SVS vs. SoftGrid: One Developer's Perspective
As a developer of performance management and load testing software for the financial services industry, I was intrigued by the possibilities of application virtualization. After hearing good things about both SVS and SoftGrid, I took it upon myself to become familiar with both products and their implications for my own solutions.
Several installations and a whole lot of testing later, I've come to the conclusion that SVS has the superior implementation of a "pure" virtualization model. Its "layered" architecture is more reliable and compatible than the "virtual environments" model used by SoftGrid. This conclusion is based on my experiences adapting two of our own tools -- DMS Clarity Studio and DMS Clarity Tracker - to work under virtualization.
Clarity Studio is our workload simulation solution. It provides a variety of discreet workload and test script objects for simulating application and user activity under various OS and virtualization environments. Clarity Tracker is our metrics tracking agent. It has been optimized to run reliably under virtual machine environments (VMware, Virtual Server) and to upload data to our hosted analysis portal for review (www.claritysuite.com).
During testing with SVS we found the application "recording" phase to be incredibly simple. Both of our applications - Studio and Tracker - installed cleanly and ran correctly when enabled in their respective SVS layers. Note: This includes successfully starting and stopping two windows services (cfwtracker and cfwupload) and handling some complex hardware/software disclosure probing by Tracker. Overall, it was a pleasure to work with.
By contrast, SoftGrid's sequencing process was a real nightmare for us. In the beginning, we couldn't get Tracker to install at all during the recording phase. Later, after providing the MSI (Microsoft Installer) package to Softricity for analysis, we were provided with a working OSD. Still, there was the matter of how to launch our services. Tracker is headless -- it runs as a Windows service and has no local UI. Fortunately, we were able to tie the service startup to the launching of our tray control applet (cfwtray). Still, it's not a perfect solution since the user will need to log in to the system before our services will be enabled.
Bottom Line: You can't deploy agents/headless services reliably with SoftGrid.
We were tripped up by a different issue with our Clarity Studio tool. Studio includes a test script, OfficeBench, which exercises the Microsoft Office suite to simulate end user activity/record application performance. To accomplish this, OfficeBench accesses the applications via OLE-Automation (a.k.a. VBA), launching each program and running them through various document creation, data analysis and presentation tasks. The problem is that, unless you're running with the context of a virtualized application, you cannot "see" the automation interfaces. In our case, OfficeBench, which was running locally on the client, couldn't "see" Office, which was running virtualized from the SoftGrid server. Again, after much back-and-forth with Softricity, we were able to get our script to work -- this time by creating a custom OSD to launch Clarity Studio as if it were part of the Office code base.
Note: We are now providing this OSD as an example for customers who wish to use Clarity Studio to load test SoftGrid.
In conclusion, our experiences with SVS and SoftGrid could not have been more dissimilar. With SVS, I was up and running in minutes -- no servers to install, no managing shares or complex sequencing. And, as I noted above, it worked on the first try with both of our core applications. By contrast, SoftGrid was struggle from day one. In addition to the complex setup required just to test things, there were the myriad gotchas along the way that made my job that much harder. For this developer, at least, SVS is the clear winner in the ease of use/deployment category.
BTW, if anyone's interested in our Clarity Studio or Clarity Tracker tools, drop by our web site and register for a free 4-user account at our hosted portal: www.claritysuite.com.
RCK
Packaging
Packaging with SoftGrid is as easy as it gets. What was seen as a problem by your script "not seeing office" was exactly what real software virtualization is all about.
I worked with both products and was trained with both. After using both products to deploy 30 applications, I had to choose SoftGrid hands down.
When they say they "virtualize" software they mean it. There are no traces of it on the machine. There are no files in program files or any other directory for that matter. The system's registry doesn't get modified either.
I'm still trying to figure out how SVS is trying to market itself. SVS-enabled apps are certainly not virtual as they are being installed via the layers. It's ugly and requires lots of user training.
SVS Ugly?!?
If not "integrating" with the OS and other virtualized apps is your idea of virtualization then I think for you, virtualization means hell.
I see virtualization as a solution to generic problems like DLL hell, registry muck and upgrade/update problems.
I don't care if the software is physically on the system, as long as Windows thinks it's an installed app and I don't have to pay attention to conflict management, resources and roll out trouble then it works for me.
I've been fooling around with SoftGrid myself and find it hard to make packages aware of each other. Virtualization doesn't mean the apps shouldn't interact with each other. SoftGrid fails on that point. What I really would like to see with SVS is better integration with Active Directory. Not through script but through a good GUI like Notification Server. That's where SoftGrid wins over SVS. But for me.. SVS is really rocking and of course a lot cheaper.
Michiel
Someone Disagrees
Thank you for this testimonial! I found it very interesting and posted the news on my virtualization blog:
Altiris SVS vs Softricity SoftGrid impressions
Someone read it, strongly disagrees and commented it. Maybe you would reply there and here? Would be interesting!
Thank you
Alessandro Perilli, CISSP, MVP
IT Security and Virtualization Technology Analyst
http://www.alessandroperilli.com
Blogging about IT Security on http://www.securityzero.com
Blogging about Virtualization on http://www.virtualization.info
Alessandro Perilli, CISSP, MVP
IT Security and Virtualization Technology Analyst
http://www.alessandroperilli.com
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/alessandroperilli
Blogging about IT Security on http://www.securityzero.com
Blogging about
Which version of SoftGrid? Also you miss key feature differences
The above article is a bit one sided.
I am happy to accept that the testing was fair. Could you confirm the version of SoftGrid you were using? v4 only just being relased and all.
Also people need to remember, it's not just about how easy/hard the packaging process is. It's what you can do with the package after deployment.
Some answers...
A1. SVS can do on-demand distribution, but does not do streaming.
A2. SVS is very capable at quickly switching between different versions of an app. Since I don't know SoftGrid very well I won't say SVS is better at this, but I suspect that it is.
A3. Yes.
SoftGrid Version
I was testing against SoftGrid 4.0.
Randall C. Kennedy, CTO
Devil Mountain Software, Inc.
http://www.claritysuite.com
Randall C. Kennedy, CTO
Devil Mountain Software, Inc.
http://www.claritysuite.com
A View from the Softricity Perspective
My name is Edwin Yuen. I work for Softricity and was one the people who worked with Randall during his Softricity evaluation. Obviously, I am disappointed in his conclusions and while I always welcome reviews and opinions on our product, I feel I should point out several important issues here.
First, I was never able to replicate the issues Randall experienced sequencing the Clarity Suite. I simply ran the installation following our best practices - which are available to all of our customers - and had no issues. There was no additional troubleshooting and we didn't do any analysis on the issue or the program.
There is still the issue of how to launch the Clarity programs and how it interacts with the OS. Fundamentally, I think there was a misunderstanding of how Softricity virtualization is launched and how the interaction between applications, SoftGrid and the OS works. Much of the discussion surrounds how files, programs, and services are seen from the operating system. Virtualization in SVS is done by activating the application layer. Once activated, all layers see each other and the base system. In Softricity, we launch an executable though an OSD file to create the Virtual Environment. The virtualized applications see the base system and all applications interact at a Windows process level. In general, at a file & registry level, the virtualized programs are kept separate. Dynamic Windows components, including COM, DCOM and Services are also virtualized with each application. This is how SoftGrid can run conflicting programs/settings at the same time. SoftGrid creates a virtual environment for each sequenced package that is launched, each virtual instance is separate.
If you virtualize an application through SoftGrid, you will not see the services, files, or registry entries locally as they are virtualized. They only become available once the virtual environment is launched and only from processes that are launched from that environment. In some respects, this is similar to activating a layer in SVS.
Thus, in the case of OfficeBench, the issue is that the virtualized instance of Microsoft Office is not seen by OfficeBench because the virtualization is not activated. The same would be true of the SVS layer if it is not activated. In SoftGrid, we launch OfficeBench through the virtualized environment, just as you would by activating a SVS layer but in SoftGrid, this is done through our OSD files. Is it different? Yes. Is it more complicated? That is up to the user and Randall concluded it was for him.
In the end, I feel this is really an apples vs. oranges comparison. I feel that based on my understanding on both products (clearly not an expert at SVS but a 5+ year veteran of Softricity), the use cases for each product are different. SVS fixes some of the conflicts problems associated with tradition software distribution. We really see our product as a generational leap forward in software distribution and management. Eliminating conflicts is just one of its many benefits. More than 500 Softricity customers have virtualized over 25,000 applications successfully, and it's very rare for us to find an application we can't virtualize.
I feel that SoftGrid is the best enterprise application virtualization solution, and I welcome any of our customers or partners to comment on that.
Thank you!
Edwin, thank you for this! It is the most lucid response I have seen yet from Softricity/MS. This is indeed an "apples vs. oranges comparison." Too much of the discussion from "the other side" has focused on whether or not SVS meets the definition of "application virtualization" that has been established largely by your own efforts. No. It doesn't. Of course not. If it did, we'd be calling it "AVS".
While I of course feel that you trivialized SVS a bit too much in your summary that "SVS fixes some of the conflicts problems associated with tradition software distribution" (we certainly offer a lot more than that), you've hit the nail on the head that it's all about use cases.
I like Randall's article, not just because it is positive for SVS, but because it describes a use case -- "one developers' perspective" -- where we happened to better fit the bill. And it explains why. So don't be offended. If you want to handle that particular use case better than SVS, take the feedback to heart. (And I know you have received this feedback from others -- and have taken it to heart -- because customers tell us you are now pitching a roadmap that includes greatly simplified repackaging. Good. That's what competition is all about -- better products. You've been responsible for a few SVS roadmap items, too.)
I reached out to your Product Management organization last year and suggested that we hash out which use cases SoftGrid is the best solution for and which SVS is the best solution for. That way, our competitive documents could actually be of value to customers. Instead, most of the SVS/Softricity competitive docs and statements are unfortunate examples of silliness and FUD.
"Filter driver and a prayer"... That was mighty unproductive, don't you think? And I'll bet your Windows team was thrilled about one of their most sophisticated architectures being publicly maligned by an MS VP. I assure you we would not dismiss your core technology in such a condescending fashion (especially if you were a paying sponsor of our conference... which, btw, you have been in the past).
Until partnership with the Softricity group happens (which may never happen, but I think that's a lot more likely now that you are part of MS, with whom Altiris already has many close partnerships, including especially Core OS), regardless, let's focus the discussion on use cases, fitness to task, and what value we each bring to customers in solving what business problems.
Still, that will often put the two products head-to-head. When that happens, let's keep it real.
Thanks again,
Scott Jones
Product Manager
Altiris, Inc.
Would you like to reply?
Login or Register to post your comment.