. |
Liu, Liang , “GreenCloud: A New Architecture for Green Data Center”, Jun. 16, 2009. |
Mann, Andi, “Virtualization 101: Technologies, Benefits, and Challenges”, A white paper by Andi Mann, EMA Senior Analyst, Aug. 2006. |
Marshall, Paul , “Improving Utilization of Infrastructure Clouds”. |
McHeick, Hamid , et al., “Evaluation of Load Balance Algorithms”, Aug. 2011. |
McLean, Ian , et al., “Monitoring and Performance in Windows 7”, Oct. 21, 2009. |
Menon, Aravind , et al., Diagnosing Performance Overheads in the Xen Virtual Machine Environment, Jun. 11, 2005. |
Menon, Aravind , “Optimizing Network Virtualization in Xen”, Apr. 17, 2006. |
Moller, Kim-Thomas , “Virtual Machine Benchmarking”, Apr. 17, 2007. |
Nathuji, Ripal , et al., “VPM tokens: virtual machine-aware power budgeting in datacenters”, Jan. 23, 2009. |
Neogi, Anindya , “A Smarter Planning Tool for Virtual Environments”, IBM Cloud/Virtualization Management Blog, Jun. 11, 2011. |
Padala, Pradeep , et al., “Performance Evaluation of Virtualization Technologies for Server Consolidation”, Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P., Sep. 30, 2008. |
Raman, Rajesh , et al., “Policy Driven Heterogeneous Resource Co-Allocation with Gangmatching”, Proceedings of the 12th IEEE International Symposium on High Performance Distributed Computing, 2003. |
Rousselle, Philip , et al., “The Virtual Computing Environment”, Northeast Parallel Architectures Center, Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Syracuse University, Sep. 1994. |
Schnorr, Lucas Mello, et al., “Triva: Interactive 3d visualization for performance analysis of parallel applications”. |
Siegel, Leah J., et al., “Performance Measures for Evaluating Algorithms for SIMD Machines”, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, vol. SE-*, No. 4, Jul. 4, 1982. |
Singh, Aameek , et al., “SPARK: Integrated Resource Allocation in Virtualization-Enabled SAN Data Centers”, IBM Research Report, Apr. 18, 2007. |
Sloof, Eric , “vCenter Operations—Your Future Performance Dashboard”, Mar. 8, 2011. |
Smith, James , “The Architecture of Virtual Machines”, IEEE Computer Society, May 2005 https://Ieeexplore.IEEE.org/document/1430629/ (Year 2005). |
Stoess, Jan , et al., “Energy Management for Hypervisor-Based Virtual Machines”, 2007. |
Sugerman, Jeremy , et al., “Virtualizing I/O Devices on VMware Workstation's Hosted Virtual Machine Monitor”, Proceedings of the 2001 USENIX Annual Technical Conference, Jun. 25, 2001. |
Uhlig, Rich , et al., “Intel Virtualization Technology”, Computer, May 2005. |
Verma, Akshat , et al., “pMapper: Power and Migration Cost Aware Application Placement in Virtualized Systems”, 2008. |
Warneke, Daniel , et al., “Exploiting Dynamic Resource Allocation for Efficient Parallel Data Processing in the Cloud”, Jan. 2011. |
Wolf, Chris , “Let's Get Virtual: A Look at Today's Server Virtualization Architectures”, Burton Group, May 14, 2007. |
Wolf, Chris , “Let's Get Virtual: A Look at Today's Server Virtualization Architectures”, Burton Group, (http://hosteddocs.ittoolbox.com/let'sgetvirt.pdf), May 14, 2007. |
Wood, Timothy , et al., Black-Box and Gray-Box Strategies for Virtual Machine Migration, Mar. 9, 2007. |
Wood, Timothy , et al., “Black-box and Gray-box Strategies for Virtual Machine Migration”, Apr. 2007. |
Xu, Yunlong , et al., “Research and Design of a Remote Visualization Parallel Program Performance Analysis Tool”, 2010. |
Yarbrough, Stan , “Akorri BalancePoint: Overview”, May 6, 2010. |
Zhikui, Wang , et al., Capacity and Performance Overhead in Dynamic Resource Allocation to Virtual Containers, May 2007. |
The Roadmap to Virtual Infrastructure: Practical Implementation Strategies, VMware, Inc., 2006. |
Tips and Tricks for Implementing Infrastructure Services on ESX Server, VMware, Inc., 2006. |
Virtualization Overview, VMware, Inc., 2006. |
VMware Infrastructure Architecture Overview, 2006. |
Understanding Full Virtualization, Paravirtualization, and Hardware Assist, VMware, Inc., 2007. |
VMware® vCenter™ Operations Standard Evaluator's Guide, 2011. |
Resource Management Guide: ESX Server 3.0.1 and VirtualCenter 2.0.1, VMware, Inc., Aug. 24, 2006. |
Introduction to VMware Infrastructure, VMware, Inc., Aug. 5, 2008. |
OpManager—The best value in network management, Feb. 26, 2011. |
Platespin Powerconvert PoweRecon, Jan. 28, 2007. |
“Akorri BalancePoint 3.5 Configuration Guide”, BalancePoint, Akorri, Sep. 22, 2010. |
“Akorri BalancePoint Pocket Expert Guide Series: Analytics Cheat Sheet”, Dec. 22, 2010. |
“An Introduction to Data Center Infrastructure Management”, Raritan, Inc., 2010. |
“BalancePoint: Overview”. |
“Guest Operating System Installation Guide”, VMware, Inc. (https://web.archive.org/web/20060823171603/http://www.vmware.com/pdf/GuestOS_guide.pdf), Aug. 23, 2006. |
“HP OpenView Operations SMART Plug-In for WebLogic Server: User's Guide”, Hewlett-Packard, 2001. |
“I/O Compatibility Guide for ESX Server 3.0”, VMware, Inc., (https://web.archive.org/web/20060901090802/http://www.vmware.com/pdf/vi3_io_guide.pdf), Aug. 30, 2006. |
“Interpreting CPU Utilization for Performance Analysis”, Microsoft Server Performance, Aug. 6, 2009. |
“PRTG Network Monitor 7.3—User Manual”, Paessler, 2010. |
“Quick Start Guide”, VMware, Inc. (https://web.archive.org/web/20060828082007/http://www.vmware.com:80/pdf/vi3_esx_quickstart.pdf), Aug. 28, 2006. |
“Resource Management with VMware DRS”, VMWare Infrastructure, VMware Best Practices, pp. 1-24, 1998-2006. |
“Resource utilization and performance”, IBM. |
“Storage / SAN Compatibility Guide for ESX Server 3.0”, VMware, Inc. (https://web.archive.org/web/20060901090844/http://www.vmware.com/pdf/vi3_san_guide.pdf, Aug. 30, 2006. |
“Systems Compatibility Guide for ESX Server 3.0”, VMware, Inc., ESX Compatibility, (https://web.archive.org/web/20060901092211/http://www.vmware.com/pdf/vi3_systems_guide.pdf), Aug. 30, 2006. |
“Virtual Infrastructure Management Datasheet”, Akorri BalancePoint, 2009. |
“Virtual System Profile”, DMTF, Document No. DSP 1057, Version 1.0.0. Apr. 22, 2010, https://www.dmtf.org/sites/default/files/standards/documents/DSP1057 1.0.0. 0 .pdf (Year 2010). |
“Virtualization: State of the Art”, SCOPE Alliance, Version 1.0., Apr. 2008 http://www.profsandhu.com/cs6393_s14/SCOPE-Virtualization-StateofTheArt-Version-1.0.pdf (Year: 2008). |
“Virtualization: Current Benefits and Future Potential”, Technology Concepts and Business Considerations, EMC Corporation, Jan. 2008. |
“VMware Converter User's Manual”, VMware, Inc.(https://web.archive.org/web/20070202043435/https://www.vmware.com/pdf/VMware_Converter_manual.pdf), Dec. 2006. |
“VMware vCenter Operations Standard Evaluator's Guide”, Installing, Deploying and Using VMware vCenter Operations Standard, Apr. 2011. |
Ahmad, Irfan , “Proceedings of the Sixth Annual Workshop on Workload Characterization”, IEEE Computer Socieity, Oct. 27, 2003. |
Barham, Paul , et al., “Xen and the Art of Virtualization”, University of Cambridge Computer Laboratory, Oct. 19, 2003. |
Bari , “Data Center Network Virtualization: A Survey”, IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials, vol. 15 No. 2, Second Quarter 2013 https://ieeexplore.IEEE.org/document/6308765/ (Year 2013). |
Bastoni, Andrea , et al., “Discovering hypervisor overheads using micro and macrobenchmarks”, System Programming Research Group, University of Rome “Tor Vorgata” Roma, Italy. |
Beloglazov, Anton , et al., “Energy Efficient Resource Management in Virtualized Cloud Data Centers”, 2010. |
Beloglazov, Anton , et al., “Energy-Aware Resource Allocation Heuristics for Efficient Management of Data Centers for Cloud Computing”, May 23, 2011. |
Berral, Josep LL, et al., “Towards energy-aware scheduling in data centers using machine learning”. |
Bradley, Duane , “Citrix Presentation Server Load Management—Part 3: Load Evaluators”, Jan. 3, 2007. |
Buyya, Rajkumar , et al., “Energy-Efficient Management of Data Center Resources for Cloud Computing: A Vision, Architectural Elements, and Open Challenges”, Jun. 2010. |
Buyya, Rajkumar , “PARMON: a portable and scalable monitoring system for clusters”, 2000. |
Chase, Jeffrey S., “Managing Energy and Server Resources in Hosting Centers”. |
Cherkasova, Ludmila, et al., “Comparison of the Three CPU Schedulers in Xen”, ACM Sigmetrics Performance Evaluation Review, Sep. 2007. |
Cherkasova, Ludmila, et al., “When Virtual is Harder than Real: Resource Allocation Challenges in Virtual Machine Based IT Environments”, Enterprise Systems and Software Laboratory, HP Laboratories Palo Alto, Feb. 8, 2007. |
Curing, Carlo , et al., “Workload-Aware Database Monitoring and Consolidation”, Apr. 5, 2019. |
Gilman, Andrew , et al., Akorri BalancePoint: End-to-End Visibility Across Virtualized Servers and Dell Equallogic iSCSI SANs, Mar. 2009. |
Gupta, Diwaker, et al., “Enforcing Performance Isolation Across Virtual Machines in Xen”, University of California. |
Gupta, Diwaker , et al., “Enforcing Performance Isolation Across Virtual Machines in Xen”, University of California, San Diego. |
Gupta, Diwaker , et al., “XenMon: QoS Monitoring and Performance Profiling Tool”, Oct. 18, 2005. |
Hauge, Bonnie S., et al., “Reliability Centered Maintenance and Risk Assessment”, 2001. |
Hillier, Andrew , “Dynamic Capacity Management in Virtual Environments”, 2008. |
“International Journal of Communication Systems 27, No. 4”, Deng, Wei, Fangming Liu, Hai Jin, Xiaofei Liao, and Haikun Liu. “Reliability-Aware Server Consolidation for Balancing Energy-Lifetime Tradeoff in Virtualized Cloud Datacenters.” (Apr. 2014): 623-42. doi:10.1002/dac.2687. Year 2014. |
Li , et al., “IEEE”, The Method and Tool of Cost Anaysis for Cloud Computing, 2009. |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
20200234211 A1 | Jul 2020 | US |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
Parent | 15603492 | May 2017 | US |
Child | 16837875 | US |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
Parent | 14604679 | Jan 2015 | US |
Child | 15603492 | US |