Update: Symantec has altered their support documentation so that VMotion isn’t unsupported anymore. That’s a good move. As you read the rest of this post keep that in mind.
I second the vinternals commentary on Symantec. The security software vendor joins the ranks of the clueless with their wonderful support document:
Question/Issue:
Is ESX server VMotion supported with SAV and SEP?Solution:
Symantec does not support ESX server VMotion at this time.
Vendors are shameless. They charge you a ton for support, then they’ll do whatever they can to point the finger at somebody else when you call. It’s one thing to put a disclaimer in for performance issues. Virtualization sometimes exposes weird performance issues, and if it’s a performance issue you’re having you might need to do some work to troubleshoot it on your own if it isn’t a blatant, completely reproduceable problem with the vendor’s software (like CPU-sucking spin locks).
It’s another thing to say that their software isn’t supported at all, or to say that a problem must be reproduced on physical hardware. Most of the problems I’ve ever called a vendor about are explicit functionality problems (bugs). Physical hardware, virtual hardware, it doesn’t matter: their software just doesn’t do what it’s supposed to. A vendor’s support staff should be competent enough, and professional enough, to sort out a bug report from a performance problem and act accordingly.
Oracle doesn’t support anything in VMs (as per an Oracle employee last week to me). Lyris doesn’t support anything in VMs (last time I checked, a few months ago). Symantec doesn’t support anything in VMs (technically they said VMotion, but for an enterprise VMotion goes hand in hand with VMs). What other vendors are as clueless as these three? I think I’m going to start making a list.
Related posts:
- Symantec Does The Right Thing
- Keys To Virtualization Success
- Musings on What I Want From Storage Virtualization
- For Best Results Add Virtualization Slowly
- Why I Like Virtualization (And Why Hardware Sucks)
{ 4 comments… read them below or add one }
i totally agree with you on this!
you should maybe think of creating a virtual/virtuailzation pillory, where these companies get listed and everybody can see who thinks he doesn’t need marketshare in virtualization area in his revenue.
Regards,
Ike
Hear hear!
Couldn’t agree more! It’s about time vendors get their heads straight and support VM’s… which incidentally run FAR more reliably virtualized then they do on hardware!
From what I understand the Oracle support issue may be resolved soon.
{ 2 trackbacks }