应用程序虚拟化之华山论剑
(No Ratings Yet)
Loading ...东邪：VMware ThinApp 4.0.1
西毒：Symantec Software Virtualization Solution (SVS) Pro 2.1
南帝：Microsoft Application Virtualization (App-V) 4.5
北丐：Citrix XenApp 5
对他们的评价因为怕自己翻译的不准确，所以借用原文的结论：
VMware ThinApp was by far the easiest solution to use and deploy. Featuring an embedded virtualization layer and no server components, ThinApp allowed the team to successfully create and deploy a virtualized Microsoft Office 2007 package in a matter of minutes. ThinApp’s “Setup Capture” utility made encoding a new virtualized application a simple, wizard-driven affair, while the capability to simply copy the package to a file share or web server ensured that distributing the resulting package was entirely straightforward.
Microsoft’s App-V was the most time-consuming solution to implement thanks to its reliance on a multi-layered Windows Server back-end. Simply preparing the necessary basic services can take several hours, and on one occasion, the team wasted an entire afternoon debugging client-to-server communications issues with the RTSP protocol (a common complaint against both App-V and its architectural predecessor, SoftGrid). The actual package creation process is quite complex, requiring a high-degree of familiarity with App-V concepts and deployment paradigms.
Symantec’s SVS Pro suffers from a lack of integration between the various moving parts. For example, the AppStream server components require that exported SVS layers that are to be streamed first be converted into compatible ZIP archives via the Packager utility. Unfortunately, the utility continually stripped-out critical Registry keys from the layer, forcing the team to manually edit the layer once it had been streamed down to the client. This, and other glitches, translated into much wasted time as the time struggled to work around the various limitations and issues.
Like Microsoft App-V, Citrix XenApp 5 requires a great deal of server preparation, including the installation of various prerequisite services and components. Configuring XenApp’s licensing and building the initial web-based management site can also be time-consuming and is fraught with potential failure points. Fortunately, the process of encoding and provisioning new virtualized applications is relatively straightforward, though some familiarity with Citrix concepts and deployment paradigms is required.
In terms of raw script performance, the clear winner was VMware ThinApp. With an average OfficeBench completion time (uncached + cached / 2) a full 18% faster than its nearest competitor, ThinApp delivered Office 2007 performance levels that most closely resemble a native installation. More importantly, it accomplished this while consuming less memory and using fewer CPU cycles than the other platforms, giving VMware’s solution a significant advantage in complex business computing scenarios. The rest of the field fell prey to their own architectural shortcomings, specifically, their reliance on a separate agent process to manage the virtualization environment. Without exception, this de-coupled model led to higher resource consumption and poorer overall performance than the class-leading ThinApp.
Otherwise, the solutions can be summarized as follows:
ThinApp – Low CPU and memory overhead levels; fastest OfficeBench execution times; good all-around performer.
App-V – High CPU, memory and network overhead levels; second slowest OfficeBench execution times; poor all-around performer.
SVS Pro – Moderate-low CPU but high memory overhead; slowest OfficeBench execution times; poor all-around performer.
XenApp 5 – Moderate CPU and low memory overhead; slow OfficeBench execution times for un-cached test runs; acceptable performer.
