Real Costs of App Virtualization
There are three parts to determining if the money saved by using application
virtualization is less than conducting business as usual using conventional
application management tools. First, determine how much IT time is used today to
conduct regression tests to ensure that new or updated software will not
interfere with already installed software, which could impinge on ROI.
IT managers next need to determine the amount of support time-along with
lost user productivity-that is needed to remedy the inevitable problems that
are missed in regression testing. More difficult to measure, but worth
considering as part of the equation, is lost productivity attributable to
delayed implementation of new products while this testing takes place.
Finally, determine how much support time and productivity is lost when users muck up applications through misconfiguration, and add the amount of time and labor required to recover end-user systems because of viruses and other security compromises.
The dirty secret, if you will, of application virtualization is that there
are other costs that must be factored in to the overall cost of the application
virtualization project. Applications must still be packaged or sequenced and
prepared for virtual deployment, just as in the days of old. Applications must
still be tested to see if they work correctly when virtually affixed to the
large variety of end-user systems where they may land.
And, although application virtualization vendors are loathe to admit it,
there is some sort of software agent that must be present on the end-user system
for all this technology to work, so figure in the (often minimal) cost of
deploying and maintaining the agent.
While the agent is often not installed (though sometimes it is, as is the
case of Microsoft's App-V), there is an agent. In many cases, virtual
application products will use existing software deployment tools to provide
virtualized applications-or components of virtualized applications, such as
icons or desktop shortcuts. While this is rarely a requirement for using
application virtualization, the per-seat costs of the software deployment
solution must be factored into the cost of the application virtualization tool.
Also, keep in mind that providing centrally managed applications on demand
requires plenty of reliable network bandwidth. In addition, when using the
infrastructure platforms, such as Microsoft System Center, Novell's ZENworks or
Citrix's application delivery infrastructure, there is usually plenty of
hardware, licensing and implementation planning needed to support secure,
reliable application delivery. My testing experience has shown that the rather
costly and cumbersome management of application virtualization assets should be
done much earlier in the implementation process than with server
virtualization.
The isolation techniques used by application virtualization can make it
easier than relying on Windows to keep new applications or updated versions of
already deployed applications from interfering with each other. In many cases,
some applications need to work together. Overcoming this isolation so that
applications can interact with each other is where the biggest recent advances
have been in application virtualization.
A challenge that lingers over application-and even desktop-virtualization
that is significantly different from server or storage virtualization is that
of disconnected operation. Applications need to be used everywhere, including
off the network. Application virtualization vendors are working to overcome the
nontrivial challenges of taking applications off the network while still
providing a good method of synchronizing changes when reconnected.
Right now, some platforms, such as Citrix and Novell's ZENworks, enable
users to use applications offline. There is a significant amount of additional
work and infrastructure needed to make this happen, and it represents a
significant technical challenge for IT administrators.
Offline operation also raises significant challenges for the enforcement of
security and data use policies, which is likely a business driver for pursuing
virtual application delivery.
Technical Director Cameron Sturdevant can be reached
at cameron.sturdevant@ziffdavisenterprise.com.
Finally, determine how much support time and productivity is lost when users muck up applications through misconfiguration, and add the amount of time and labor required to recover end-user systems because of viruses and other security compromises.









