a virtual lab strategic plan
DESCRIPTION
A strategic plan to create an enterprise level virtual lab environment.TRANSCRIPT
BRITISH COLUMIBA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
A Strategic Plan
To Create an Enterprise Level
Virtual Lab Environment
Bill Klug
Instructor
Computing and Academic Studies
November, 2010
1
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank Fraser Robertson for his explanation of the Citrix environment at
BCIT, including hardware and software pricing.
2
Table of Contents
Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 5
Area for Intervention ............................................................................................................... 5
Policies and Programs ............................................................................................................. 6
Strengths .............................................................................................................................. 6
Weaknesses. ......................................................................................................................... 7
Related Work............................................................................................................................... 8
Single Workstations ................................................................................................................. 9
Hosted Applications .............................................................................................................. 13
Virtual Labs ........................................................................................................................... 15
Background ............................................................................................................................... 16
Population .............................................................................................................................. 18
Geographic Location ............................................................................................................. 19
Problems .................................................................................................................................... 20
Hard Drive Space ................................................................................................................... 20
Virtual Machine Deletion ...................................................................................................... 20
Remote Access ...................................................................................................................... 21
Purpose ...................................................................................................................................... 21
Proposed Solutions ................................................................................................................ 22
Estimated Outcome of the Solutions ..................................................................................... 22
Analysis ..................................................................................................................................... 25
Comparable Solutions............................................................................................................ 27
Legal Issues ........................................................................................................................... 31
Ethical Issues ......................................................................................................................... 34
Social Concerns ..................................................................................................................... 35
Theoretical Interests .............................................................................................................. 36
Potential Solutions ................................................................................................................. 37
Prediction of Potential Solutions ........................................................................................... 38
Strategic Plan............................................................................................................................. 38
3
Recommendations ................................................................................................................. 39
USB drive........................................................................................................................... 39
Hard drive .......................................................................................................................... 39
Virtual server environment ................................................................................................ 40
Pressures to Reduce Costs ..................................................................................................... 41
Cost Estimate for Solutions ................................................................................................... 43
Existing workstation configuration .................................................................................... 43
USB drive........................................................................................................................... 44
Hard drive .......................................................................................................................... 45
Virtual server environment ................................................................................................ 45
Citrix Solutions from Related Work ...................................................................................... 51
Non-Citrix Solutions from Related Work ............................................................................. 52
Cost Estimate for Implementation ......................................................................................... 55
USB drive........................................................................................................................... 55
Hard drive .......................................................................................................................... 55
Virtual server environment ................................................................................................ 56
Virtualization Solutions ......................................................................................................... 57
Cost Benefits of Virtualization .............................................................................................. 59
Implementation Plan ................................................................................................................. 62
Mission Statement ................................................................................................................. 63
Vision Statement.................................................................................................................... 63
Future State ............................................................................................................................ 63
Milestones .............................................................................................................................. 63
Timeline ................................................................................................................................. 64
BCIT‟s Five-Year Strategic Plan ........................................................................................... 64
Leadership and Management Actions ................................................................................... 67
“If you build it, they will come” ............................................................................................ 69
Proof-of-Concept Project ....................................................................................................... 71
4
Conclusion ................................................................................................................................. 73
References ................................................................................................................................. 76
5
Introduction
Virtualization technologies are used in teaching computer classes in colleges and
universities in the United States, Europe, and Canada. At the British Columbia Institute of
Technology (BCIT) in Canada, virtualization products, such as VMware Workstation and
Microsoft Virtual Server 2005, are used to teach system administration courses in Linux and
Microsoft Windows Server, and database courses in Oracle. As more instructors within the
School of Computing and Academic Studies at BCIT adopt the use of virtual machines in
teaching their courses, the demands placed on individual lab resources, including hardware,
system configuration, and maintenance, increases.
For an instructor to use virtual machines in their labs, the virtualization product must be
installed on the lab computer. Next, the instructor must create their own virtual machines or use
virtual machines that are provided with a course textbook or related courseware. Finally, the
instructor‟s virtual machines must be installed on each computer in the lab.
Although all of the computers in a lab are usually configured from a single image, the
time required for creating that image has increased in complexity with the use of multiple virtual
machines for a single course. More significantly is the amount of hard drive space required for a
disk image containing multiple virtual machines. The amount of time it takes to distribute a large
disk image over a network to all of the computers in the lab has increased in proportion to the
size of the images.
Area for Intervention
An enterprise-level, virtual server environment can be implemented for hosting the
virtual machines currently installed on the individual workstations in a computing lab. An
6
excellent case study of the virtual computing initiative at North Carolina State University and
North Carolina Central University presents a replicable business model for building a virtual
computing environment (Li, 2009; Schaffer, Averitt, Holt, Peeler, Sills & Vouk, 2009; Seay &
Tucker, 2010; Vouk, 2008; Young, 2008). Instead of installing virtual machines on every
workstation in a lab, multiple instances of the virtual machines reside on a storage area network
(SAN) associated with a virtual server environment. Students have network access to the virtual
machines for their classes and a virtual server management system instantiates an instance of a
virtual machine from the SAN when a student needs to use it.
Policies and Programs
Implementing an enterprise-level virtual server environment for computing courses at
BCIT requires a change in the current delivery model of virtual machines to individual
workstations in computer labs. The Information Technology Services (ITS) department at BCIT
has built an enterprise-level virtual server environment. However, the environment is currently
only configured to host applications, not virtual machines used by instructors for their courses.
The environment can be configured to host virtual machines for the computing labs.
Strengths. Deploying virtual machines for the computing labs through an enterprise-
level virtual server environment has the following strengths or advantages:
1. Instructors will not have to worry about running out of hard drive space for their
virtual machines on lab workstations. This is currently happening.
2. Instructors will not have to worry about virtual machines being accidently deleted
from lab workstations. This is also occurring in the labs.
7
3. Students will not have to purchase Universal Serial Bus (USB) flash drives to backup
their virtual machines. This is necessary because virtual machines are being deleted
from the lab workstations.
4. Instructors will have the flexibility of allowing students to use web browsers on their
own computers for accessing hosted virtual machines. Students will not be required
to use lab workstations to access their virtual machines.
5. ITS will not have to reimage lab workstations each school term (semester) with new
virtual machines.
6. The cost associated with adding new hard drives to lab workstations, to accommodate
more instructors using virtual machines or the size increases of existing virtual
machines, can be eliminated.
Weaknesses. There are weaknesses or disadvantages to deploying virtual machines
through an enterprise-level virtual server environment:
1. Students will lose control of copying and backing up their own virtual machines.
2. Instructors cannot remove a defective virtual machine on a lab workstation and
replace it with a fresh image in real time.
3. There could be performance issues with multiple virtual machines running in a
large, enterprise-level server environment.
4. Instructors may be limited to the size and number of virtual machines they deploy,
contingent upon the virtual server and SAN resources provided by the ITS group.
Instructors using virtual machines to teach courses at BCIT are limited by the resources
available on the individual workstations in each lab. Virtual machines can be accidently and
8
intentionally deleted, resulting in students losing the work they have done on their virtual
machines. It is time consuming to reimage a workstation or reinstall virtual machines on a
workstation when loss of data or corruption occurs. One instructor does not have to compete
with another instructor for limited hard drive space on lab computers for hosting their virtual
machines.
Deploying virtual machines in an enterprise-level, virtual server environment means that
virtual machines do not have to be installed on individual lab workstations at the beginning of
each school term. Virtual machines are not in danger of being deleted from lab workstations.
Virtual deployment of virtual machines means that students can access their virtual machines
remotely. Instructors have more flexibility in how they want to conduct the lab portions of their
classes.
Related Work
Educators and researchers at colleges and universities in the United States and Europe are
using virtualization technologies in three primary methods. The first method is to install virtual
machines on single workstations in a physical lab (Albee, Campbell, Murray, Tongen, & Wolfe,
2007; Bullers, Burd, & Seazzu, 2006; Dobrilović & Odadžić, 2006; Li, 2009; Lunsford, 2009;
Stockman, Nyland, & Weed, 2005; Toppin, 2008; Vollrath & Jenkins, 2004; Yang, 2007). The
second method is to host applications in a an enterprise-level, server environment (Blezard,
2004; Einsmann & Patel, 2007; Kissler & Hoyt, 2005; Schaffer et al., 2009; Seay & Tucker,
2010; Vouk, 2008; Young, 2008; “Wired Brazil”, 2009; White, 2008). The third method is to
host virtual machines in an enterprise-level, virtual server environment (Border, 2007; Burd,
Seazzu, & Conway, 2009; Li, 2009; Rigby & Dark, 2006). The third method is referred to as a
9
virtual lab. Much of this research into the use of virtual machines and virtual labs is being
conducted by educators and researches teaching networking and systems administration courses
(Albee et al., 2007; Border, 2007; Bullers et al., 2006; Dobrilović & Odadžić, 2006; Li, 2010; Li,
Toderick, & Lunsford, 2009; Rigby & Dark, 2006; Stackpole, 2008; Stackpole, Koppe, Haskell,
Guay, & Pan, 2008; Stockman et al., 2005; Vollrath & Jenkins, 2004; Yang, 2007). The author is
also using virtual machines to teach students networking principals and systems administration
courses at BCIT.
Single Workstations
Albee et al. (2007) at Central Michigan University created a student-managed networking
lab for teaching students in the undergraduate Information Technology (IT) program. They
adopted VMware Player to run their virtual machine images. Their motivation for adopting
virtualization technology included a shrinking budget for operating their computing lab,
supporting multiple courses with different operating requirements on a single workstation, and
overcrowding in the networking lab (Albee et al.). The use of virtual machines allowed them to
reduce the number of general-use computers from 200 to 40. They retained 16, course-specific
machines.
Stackpole et al. (2008) used VMware‟s virtualization platform in their 80 workstation lab
at Rochester Institute of Technology for teaching students in the Networking, Security and
Systems Administration Department. In Stackpole et al‟s. (2008) lab, workstations were re-
imaged for each class taught in the lab. Although the imaging process allowed students to save
their own unique copy of their lab exercises, the time to save and restore a workstation could
consume up to half of a lab period (Stackpole, et al.) In addition to the imaging time, Stackpole
10
et al. experienced problems with managing the operating system images for each workstation as
well. The ability to uniquely configure the hardware reduced both the utilization and efficiency
of the lab. Lastly, computer resource utilization suffered: one machine was only running one
operating system. Stackpole et al. found that virtualization was the solution to their four
problems.
Vollrath and Jenkins (2004) used virtual machines at East Tennessee State University to
teach 60 students each semester in a course System Administration course. Like BCIT, both
Linux and Windows operating systems were taught in the System Administration course.
Vollrath and Jenkins decision to use virtual machines was motivated by four problems, the most
significant being that students did not have access to a dedicated lab machine to do their lab
exercises. (Students do not have dedicated lab computers at BCIT.) Other problems included
group assignments, which required a team of students to be in the lab a specific time, getting lab
assistants to check off students assignments during lab periods, and the grading of hands-on
examinations during a lab period. To solve these problems, Vollrath and Jenkins chose to
implement virtual machines running under Microsoft‟s Virtual PC platform.
Yang (2007) used virtual machines to teach a network administration at the University of
West Georgia. Yang used multiple virtual machines running in a Microsoft Virtual PC
environment. The Virtual PC technology allowed Yang to bypass the resource limitations of
setting “aside some specific computers, network devices, and lab space just for one or two
courses” (p. 138). Using virtualization allowed the university to reduce costs and achieve more
flexible lab access. Students could access the virtual machines from any computer in the lab. In
addition, students were given 24x7 physical access to the computer labs.
11
Bullers et al. (2006) taught courses in network administration, database administration,
and information security and assurance at University of New Mexico. Prior to implementing
virtualization, workstations were partitioned for each class. This required lengthy reboots
between classes. Bullers et al. found that lab computers using virtualization were not
compromised by worms or viruses, each virtual machine could be individually configured, and
the VMware restore facility allowed students to recover from errors. Implementing virtual
machines using VMware Workstation on the individual machines in the lab allowed them to
create complex lab exercises for their courses and eliminated system reboots.
Stockman et al. (2005) taught networking and system administration courses at the
University of Cincinnati. The storage and delivery of virtual machine images became a problem
because the file sizes exceeded “the capacity of removable media formats (floppy, CD-R, Zip,
flash drives)” (p. 4). This created problems with the usability, management, and backup of the
virtual machines. Stockman et al. sought solutions to these problems through the use of a
network attached storage device that delivered the virtual machines to lab client systems when
requested by a student.
Dobrilović and Odadžić (2006) used virtual machines to teach computer networks course
at University of Novi Sad in Serbia and Montenegro. Dobrilović and Odadžić needed a “low-
cost and easy-to-use solution” to sharing computers in a “real computer laboratory” used for
several other courses (p. 128). Virtual machines were that solution; they were installed on every
single workstation in the physical computer lab.
Li (2009) found that physical labs at East Carolina University were “costly to build,
maintain and expand” (p. 4). The challenge was to “deliver remote hands-on laboratory courses
12
efficiently and effectively with the limited budget.” (p. 4). Budget constraints also limited their
ability to upgrade physical labs with the latest technologies. Lab hours where limited for all
students. This had a negative impact, especially on students who didn‟t complete their labs in the
allotted lab time (two hours, like BCIT). To solve these problems, Li introduced a decentralized
lab model in 2006. Under this model, “virtual machines were installed and the hands-on
exercises were performed on the student‟s personal computer” (p. 4), not on lab servers or
campus machines.
Toppin (2008) took a similar approach at Winston-Salem State University to what Li
(2009) did, whereby students installed virtual machines on their personal computers. Toppin
built a server for the purpose of hosting the virtual machines used in his networking course.
Students logged into the server remotely and downloaded virtual machines bearing their name
(Toppin). Students were also able to download VMware Server, the virtual machine hosting
environment required to run the virtual machines. Toppin found that students had more control
of their laboratory assignments if they used virtual machines. Toppin‟s approach was to create a
remote model for his networking course so that students did not have to be on-campus to take his
course.
Lunsford (2009) used virtual machines to teach an information systems security course in
a computer lab at the University of Southern Mississippi. Each student was responsible for
creating their own virtual machine using VMware Workstation. The students installed Microsoft
Windows XP Service Pack 1 on the virtual machine. Lunsford found challenges with this
approach. These challenges included “the students‟ lack of experience using virtual machines,
educator control over students‟ virtual machines, … disk space and machine requirements, and
13
the ability to make regular backups of virtual machines” (p. 345). Although the author at BCIT
provides the virtual machines for his courses to his students, he faces many of the same problems
as Lunsford, including sufficient disk space and no ability backup virtual machines.
Hosted Applications
Researchers and students at Virginia Commonwealth University wanted access to
licensed copies of mathematical and statistical software (Einsmann & Patel, 2007). In addition,
they wanted the software to run from any location on a variety of platforms, including Windows,
Mac, and Linux. However, the cost of individual licenses of the software, for all of the
researchers and students who wanted the software, was prohibitive for a campus-wide site
license. Instead, the Department of Technology Services created a virtual application hosting
environment called „app2go.‟ Researchers and students could access a variety of third party
applications, including mathematical and statistical software, from a variety of web browsers on
Windows, Mac, Linux, and UNIX platforms. Software licensing was then based on the number
of concurrent users instead of a per seat (workstation) basis. This reduced licensing costs.
At the University of West Florida (White, 2008), reductions in state university budgets
placed pressures on the operation of physical computer labs. The only computing facility on
campus that was open 24x7 had its operating hours cut in half (White). Open access to the lab
on weekends and at night was canceled (White). In response to the cost cutting, the university
launched an „eDesktop‟ virtual computer lab in September of 2007. The purpose of eDesktop
was to provide licensed software to all students, including distance learners, reduce software
costs, and reduce the costs of maintaining physical computer labs. White notes that “students
14
who need access to specialized software could spend on the order of $3,000 [USD] or $4,000 or
more throughout their academic career” (p. 77).1
In 2004, North Carolina State University created a virtual computing lab (Li, 2009;
Schaffer et al., 2009; Seay & Tucker, 2010; Vouk, 2008; Young, 2008). The purpose of the lab
was to provide “on-demand applications anywhere/anytime” (Seay & Tucker, p. 75). Software
images or virtualized applications were installed onto blade servers in the computing lab‟s data
center. Virtualization allowed students, faculty and staff, using a web browser, access “to dozens
of desktop applications anywhere/anytime” (Seay & Tucker, p. 77).
Kissler and Hoyt (2005), at Valparaiso University, sought to reduce IT costs associated
with computer hardware and staff time related to deploying, maintaining, and supporting
workstations and users. The university deployed thin clients to reduce complexity and cost.
Applications were stored on a central server and thin-client devices, much lower in cost than an
individual workstation, were installed to allow users to access to applications over the campus
network.
Blezard (2004), at University of New Hampshire, was motivated to reduce the total cost
of ownership for computer services by lowering client hardware and management costs. Like
Kissler and Hoyt (2005), Blezard implemented thin-client technologies. All applications, such as
Microsoft Word and Excel, were hosted on a single server. Blezard used Microsoft‟s Terminal
Services to allow users to access the applications within a Windows desktop environment.
1 Monetary amounts are noted in either Canadian dollars (CDN) or United States dollars (USD). Only the first
amount in each paragraph identifies the currency. All other amounts in the paragraph are in the same currency.
15
Students in Brazil used virtualized desktops (“Wired Brazil”, 2009). A hosted, virtual
environment allowed one computer to deploy virtual desktops to 10 workstations (“Wired
Brazil”, p. 13). A total of 18,750 workstations were configured using the virtual desktop model,
saving “60 percent in upfront costs” (“Wired Brazil”, p. 13).
Virtual Labs
Border (2007) taught networking, security, and systems administration classes at
Rochester Institute of Technology. He wanted to provide distance students the same
opportunities that local students had with access to physical labs. He also wanted to avoid
assigning a single workstation to a single student. Border developed a virtual lab environment
running multiple virtual machines configured with different versions of Microsoft Windows and
Linux operating systems. The virtual lab environment allowed students to configure different
network configurations and topologies. More importantly, the virtual lab environment allowed
remote access to the virtual machines for distance students.
Rigby and Dark (2006) recognized a significant increase in students enrolled in distance
learning. They also recognized the difficulty of offering hands-on lab experiences to distance
learners. Rigby and Dark implemented a virtual remote lab for networking students and
operating system courses at Purdue University and Brigham Young University -Idaho. They
used virtual machines hosted on remote lab servers. They found that use of the remote labs
lowered costs and increased lab utilization between courses.
In 2009, Li (2009) and Li et al. (2009) introduced an option to the decentralized lab
model created in 2006. Li et al. allowed students access to the Virtual Computing Lab (VCL) at
North Carolina State University (Vouk, 2008). Initially, the VCL was used as a place students
16
could back up their virtual machines. Later, in 2009, students were given the opportunity to do
all of their assignments using the VCL. (The VCL hosted their virtual machines and students
were allowed remote access.) Li et al. found this model to be “a cost-effective way of delivering
remote labs efficiently” (p. 56).
Stackpole (2008) discussed the evolution of his virtualized lab environment (Stackpole et
al., 2008) to create a remote laboratory system to enable distance learning techniques. Stackpole
piloted a virtual lab based on operating a successful physical teaching lab. The evolution from
the physical lab to the virtual lab was motivated by the cost of maintaining a physical lab,
increasing the availability of the virtualized lab environment, improving computer performance,
and community outreach (Stackpole). Between 2005 and 2008, Stackpole successfully piloted
the remote virtual lab environment.
Burd et al. (2009) created a virtual lab at the University of New Mexico as part of an
“initiative to incorporate mobile computing throughout the curriculum” (p. IIP – 55). The lab
was designed to allow students remote access to school computing resources and applications,
including software that was installed in physical labs. The development of the virtual lab was
also driven by concerns for lab accessibility and the costs associated with supporting in-class
computer use (Burd et al.).
Background
The school of computing at BCIT has 12 labs with an average of 25 workstations in each
lab. The courses taught in the SE12-306 (building-room) lab use virtual machines extensively for
hands-on exercises. Virtual machines are used to teach system administration courses in Linux
17
and Microsoft Windows Server, and two database courses in Oracle. A total of five sections of
the Oracle courses are taught during the day and at night.
Virtual machines used in the computing labs at BCIT range in size from five gigabytes
(GB) to 50GB. The use of virtual machines in the SE12-306 increased in 2008 when virtual
machines were introduced for the lab exercises in the Windows Server system administration
class. The introduction of an additional 100GB of virtual machines (two sections of classes at
50GB each) approached the capacity limits of the 135GB partition on the lab‟s workstations.
In 2010, a new version of Oracle, 11g, was introduced. (The prior version of Oracle used
was 10g.) This caused the size of the virtual machines for the Oracle classes to increase.
(Currently, the five Oracle virtual machines used in SE12-306 occupy 80GB of disk space.) The
cumulative total of all of the virtual machines used to teach courses in SE12-306 exceeded the
capacity of the hard drive partitions of the workstations. One set of virtual machines used to
teach one section of the Windows Server system administration class had to be deleted. (Each
student is assigned their own set of virtual machines on a workstation.) Students in the system
administration class had to work in teams of two, with one section assigned to odd-numbered
workstations and the other section assigned to even-numbered workstations. This remains a
problem heading into the January, 2011, term.
Toppin (2008) argues that the benefits of using virtual machines “far outweigh the
disadvantages” (p. 16). The use of virtual machines allows students to manage more servers and
clients than in a physical lab (Toppin). The use of virtual machines also allows students more
flexibility for completing their laboratory assignments outside of regularly scheduled laboratory
classes (Toppin).
18
Terris (2010) notes that “more than 11% of colleges and universities are phasing out
computer laboratories or plan to do so” (p. 21). Laboratories are being replaced by virtual
environments or multi-purpose computer rooms (Terris). A major reason for this shift is the fact
that 83% of students in four-year colleges own laptops (Terris). Burd et al. (2009) note,
however, that the rise in laptop ownership among students “has not eliminated the need for
campus computing laboratories” (p. IIP – 56).
Population
The School of Computing and Academic Studies at BCIT offers two, two-year diploma
programs for post-secondary students pursuing careers in information technology. The
Computer Systems Technology (CST) program is geared towards students interested in
becoming software developers or system engineers. The Computer Information Technology
(CIT) program is designed for students interested in IT systems management and administration
jobs.
The CST program enrolls approximately 115 students each year. The CIT program
enrolls a maximum of 46. The students are divided into sets (cohorts). In the case of the CST
program, sets are based on students selecting an option (major), such as digital processing or data
communications. For the CIT program, there are no options. Students are divided into two
balanced sets by enrolment numbers. Students in both programs remain in their sets for the full,
two year sequence of courses.
Students in the CST program have dedicated laboratories for their options. Because the
CIT students are not in options, they do not have dedicated laboratories. However, many of the
computing classes for the CIT students are staged and delivered in the SE12-306 lab. The
19
problems with the virtual machines have a direct impact on the 46 students in the CIT program
using the SE12-306 lab.
All classes in the CST and CIT programs consist of a lecture section and a lab section.
Classes are worth different credits. The number of credits determines the number of hours of
lecture and lab the student attends for that course each week. For example, the four credit course
in „System Administration using Linux‟ consists of two hours of lecture and two hours of lab
each week. The five credit course in „Operating Systems‟ consists of three hours of lecture and
two hours of lab. Because of this lecture-lab course structure, laboratories, like SE12-306, are
booked with classes from five to ten hours a day when school is in session. The labs are open
when not in use by a scheduled course.
BCIT also offers computing courses through its part-time studies program. Students can
take one or more courses in the evening and on weekends. For example, BCIT offers an evening
course in using the Oracle database system. This course is offered in the SE12-306 lab. The
students in the Oracle class use virtual machines. These virtual machines are stored on the same
hard drive partition as the virtual machines used during the day time classes. Therefore, students
taking part-time, evening classes in SE12-306 face the same risks to their virtual machines as day
time students.
Geographic Location
BCIT is located in Burnaby, British Columbia, Canada. (Burnaby is a contiguous city
with Vancouver.) BCIT is a public, post-secondary institution with approximately 16,000 full-
time and 31,000 part-time students attending on an annual basis. BCIT offers a wide range of
20
certificates, diplomas, and degrees in a variety of disciplines. In addition, BCIT students
commute to campus. There is limited on-campus housing for international students.
Problems
There are three major problems with using virtual machines on the workstations in the
SE12-306 computing lab: (a) the size of the virtual machines exceeding the available hard drive
space, (b) virtual machines being deleted, and (c) students are unable to perform lab exercises on
the virtual machines outside of the physical lab.
Hard Drive Space
Instructors within the School of Computing and Academic Studies at BCIT, who use
virtual machines in the lab sections of their courses, want to expand the number and size of the
virtual machines. Between January, 2008, and August, 2010, the number of instructors using
virtual machines in SE12-306, increased from one to five. In the same period of time, the total
size the virtual machines used in this lab increased to between 105GBs and 135GBs. The total
size approached -- and exceeded -- the 135GB capacity of the hard drive partition on the
workstation.
Virtual machines used for teaching the Oracle courses expand as activities are performed
on them. In February, 2010, the total size of all of the virtual machines expanded to exceed the
capacity of the hard drive‟s partition. Virtual machines for a non-database course were deleted
and students had to work in teams on a different set of virtual machines.
Virtual Machine Deletion
Virtual machines can be accidently or intentionally deleted. Although the hard drives on
the workstations do not have to be reimaged, the virtual machines do have to be replaced with a
21
new copy of the virtual machine. If replacement occurs in the middle of a term, a student loses
all of the work they have performed on the virtual machine that was deleted. In these situations,
the instructor usually asks the student to team with another student so they don‟t have to repeat
prior labs or bring a new virtual machine current.
Changing the password on the operating system used to create the virtual machine makes
the virtual machine inaccessible by other students. Students are not assigned their own
workstation in the lab, but they are encouraged to use the same workstation when they are using
the lab. A student‟s username and password can be used to access any workstation in any of the
12 computing labs. In situations where the password has changed or the student has forgotten
the password to a modified virtual machine, the virtual machine must be replaced or the student
is asked to work in a team with another student at a different workstation.
Remote Access
Students and instructors do not have remote access the virtual machines used in the lab.
Students must either complete lab exercises during their assigned lab period or complete their lab
exercises during open lab hours. Students are allowed to use their own laptops for doing lab
exercises. However, not every student with a laptop wants to install the virtual machine
environment, like VMware Workstation, and the virtual machines. Like a workstation in the lab,
their laptop may not have enough hard drive space for a virtual machine and its expansion.
Purpose
At the BCIT, instructors using virtual machines to teach the lab sections of their courses
in SE12-306 are having problems with virtual machines exceeding the capacity of the
workstation hard drives and virtual machines being accidently or intentionally deleted. When
22
passwords are intentionally changed on virtual machines, preventing further access, the virtual
machines must be reinstalled. Because there is no remote access to virtual machines in SE12-
306, it is difficult for students to work on lab assignments outside of classroom hours.
Proposed Solutions
There are several possible solutions to the problems instructors and students are having in
SE12-306 with virtual machines exceeding the capacity of the workstation hard drives, virtual
machines being deleted, and the desire for remote access to lab virtual machines. One solution is
for students to purchase USB drives. The USB drive could be used as a backup device. The USB
drive could also be used as the primary storage unit for the student‟s virtual machines instead of
the hard drive partition on the lab‟s workstation.
A second solution is for BCIT to purchase and install larger hard drives on the
workstations in SE12-306. This solution would allow instructors to use more and larger virtual
machines. Larger hard drives would prevent instructors from having to compete for limited disk
space on the hard drive partitions.
A third solution is to host the virtual machines in an enterprise-level, virtual server
environment. Virtual machines would not be installed and stored on the hard drives of the
workstations in the lab. Instead, virtual machines would be stored on the SAN associated with
the virtual server environment. Students could access the virtual machines both from a lab
workstation and remotely, using their own computer.
Estimated Outcome of the Solutions
The author‟s review of the use of virtualization technologies by educators and researchers
at colleges and universities in the United States and Europe found three, primary methods in use:
23
(a) installing virtual machines on single workstations in a physical lab, (b) hosting applications in
an enterprise-level, server environment, and (c) hosting virtual machines in a virtual server
environment. Educators teaching networking and systems administration courses have used
virtual machines with all three methods. Some educators are moving their workstation-based
virtual machines to hosted, virtual server environments.
After creating a decentralized lab model, in 2006, in which students ran virtual machines
on their personal computers, Li et al. (2009), in 2008, experimented with hosting the virtual
machines for three different classes using the Virtual Computing Lab (VCL) at North Carolina
State University (Vouk, 2008) Sixty-one students participated in the experiment. Twenty
students lived on campus and 41 were distance education or online students. Li et al. found that
the centralized remote lab model (i.e. the VCL) was flexible and efficient. It allowed faculty and
students 24/7 remote access and extended the boundaries of learning to students to study
anywhere at their pace. In a 2006 survey, when use of the VCL was optional, a majority of
students (89%) preferred decentralized model (Li, 2009). However, the main argument against
the VCL, at the time, was the need for an Internet connection (Li, 2009). Students found that use
of the VCL meant using fewer resources on their own computers (Li, 2009).
Stackpole (2008) piloted a remotely accessible, virtual lab environment in the fall of 2005
at Rochester Institute of Technology. The costs of maintaining a physical lab included the
physical space for the lab, heating and cooling, electricity, furniture, et cetera. There was labor
costs associated with maintaining the lab and lab equipment, after-hours security costs, et cetera.
Students did not have access to labs 24x7. This limited the students‟ ability to complete their lab
exercises during open lab periods. The performance of the machines in the physical lab was
24
affected by the fact that they were always one to two years behind the state-of-the art technology.
The virtual lab started as a proof-of-concept project, but it evolved into a useful and exciting
platform for students and faculty (Stackpole, 2008).
Stackpole (2008) was able to use ten, high-end workstations at no cost. The approximate
configuration of the workstations was a 2.5GHz CPU, 2GB of RAM, an 80GB hard drive, and a
100base-T Ethernet connection. Microsoft Windows XP was installed as the host operating
system and VMware Workstation as the virtualization platform. Appropriate licenses were
available to the institute. VMware allowed a group of virtual machines to be created on each
workstation. One machine was assigned to one student during the pilot project. Students
connected to the machine using Remote Desktop.
Stackpole (2008) ran a second pilot during the winter quarter (term). After the first pilot,
the operating systems on the workstations were changed to Windows Server 2003 with Microsoft
Terminal Services. This allowed central administration of the workstations using Active
Directory. Twenty students were assigned to the second pilot and more than one student was
allowed simultaneous access to the virtual machines on a workstation. This caused a problem
because each student could allocate all of the available memory to their single session.
After a third pilot in the spring quarter, Stackpole (2008) obtained access to “a number of
blades” in a fully populated IBM blade server (p. 246). The blade server was attached to a SAN.
The plan was to use VMware Workstation and a Windows infrastructure. However, “the blade
server was not as economical a solution in terms of the number of VMs that could be supported”
(Stackpole, p. 246).
25
Stackpole (2008) noted that smaller institutions could not afford to build a similar virtual
lab infrastructure. As of 2008, Rochester Institute of Technology was working with other
colleges to help them develop virtual labs that could use their infrastructure. In August of 2008,
the original, ten workstation, virtual lab environment was decommissioned. It was replaced by a
“four SunFire servers and a NetApp SAN” (p. 247). Stackpole expects that instructors‟
coursework will continue to migrate to the new platform.
Stockman et al. (2005) solved problems related to the storage and delivery of virtual
machines to client workstations in a physical lab. In 2005, the authors began researching
extending the students‟ mobility (Stockman et al.). Mobility would be extended by allowing
students remote access to the virtual machines stored on a cluster of servers (Stockman et al.).
BCIT currently employs two of the three primary methods for using virtualization
technologies. The author uses virtual machines on single workstations in the SE12-306 physical
lab for teaching system administration courses in Linux and Windows Server. In September,
2010, BCIT launched the AppsAnywhere Project. The AppsAnywhere service hosts
applications from a virtual server environment, like app2go (Einsmann & Patel, 2007), eDesktop
(White, 2008), and the Virtual Computing Lab (Li, 2009; Schaffer et al., 2009; Seay & Tucker,
2010; Vouk, 2008; Young, 2008). The author is researching hosting the virtual machines used in
the SE12-306 on the Citrix-based, virtual server environment used for the AppsAnywhere
Project.
Analysis
There are three possible solutions to the problems related to virtual machines in the
SE12-306 lab at BCIT: (a) students purchase USB drives, (b) install larger hard drives in the lab
26
workstations, and (c) host virtual machines in an enterprise-level, virtual server environment.
The solutions and the likelihood of each solution to resolve the problems are presented in Table
1. The solutions are considered to be the key success factors (KSFs) to solving the problems with
the virtual machines in SE12-306.
All three solutions provide increased storage space for the expanded use of virtual
machines by instructors in SE12-306. The three solutions also allow for the increase in size of
virtual machines that are used for database courses. Neither the use of USB drives nor the
installation of larger hard drives on the lab‟s workstations prevent deletion of virtual machines or
allow for remote access. Using an enterprise-level, virtual server environment provides a
solution for all three problems. However, the fact that one solution meets all of the solution
criteria is necessary, but not sufficient, to be selected as the final solution. Other factors, such as
cost and access to BCIT Information Technology Services‟ resources, need to be examined.
Table 1
Comparison of KSFs for the virtual machines in SE12-306
Solution
Prevents deletion
of virtual machines
Increases storage
space for virtual
machines
Allows for
remote access
Students purchase
USB drives
No Yes No
Install larger hard
drives on lab
workstations
No Yes No
Host virtual machines
in an enterprise-level,
virtual server
environment
Yes Yes Yes
27
Comparable Solutions
Stockman et al. (2005) recognized the problems of virtual machines stored on a local
computer. The size of the virtual machines “regularly exceed the capacity of removable media
formats” on local computers (p. 4). Students were restricted to using a single lab workstation
during normal lab periods. If another student was using the workstation during an open lab
period, the student was not able to continue their lab assignment. These problems are similar to
those occurring at BCIT. Stockman et al. also recognized that hard drives on workstations using
virtual machines must be sufficient to allow for backups of each student‟s virtual machine
images. (BCIT does not provide for backup space on the existing workstations.)
Stockman et al.‟s (2005) lab consisted of 18 host systems. Nine courses were taught in
the lab, equating “to 12-20 two hour lab sections per quarter” (p. 4). Each host system had
150GB of storage to accommodate virtual machines ranging in size from 2-6GB. Instructors
used between one to eight virtual machines in each course.
One alterative proposed by Stockman et al. (2005) was to have students purchase a USB
flash drive. A 20GB could be purchased from $100 USD to $200. They recognized that not
every student could afford to purchase an external hard drive. They also thought this might
violate computing policies at some institutions. In particular, if the flash drive was required for
the course, it should be provided by the school.
Another alterative proposed by Stockman et al. (2005) was to use network attached
storage. A student would copy their virtual machine image from a file server to the local
workstation. When the student finished their lab work, they would copy the image back to the
network attached storage device. However, Stockman et al. mentioned that it was unknown the
28
impact the simultaneous copying of upwards of 24 images would have on the Ethernet network
capacity or the file server.
The final alternative proposed by Stockman et al. (2005) was to have students access
their virtual machines on the file server from a lab workstation without copying the image over
the network. The authors monitored the performance of the network and the file server when
students were accessing the virtual machines. Stockman et al. were encouraged by a positive
performance and planned to do a formal trial in the summer of 2005.
Border (2007) wanted to provide remote access to distance learners so they could do the
same lab exercises as students using the physical labs. Border installed virtual machines on a
network-based storage system. The system consisted of two, 3.4 GHz CPU servers, each with
2GB of RAM and two hard drives. Each hard drive consisted of a 40GB partition for the local
operating system and 300GB for student images. Each virtual machine was assigned to a four
GB virtual partition within the 300GB space.
The remote access architecture used Microsoft Windows Terminal Services, Microsoft
Remote Desktop, and Microsoft Remote Assistance (Border, 2007). Active Directory was used
for student authentication (Border). Server virtualization for the virtual machines was done
using VMware Workstation (Border).
Border (2007) conducted a case study of this model using 16 students. Each student was
assigned to a particular server. However, not all of the students could have simultaneous access
to their assigned server. Students could log into the server and “check to see who else was logged
into the system” (Border, p. 579). If students felt the server was too busy, they had to log off and
try again later (Border).
29
Border‟s (2007) case study covered a one year period (2005). He planned to migrate to a
Xen open source virtual server because of a more favorable licensing model. His plan also
included moving the virtual machines to a blade server and SAN architecture.
Rigby and Dark (2006) also created a remote lab environment using virtual machines. A
typical firewall lab consisted of three virtual machines. Using a web browser or remote desktop
software, students created a virtual private network (VPN) to a terminal server. A RADIUS
server provided authentication. VMware was used for running the virtual machines.
Similar to Border (2007), every student could not be granted simultaneous access to the
virtual remote lab (Rigby & Dark, 2006). A key success factor to the operation of the remote lab
was a mechanism that allowed students to schedule a time to perform their lab. When the time
came to access the remote lab, the student connected to the VPN server and did their lab.
Bullers et al. (2006) taught a database class using virtual machines. The virtual machine
consisted of Oracle 10g under Microsoft Windows XP Professional. Since 2007, BCIT has
taught Oracle classes using virtual machines. Up until 2010, the virtual machine consisted of
Oracle 10g running under CentOS Linux distribution. Bullers et al. found, like the author, that
the number and size of virtual machine images made backup of problematic because of lack of
adequate storage space on the lab computer hard drives.
Vollrath and Jenkins (2004) required each student to purchase a removable hard drive.
The hard drive could be „plugged‟ into the workstation‟s hard drive bay and the system rebooted.
The removable hard drives were placed in storage when the student was not in the lab. Each
hard drive was fully configured with the operating systems and virtual machines the students
needed for their course. BCIT has a removable hard drive system in place at one of its labs at its
30
downtown, Vancouver campus, but not in the computing labs at its Burnaby campus. Use of a
removable device does not prevent deletion of virtual machines or allow for remote access.
Dobrilović and Odadžić (2006) used virtual machines for teaching a computer networks
course. The design of Dobrilović‟s and Odadžić‟s laboratory was similar to the design of the
SE12-306 laboratory at BCIT. Dobrilović and Odadžić created a base or „formed‟ virtual
machine on a single personal computer (PC) and copied it to all of the other computers in the
classroom. Dobrilović and Odadžić state that “it was obligatory to install and start-up all virtual
machines on every single PC in the real computer laboratory” (p. 128). Dobrilović and Odadžić
did not say whether or not they had problems with virtual machines being deleted from computer
PCs. However, the author of this paper believes Dobrilović and Odadžić faced the same risk.
The Virtual Computing Lab at North Carolina Central University (NCCU) was a campus-
wide initiative designed to provide a hosted, virtual server environment to all groups within the
university (Seay & Tucker, 2010). Any department at NCCU could ask the virtual computing
lab to host their applications. In early 2006, the program was piloted with the hosting of the Web
MO molecular analysis program of the chemistry department (Seay & Tucker). Commenting on
the NCCU virtual computing lab initiative, Young (2008) noted that “students spend more time
using specialized applications than they used to” (p. 1).
After the initial deployment at NCCU, applications from the School of Business and the
School of Library and Information Sciences were hosted by the virtual computing lab (Seay &
Tucker, 2010). The entire university was given access to the services of the virtual computing
lab in the summer of 2006 (Seay & Tucker). The virtual computing lab environment has proven
to be reliable and performance is positive (Seay & Tucker).
31
Legal Issues
The legal issues relevant to the problems and solutions of the use of virtual machines in
SE12-306 at BCIT pertain to the software licensing of operating systems and applications
installed in a virtual machine. Instructors at BCIT, who deploy virtual machines in SE12-306,
are using two different server virtualization software products: VMware Workstation and
Microsoft Virtual Server 2005. BCIT licenses VMware Workstation and Microsoft Virtual
Server is a free, stand-alone product that can be downloaded from the Internet. The choice of the
operating system used to build a virtual machine and the applications installed in the operating
system determines the licensing requirements.
Microsoft operating systems, such as Windows XP, Windows 7, and Windows Server
2008, require licenses. Each instance of one of these operating systems requires a license. For
example, the author has built one virtual machine that contains three instances of Windows
Server 2008 and two instances of Windows 7. All five instances within the single virtual
machine require a license.
The SE12-306 laboratory has 24 workstations. When the author teaches a course in
Enterprise System Administration, there are two laboratory sections of the course. Therefore,
two sets of the Windows-based virtual machines are deployed to each workstation. This
translates into a total of 240, Microsoft operating systems licenses.
BCIT has a volume licensing agreement with Microsoft. This agreement is referred to as
the Microsoft Developers Network Academic Alliance (MSDNAA). BCIT uses a Key
Management Service server to generate a product activation key for each of the 240 instances of
the Microsoft operating systems in the SE12-306 lab.
32
The author and other instructors using the SE12-306 laboratory also build virtual
machines using different distributions of the Linux operating system. Instructors choose
distributions of the Linux operating system that are free and open source. Only applications,
such as the Oracle Database 11g, installed in the Linux operating system, require licensing
agreements with the manufacturer. (An Oracle license for Linux is less expensive than a license
for Windows XP or Windows 7.)
Application and operating system licensing also applies to virtual machines deployed in
an enterprise-level, virtual server environment (Microsoft Corporation, 2008, 2009a, 2009b,
2010). McAuley (2005), when discussing the Xen virtual server, noted that the use of proprietary
operating systems within virtual machines raised licensing issues. Toppin (2008) discussed the
debate between VMware, Inc. and Microsoft regarding the licensing of Windows operating
systems used with VMware servers. Shankland (2007) noted that Windows server licenses can
only be moved from one machine to another every 90 days. This creates licensing complexities
when virtual machines may move from one server to another on a daily basis. In addition,
Microsoft placed restrictions on which operating systems can be virtualized, particularly with the
Vista operating system (Chu, 2006).
The virtual computing lab at North Carolina State University (NCSU) was a campus-
wide initiative designed to provide a hosted, virtual server environment to all groups within the
university (Seay & Tucker, 2010). Even though the university had a licensing agreement to use
the Red Hat Enterprise license distribution of Linux, the people at the virtual computing lab
“could not get clarity as to how [they] might properly use the license for [their] installation” (p.
79). Instead, they chose a free version of Linux, SuSE 10.1, distributed by Novell. Regarding
33
the installation and use of other applications, Seay and Tucker did not find licensing to be a
major hurdle.
Burd et al. (2009) also implemented a virtual computing laboratory at the University of
New Mexico. The design of this laboratory was similar to that of the virtual computing lab at
NCCU (Seay & Tucker, 2010). Burd et al. noted that “the school had current site licenses for all
required software” (p. IIP-60). They also found that with some applications removing them from
workstations in a physical laboratory and moving them to a virtual laboratory reduced licensing
costs.
Dobrilović and Odadžić (2006) used virtual machines for teaching a computer networks
course. The design of Dobrilović‟s and Odadžić‟s laboratory was similar to the design of the
SE12-306 laboratory at BCIT. The workstations in their laboratories ran the Microsoft Windows
XP operating system. Dobrilović and Odadžić chose Microsoft Virtual PC 2004 as their virtual
server environment for licensing reasons, instead of VMware. (Dobrilović and Odadžić did not
explain the nature of the licensing issues.) They built their virtual machines using several
different Linux distributions.
The University of Cincinnati‟s academic licensing agreement with Microsoft allowed
Stockman et al. (2005) to use the Microsoft Virtual PC platform on the lab machines. The guest
operating systems used in the virtual machines was Windows Server 2003 as well as the host
operating systems. Both were permitted under their licensing agreement with Microsoft.
Like BCIT, Vollrath and Jenkins (2004) had a MSDNAA agreement for their department.
This allowed them to use Microsoft Virtual PC and multiple instances of Microsoft operating
34
systems in their virtual machines. Vollrath and Jenkins noted that departments at other colleges
and universities “may find virtualization packages expensive” (p. 292).
The use of a USB drive to host or store copies of virtual machines poses a potential
licensing issue if the virtual machines are copied from the USB drive to a computer outside the
SE12-306 laboratory. When a Microsoft operating system is licensed using a product activation
key over the Internet, unique information, such as the network interface card number of the
computer and other system information, is transmitted and registered with Microsoft. In other
words, the licensing of the operating system is specific to the computer to which the operating
system is installed. Using the virtual machine containing the Microsoft operating system on a
different computer violates Microsoft licensing agreements (Microsoft Corporation, 2008, 2009a,
2009b, 2010). Because the activation is unique to the SE12-306 workstation‟s system
information, it is possible the operating systems within the virtual machine may not operate
properly if transferred to a different computer. This is an area of research the author intends to
investigate.
Ethical Issues
Students are not required to purchase USB drives for courses they take at BCIT. As more
instructors use virtual machines as part of their instructional delivery, the instructors are asking
students to purchase USB drives. Instructors do this because they realize that virtual machines
do get deleted from the hard drive partition on the workstations in the lab. They also realize that
the hard drive partitions have limited capacity for virtual machines to increase in size over the
course of a term.
35
Requiring the purchasing of a USB drive is not mentioned in course outlines as a required
item for the courses taught at BCIT. Students are not given USB drives as part of their
enrollment or course fees at BCIT. Is it fair to ask students to purchase USB drives when the
problems related to virtual machines in the SE12-306 laboratory could be solved by installing
larger hard drives in the laboratory workstations or hosting virtual machines in an enterprise-
level, virtual server environment? Stockman et al. (2005) have already noted that this might
violate computing policies at some institutions.
Social Concerns
The problems with the virtual machines in the SE12-306 lab are an important social
concern because of student behavior. Virtual machines are stored on a hard drive partition that is
accessible by any student who has access to the lab. This includes both day-time and night-time
students. The hard drive partition has read, write and execute privileges to allow virtual
machines to grow in size for database courses and to allow temporary storage for student files.
Students are not assigned their own workstation in the lab. They are free to use any
workstation during both their scheduled lab period and open lab hours. Therefore, they can
access the hard drive partition on any workstation in the lab.
Students‟ use of the labs is based on BCIT‟s Information Management policies and
mutual respect. Mutual respect means the students are not supposed to delete the virtual
machines on the workstations nor change the passwords on the virtual machines. Sometimes
students change the passwords on a virtual machine to prevent other students from using the
virtual machine on a particular workstation, forcing the other students to use a different
workstations.
36
Deleting virtual machines or changing their passwords on virtual machines has a direct
impact on an instructor‟s time. Usually a virtual machine deletion or password change is not
discovered until a class begins. This can cause a delay in starting the class if the instructor must
reinstall a new virtual machine.
For the courses taught in SE12-306 that use virtual machines, the work performed on a
virtual machine over the time span of the term is progressive. If a virtual machine must be
reinstalled on a workstation, then the student is put in a position of having to redo all prior work
to date. In most cases, this is not practical and the affected student ends up having to work with
another student, as a team, on another workstation.
The problems with the virtual machines also impact the personal interactions of the
different instructors using the lab. Some instructors teach database courses. The size of the
virtual machines for those courses increases as data is added, backups are performed, et cetera.
It is possible that the size of those virtual machines increases to the point where there is no
available space on the hard drive partition of the workstations. A decision has to be made to
delete virtual machines for instructors who are not teaching database courses. This is not a
practical solution.
Theoretical Interests
These problems have theoretical interests because of the increasing use of virtualization
technologies used to teach computing courses in colleges and universities. Virtualization has
allowed colleges, like BCIT, to optimize the use of their labs. For example, the author has been
able to teach operating system courses in Linux, Windows Vista, Windows 7, and Windows
Server 2008 using virtual machines on a single workstation running Windows XP and Windows
37
7. This was reduced hardware costs by not requiring the purchase of separate workstations in
order to teach different operating systems.
An enterprise-level, virtual server environment can be implemented for hosting the
virtual machines currently installed on the individual workstations in a lab. Instead of installing
virtual machines on every workstation in a lab, multiple instances of the virtual machine reside
on a SAN associated with a virtual server environment. Students have network access to the
virtual machines for their classes and a virtual server management system instantiates an instance
of a virtual machine when a student needs to use it. This model could potentially eliminate the
need for physical labs, like SE12-306.
Potential Solutions
There are three possible solutions to the problems instructors and students are having in
SE12-306 with virtual machines exceeding the capacity of the workstation hard drives, virtual
machines being deleted, and the desire for remote access to lab virtual machines. One solution is
for students to purchase USB drives. The USB drive would be the primary storage unit for the
student‟s virtual machines instead of the hard drive partition on the lab‟s workstation. The
students could copy the virtual machines they are using for the courses from the lab workstation
to their own USB drive the first day of class. For all subsequent classes, the student would use
the virtual machines stored on their USB drive instead of the virtual machines stored on the lab
workstation.
A second solution is to purchase and install larger hard drives on the workstations in
SE12-306. This solution would allow instructors to use more virtual machines for their lab
38
courses. It would also prevent instructors from having to compete for limited disk space on the
hard drive partition.
A third solution would be to host the virtual machines on an enterprise-level, virtual
server environment. Virtual machines would not be installed and stored on the hard drives of the
workstations in the lab. Instead, virtual machines would be stored on the SAN associated with
the virtual server environment. Students could access the virtual machines both from the lab
workstations and remotely.
Prediction of Potential Solutions
The preliminary analysis of the solutions to the problems of virtual machines in the
SE12-306 computing laboratory at BCIT suggests that the enterprise-level, virtual server
environment meets all three solution criteria. Bullers et al. (2006), Vollrath and Jenkins (2004),
and Stockman et al. (2005) experienced similar problems to the author with virtual machines
running on single workstations in a lab. Border (2007), Burd et al. (2009), Li (2009) and Rigby
and Dark (2006) have presented evidence that colleges and universities are creating enterprise-
level, virtual server environment to host virtual machines.
Strategic Plan
The strategic plan contains recommendations and cost estimates for the three proposed
solutions to the problems with the virtual machines in SE12-306. Cost estimates are separated
into product costs and implementation costs. A leadership, management, and implementation
plan follows the strategic plan.
39
Recommendations
There are three solutions to the problems related to virtual machines in the SE12-306 lab
at BCIT: (a) students purchase USB drives, (b) install larger hard drives in the laboratory
workstations, and (c) host virtual machines in an enterprise-level, virtual server environment.
These are the recommendations for each solution and the implications of each recommendation:
USB drive. The author recommends that each student purchase a 250 gigabyte (GB)
portable, external hard drive with a USB cable. The risk of a virtual machine being deleted or a
password being changed on a virtual machine on a workstation in the SE12-30 lab is significant.
Either event requires the virtual machine to be re-installed. This has a serious impact on a
student‟s progress in courses they are taking that use virtual machines.
This solution does have financial implications for the students. The author has discussed
the ethical issues related to students being asked to purchase the external drives. There are no
policies at BCIT that prevent instructors from asking students to purchase the drives. This
solution does not have any marketing, accounting, management, leadership, legal or global
dimension issues associated with it.
Hard drive. The author does not recommend upgrading the hard drives of the existing
workstations in the SE12-306 lab at this time. Instead, the author recommends that 500GB or one
terabyte (TB) hard drives be provisioned for the new workstations that are scheduled to be
purchased for the lab in the summer of 2011. (BCIT replaces workstations on a four-year cycle
through a vendor bidding process.) This solution is designed to accommodate the increased use
of virtual machines by instructors using the SE12-306 lab. It is also designed to eliminate
mandatory deletion of virtual machines for one instructor‟s class when the size of another
40
instructor‟s virtual machines begins to exceed the available disk space on the hard drive
partition. The author recommends the installation of larger hard drives because the approval and
installation of a hosted, virtual server environment would take a minimum of two years.
There are financial and accounting issues related to the provisioning and purchase of the
new workstations with the larger hard drives. These issues are not outside the normal cost of
doing business. There are the usual and customary management issues related to employees
installing new workstations in the SE12-306 lab. This solution does not have any the marketing,
leadership, legal, ethical, policy or global dimension issues associated with it.
Virtual server environment. The author recommends that a proof-of-concept project be
initiated to determine the feasibility of using BCIT‟s existing Citrix-based, virtual server
environment to host the virtual machines used in the author‟s Windows Server system
administration course. This project would involve dedicated access to one blade server in the
existing blade server environment. The author would be responsible for conducting the proof-of-
concept through a cooperative relationship with the ITS department‟s Citrix project manager.
This solution does have management issues related to the allocation and coordination of
physical and personnel resources to the proof-of-concept project. The author would establish an
agreement with BCIT‟s Manager, Business Application Services and Enterprise Architecture, to
provide technical assistance from the Citrix project manager and physical resources from the
existing, Citrix-based virtual server environment. Financial, accounting, and management issues
could divert the resources away from this project to other IT initiatives within BCIT. The author
does not perceive of any marketing, leadership, legal, ethical, global dimension or polices issues
affecting this project.
41
Enck (2008) says that server virtualization is an important trend that will continue until
the year 2012. Enck suggests six best practices for implementing server virtualization. The best
practices include selecting the right applications, defining a storage strategy, calculating the
return on investment, starting small, understanding software issues, and performance planning.
Pressures to Reduce Costs
There are a variety of costs associated with building and maintaining physical computer
labs. Wilson (2002) developed a budgeting worksheet for tracking both the short-term and long-
term costs of establishing and maintaining a computer lab at the Oklahoma State University.
Wilson allocated short-term (one year) and long-term expenses to “salaries, equipment,
furnishings, consumables, supplies, and utilities” (Wilson, p. 298). Wilson considered training
costs to be short-term. Equipment rollover was a long-term. (At BCIT computer workstations
are rollover every four years.) Labor was categorized as either internal support or external labor.
Internal support included logistical support, system support, and user support. External labor
costs were attributed to be services provided by the school‟s ITS group, such as maintenance of
the local area network.
Ma and Nickerson (2006) conducted a comparative literature review of hands-on,
simulated, and remote laboratories used in engineering, education, the natural sciences,
psychology, information systems, and computer science classes at institutions of higher learning.
They observed that the use of virtual laboratories is increasing because of advances in
technology and pressure on universities to reduce costs (Ma & Nickerson). The pressure to
reduce costs is impacting the operation of traditional laboratories that use expensive apparatus:
hands-on labs are proving too costly (Ma & Nickerson).
42
Albee et al. (2007) at Central Michigan University created a student-managed networking
lab, which adopted VMware Player to run their virtual machine images. During a period of tight
budgets, financial resources for both staffing the lab and the physical equipment were limited
(Albee, et al.) They could not afford to pay for permanent lab staff, so they switched to using
students from the work-study program (Albee, et al.)
BCIT currently has one, permanent ITS staff member responsible for maintaining the
department‟s 12 computing labs. BCIT employees 14 student lab proctors, two hours per week
each, for general maintenance of the computers in those labs. The problem with using students,
of course, is that they graduate, resulting in a high turnover rate and the need to train
replacements (Albee, et al., 2007).
At the University of West Florida (White, 2008), reductions in state university budgets
placed pressures on the operation of physical computer labs. The only computing facility on
campus that was open 24x7 had its operating hours cut in half (White). Open access to the lab
on weekends and at night was canceled (White).
There are costs associated with creating and maintaining both computer labs and an
enterprise-level, virtual server environment. Computer hardware costs have declined between
2000 and 2010 for both producers and consumers according to the U.S. Department of Labor‟s
Bureau of Labor Statistics2. It may be more cost efficient to maintain individual computer labs
than implement an enterprise-level, virtual server environment.
2 See http://www.bls.gov/data/
43
Cost Estimate for Solutions
Cost estimates for each of the three solutions follow. The estimates include hardware,
software, or both. The prices exclude installation costs and taxes.
Existing workstation configuration. There are 25 workstations in the SE12-306 lab.
Twenty-three workstations are configured for student use, one workstation is configured for use
by the instructor, and one workstation is used by the lab technician for system and network
maintenance and monitoring. The ITS department at BCIT is responsible for purchasing
computer equipment for the computing labs.
Each workstation has an Intel Core2 2.13GHz processor, four GB of random access
memory, and a 250GB drive. The workstations were purchased in 2007 at a cost of $730 CDN
per workstation. The workstations are running Microsoft‟s 64-bit version of the Windows 7
operating system. In addition, all workstations are loaded with Microsoft Office 2010, plus other
applications requested by instructors who teach courses in SE12-306. These applications include
VMware Workstation and Microsoft Virtual Server 2005, which are used for hosting virtual
machines. Microsoft licenses are purchased through a Campus Agreement with Microsoft.
Other software licenses are purchased appropriately.
The space on the hard drive is divided into one 78GB partition for the operating system
and applications, and one 135GB partition for storage of course files, including virtual machines.
The operating system partition is protected to prevent student access. The file partition is
accessible to anyone who can log onto a workstation in the SE12-306 lab.
Workstations are standardized across the BCIT campus. (There are approximately 1,800
workstations on the BCIT campus.) Workstations are replaced on a four-year cycle through a
44
vendor bidding process. The vendors that are asked to bid include IBM, Dell, HP, et cetera. The
current vendor is Dell. The workstations in SE12-306 are scheduled for replacement in the
summer of 2011.
Bullers et al. (2006) offers comparative costs from the University of New Mexico.
Bullers et al. ran three advanced computing courses in a physical lab consisting of 17
workstations. Each workstation was configured with a 3 GHz Pentium 4 processor, 2GB RAM,
and 40GB hard drive costing $1,850 USD each. The workstations were networked together with
a 24 port Ethernet hub costing $2,500. Each workstation‟s host operating system was Microsoft
Windows XP and VMware Workstation licensed at a cost of $110. A backup server cost $2,500.
The total for the lab was $36,000 or approximately $2,117 per workstation in 2006.
USB drive. The size of the virtual machines used by BCIT students in the SE12-306 lab
vary from 25GB to 80GB. On average, students are taking two courses, which utilize virtual
machines, each term in SE12-306. The author recommends that the USB drives should be at
least 100GB in size to hold the virtual machines for a student in a typical school term.
USB flash drives range in size from 2GB to 32GB and range in price from $12.95 CDN
to $79.99, respectively.3 Since the largest flash drive does not meet the minimum recommended
size to store the virtual machines, the author researched portable, external hard drives with USB
connections from the same sources. The sizes and prices of portable, external hard drives showed
considerable range. For example, a 200GB drive and a 400GB drive were each priced at $59.99.
3 Prices obtained on September 6, 2010 from the following websites: http://www.bestbuy.ca,
http://www.futureshop.ca, and http://www.londondrugs.ca
45
A 250GB was available for $54.99. The author could not find drives larger than 250GB that
were less expensive.
Hard drive. The ITS department at BCIT is responsible for pricing and purchasing
computer equipment for the SE12-306 lab. The author requested a price estimate in September,
2010, for both a 500GB and a one terabyte (TB) hard drive. The ITS department quoted the
prices from two manufacturers. The prices for the 500GB hard drives ranged from $44.94 CDN
to $88.81, depending upon the size of the cache. Prices for one terabyte drives from the two
manufacturers ranged from $68.36 to $96.05 in price.
Virtual server environment. The ITS department at BCIT has a Citrix-based, virtual
server environment that is designed to provide support for applications used by different
departments within the school. The current environment hosts approximately 70 applications.
For example, the School of Business is hosting Microsoft Office applications, such as Microsoft
Excel, for students taking business courses. The environment is currently not hosting virtual
machines for students taking courses in the SE12-306 lab.
The virtual server environment was originally built in 2007 for a cost of approximately
$850,000 CDN, including hardware costs, software licensing, and consulting fees. The
hardware consisted of three blade chassis with each chassis housing 14 blade servers. In 2010,
one of the blade chassis and its servers was repurposed and it is no longer part of the virtual
server environment. The total cost of the remaining two blade chassis environments is
approximately $600,000.
The current virtual server environment consists of two, IBM BladeCenter chassis each
housing 14 IBM blade servers. Each blade server consists of a dual, quad-core processor with
46
48GB of memory. Ten blades on one chassis are dedicated to hosting the Citrix-based, virtual
applications. The other four blades are used to host a budgeting software system.
Nine blades on the other chassis are dedicated to Citrix-based applications. Five of these
blades are not part of the Citrix environment. Four blades support a Microsoft Active Directory
environment and one blade is used as a testing environment for the ITS department. This means
that 19 blade servers, between the two chassis, are configured for the Citrix-based, application
hosting environment.
The cost, in 2009, to BCIT for a single IBM BladeCenter H chassis was $36,278 CDN.
The cost for 14, eight-core server blades with 48GB of memory was $119,462. This equates to
$8,533 per blade. The costs for the chassis and blades included fiber optic channeling and
connectivity to the storage area network (SAN). BCIT had sufficient rack space to house the
chassis.
One blade in each chassis is dedicated to running Citrix Provisioning Services.
Provisioning Services are installed in a Microsoft Hyper-V Server 2008 hypervisor. Provisioning
Services provides for the dynamic delivery of Citrix XenApp environments to client computers.
The Provisions Services on each blade communicate with one another to manage virtual and
physical server workloads across the remaining 17 blade servers. There is no cost associated with
Provisioning Services.
Each of the 17 blade servers runs Citrix XenServer virtualization software using the Xen
hypervisor. Most of the virtual machines that have been created to run on a XenServer are built
using Windows Server 2008 as the operating system. Applications are installed in the Windows
Server along with Citrix XenApp. Each of the 17 hosting blades is capable of running twelve,
47
Windows Server 2008 virtual machines or between 24 to 40 Windows XP virtual machines
simultaneously. XenServer is a free application from Citrix, but XenApp is licensed.
BCIT has a Campus Agreement with Microsoft. Under the 2008-2009 licensing
agreement, a single Windows Server (Enterprise) license running in a Citrix environment costs
$186 CDN. The license allows four virtual machines running a physical box to share one
license. The license agreement includes licensing for the Vista (Enterprise) operating system on
client workstations. It does not include licensing for Windows XP. Vista licenses are $21 each.
The cost for Microsoft Office (Enterprise) per workstation is $28. The licensing for Vista and
Office is based on a total of 1,800 workstations on campus.
Citrix XenApp is a virtual application delivery system that virtualizes applications.
XenApp is a management layer on a blade server that bundles a virtualized application and
delivers it to the XenServer environment. XenApp provides terminal services between clients
and services using Citrix‟s Independent Computing Architecture (ICA) protocol. XenApp is
activated when a user requests a virtualized application.
XenApp is licensed from Citrix. The price for 200 licenses was $63,168 USD and one
year of support was $6,158 in 2008. Currently, BCIT has 1,000 XenApp licenses. This equates
to approximately $70 per XenApp license.
Each blade server is connected to a SAN. The SAN is a Hitachi AMS 2500 data system
consisting of 480 disk drives. Each drive is 450GB. The SAN provides hard drive space for
each virtual machine used by the blade servers. The author was unable to obtain a price for the
48
Hitachi data system at the time this paper was written. However, the price for a 450GB drive is
approximately $310 UDS.4
All of the XenServers and virtual machines are managed using a Windows client
application called Citrix XenCenter. XenCenter is installed on a remote, Windows host that has
connectivity to a XenServer blade. XenCenter also provides performance statistics related to
virtual machine management.
Remote access to the virtual server environment is managed using Citrix NetScaler.
NetScaler provides web application delivery and load balancing services for external access to
the virtual server environment. NetScaler is also used to provide business continuity between the
Burnaby campus of BCIT and the downtown Vancouver campus. There are two NetScalers
installed on the Burnaby campus and one at the downtown campus. Each NetScaler costs
approximately $1,500 CDN, including hardware, licensing, and support.
A workstation that requests access to the hosted, virtualized application must have Citrix
XenClient installed. XenClient provides a local virtual desktop environment in which the
virtualized application runs. The XenClient is a client hypervisor and communicates with
XenServer using the ICA protocol. XenClient is currently free of charge.
The original three chassis, 42 blades, Citrix-based, virtual server environment took ITS
department staff and consultants approximately two and one-half years to build. This included
installation of all hardware and software, networking, testing, et cetera. The ITS manager
4 Price retrieved September 15, 2010 from http://www.scsi4me.com/hitachi-ultrastar-15k450-hus154545vls300-
450gb-15k-rpm-sas-hard-drive.html
49
responsible for the Citrix installation believes the current configuration could be built in three
months if it were to be built in 2010 by the same employees.
In order for BCIT‟s virtual server environment to host virtual machines for the SE12-306,
Citrix Lab Manager would need to be installed on one of the XenServers (Citrix Systems, Inc.,
2010). Lab Manager is a Web-based application that automates virtual lab setup. Lab Manager
is used manage virtual machine configurations, operating systems disk images, and related
software packages. Lab Manager is also available free of charge.
The author teaches a class in Windows Server 2008 systems administration. The author
builds a single virtual machine containing three instances of Windows Server 2008 and two
instances of Windows 7. Each student gets their own virtual machine to use for the duration of
the course. The size of the single virtual machine containing the five instances of Windows
operating systems is approximately 30GB.
There are two sections of 23 students each taking the author‟s course in the SE12-306
lab. This means there are a total of 72 instances of Windows Server 2008 and 48 instances of
Windows 7 installed for each set. Two sets of the virtual machines are installed on each of the
24 workstations in the lab. (One workstation is for the instructor.) The total disk space required
for two sets of virtual machines on each workstation is approximately 60GB.
A single blade server in the hosted virtual server environment can run approximately 12
Windows Server virtual machines or between 24 to 40 Windows XP virtual machines
simultaneously. Using these estimates, it would require approximately eight blade servers to
host 72 instances of Windows Server and 48 instances of Windows 7, running simultaneously, to
operate the lab for the author‟s Windows Server administration course.
50
The disk space occupied by two sets of virtual machines is approximately 60GB. The
SAN would require approximately 1.5TB of disk space to hold the virtual machines for 24
workstations. Each disk on the current SAN is 450GB in size. This equates to four drives to hold
the virtual machines for the Windows Server administration course.
The minimum configuration for supporting the virtual machines required for the author‟s
course would be one blade chassis containing eight blades. The cost for this implementation,
including hardware and software licensing, is estimated at $119,143 CDN as shown in Table 2.
These costs assume that the blade chassis can be installed in an existing rack system and the
Hitachi data system can accommodate the four hard drives.
Table 2
Costs for a virtual server environment hosting SE12-306 virtual machines (in Canadian dollars)
Description Cost ($)
Blade chassis 36,278
Eight blade servers (8 @ $8,585) 68,683
XenApp licenses (120 @ $70 USD) 8,400
Hard drives (4 @ $310 USD) 1,240
Windows Server 2008 licensing (19 @ $186) 3,534
Windows Vista licensing (48 @ $21) 1,008
Total Cost 119,143
Note. U.S. dollars are converted to Canadian dollars at par.
51
Citrix Solutions from Related Work
Einsmann and Patel (2007) used Citrix Presentation Sever for their app2go deployment.5
Einsmann and Patel installed the Citrix product on a Windows 2003 Server platform and used
Windows Terminal Services for remote desktop connections. Einsmann and Patel used “2 Dell
PowerEdge servers with 6 GB RAM and Dual Core 3.00 GHz CPU‟s” to host these systems (p.
74). Twenty-five Citrix licenses and 500 Microsoft Terminal Server licenses were purchased.
Einsmann and Patel did not specify costs for their 2007 implementation.
Blezard (2004) tested a thin-client computing solution using Windows Terminal Services
with and without Citrix MetaFrame.6 Blezard conducted two tests over an eighteen month
period, from 2003 to 2004, involving the Academic Computing Studies group at the University
of New Hampshire. The group had 200 systems and supported and additional 250 systems
campus wide. Systems were replaced on a 3-year cycle at a cost of $1,100 USD to $1,200 per
system. The group‟s hardware replacement costs were approximately $80,000 annually for the
200 systems. The other 250 systems cost approximately $100,000 annually.
All applications resided on a central server. In the first test, Blezard (2004) used an HP
800Mhz Pentium III with 512MB of RAM. This server ran Microsoft (MS) Windows Server
2000. In the second test, a Dell Optiplex GX260, 2 GHz Pentium 4, with 1 GB of RAM was
used. This server ran Microsoft Windows Server 2003. Both tests involved 22 simultaneous
users accessing the following applications: MS Internet Explorer, MS Word, and MS Excel.
Other applications included SPSS, Matlab, and PhotoShop.
5 Citrix Presentation Server is now part of Citrix XenApp.
6 Citrix MetaFrame Server is now part of Citrix XenApp.
52
Blezard (2004) estimated the cost of a 30 system cluster with and without Windows
Terminal Services and Citrix MetaFrame. Blezard estimated that one server could support thirty
users. Blezard estimated the cost of a traditional cluster (hardware only) on a 3-year replacement
cycle to be $60,000 USD. The same 30 systems, on a 5-year replacement cycle, with Windows
Server, Terminal Services, and Metaframe licensing, was estimated to cost $50,900.
Kissler and Hoyt (2005) also implemented a thin-client computing solution to “decrease
both management complexity and IT staff time” (p. 138). Kissler and Hoyt had four customers
on their Valparaiso University campus: the library, the weather center, information kiosks, and
engineering lab facility. Kissler and Hoyt used Sun Microsystems SunRay Thin Clients. The
main reason for choosing this solution was saving costs for equipment, staff time for
deployment, and staff time for support. The workstations were display units only, accessing a
single server that hosted the applications. They did use Citrix Presentation Server for accessing
native UNIX and Windows environments in the engineering lab and the weather center. Kissler
and Hoyt‟s (2005) use of the “thin-client device was less than $300 [USD]” per workstation
compared to $2,000 or more for a UNIX workstation (p. 139).
Non-Citrix Solutions from Related Work
The Virtual Computing Lab (VCL) at North Carolina State University (NC State) has
1,000 IBM BladeCenter blades (Vouk, 2008). The VCL environments hosts “150 production
images and another 450 or so other images” (Vouk, p. 242). “[I]nstructors can request to build
custom images with different operating systems and applications” (Li, 2009, p. 7).
53
NC State has approximately 30,000 students and faculty. Vouk has calculated that the
VCL “serve[s] about 60,000 to 1000,000 „seat‟ reservation requests per semester” (p. 242). A
reservation lasts approximately one to two hours.
Vouk (2008) says that “a typical bare-metal blade serves about 25 student seats” (p. 242).
This is a 25:1 ratio of student to server.7 Vouk claims the ratio for a traditional, physical
computing lab is 5:1 or 10:1. NC State employs one full time equivalent (FTE) employee to
maintain about 1,000 nodes in the VCL and three FTEs for development (Vouk).
North Carolina Central University (NCCU) conducted a follow-on pilot project to the
VCL at NC State (Seay & Tucker, 2010). It was a campus-wide initiative designed to provide a
hosted, virtual server environment to all groups within the university (Seay & Tucker). The
initiative was awarded two grants for hardware from IBM totally $1.2-million USD (Young,
2008). From the first grant of $84,000, the virtual computing lab group purchased nine blade
servers (Seay & Tucker). The cost per blade was approximately $6,106 in 2005 (Seay &
Tucker). With the second grant, they purchased 14 more blade servers (Seay & Tucker). The
“cost for housing the blade center, including power and bandwidth, was approximately
$600/month” (Seay & Tucker, p. 78). The group also “won a $2.4-millon grant from Intel
Corporation” (Young, p. 1) Seay and Tucker did not specially state what the grant from Intel
was used for expect to say that it was “to provide enough resources so the entire 16-campus
University of North Carolina system could use the [virtual computing lab] the same way NCCU
and NC State use it” (p. 82).
7 Blezard (2004) estimated the ratio to be 30:1.
54
The software costs for the virtual computing lab at NCCU were not explicitly stated by
Seay and Tucker (2010). Even though the university had a licensing agreement to use the Red
Hat Enterprise license distribution of Linux, the people at the virtual computing lab “could not
get clarity as to how [they] might properly use the license for [their] installation” (Seay &
Tucker, p. 79). Instead, the group chose a free version of Linux, SuSE 10.1, distributed by
Novell. Regarding the installation and use of other applications, Seay and Tucker did not find
licensing to be a major hurdle.
Li (2010b) mentioned Citrix XenDesktop in relation to his use of the VCL at NC State.
Citrix XenDesktop is a virtualization solution that delivers on-demand applications to end users.
XenDesktop is used for remote labs, allowing 24x7, anywhere access. Although Li discusses the
benefits of XenDesktop, he did not say whether or not the VCL was actually using it.
Burd et al. (2009) considered implementing a Citrix-based solution for the virtual lab
they planned to build. The implementation consisted of two labs supporting 1,600 students.
There were 64 workstations running in one lab and 42 workstations in the second lab. All of the
workstations ran Microsoft Windows XP. In 2006, when the lab was implemented, the cost to
implement Citrix-based solution was approximately $100,000 USD. The hardware (three rack-
mounted servers) was estimated to cost $60,000. Software was priced at $40,000. A similar
VMware solution “raised software costs” (Burd et al., p. IIP – 60). Burd et al. decided against
the Citrix-based solution. Instead, they built their virtual lab by repurposing 42 existing
workstations. Burd et al. were not explicit about the repurposing costs, but this author estimated
them to be approximately $44,300.
55
White (2008) did not use a Citrix solution for their eDesktop initiative, but it is
mentioned for comparative purposes. White chose Microsoft SoftGrid for Terminal Services.
SoftGrid allowed multiple applications, such as Microsoft Office and Windows XP, “to co-exist
on a single desktop or Terminal Services session” (White, p. 76). Besides Microsoft Office, the
eDesktop initiative also hosted the following applications: EndNote, SPSS, SAS, Adobe Creative
Suite, and many others (White).
Cost Estimate for Implementation
Cost estimates are shown for implementing each of three solutions, where applicable. All
prices exclude taxes.
USB drive. There is no implementation costs associated with students purchasing a USB
flash drive or an external hard drive with a USB cable. A student brings their portable storage
device to the lab each day they have a course in SE12-306. The student attaches the portable
drive to a lab workstation and copies the virtual machines on the workstation to their portable
drive. Once installed on their own drive, the student can continue to access the virtual machines
from a lab workstation or from their own laptop and home computer.
Hard drive. The cost of installing new, internal hard drives in the workstations in the
SE12-306 can be done by student lab proctors. Student lab proctors are paid $12.95 CDN per
hour in 2010. The author estimates that two lab proctors can replace all 25 hard drives in eight
hours for a cost of approximately $208.00.
Once the hard drives have been installed, the workstations need to be reimaged with the
operating system and other software. Reimaging of workstations occurs prior to the start of each
56
school term. If hard drive replacement is done in late August or in the December holiday break
between terms, there are no additional costs associated with re-imaging the drives.
Virtual server environment. The original three chassis, 42 blades, Citrix-based, virtual
server environment took BCIT‟s ITS department staff and consultants approximately two and
one-half years to build. This included installation of all hardware and software, networking,
testing, et cetera. The ITS manager responsible for the Citrix installation believes the current
configuration could be built in three months, if it were to be built in 2010 by the same
employees.
The author has concluded that the installation of one blade chassis with eight blade
servers is sufficient to support the virtual machines used by him for teaching his course in
Windows Server system administration in the SE12-306 lab. The author estimates that
implementation can be done in one to two months, based on the estimates provided by the Citrix
installation manager. The author assumes two systems engineers can be assigned to the
installation for two months. If the annual salary of a system engineer is $50,000 CDN, then the
implementation cost, using two engineers for two months, is approximately $17,000.
The author‟s review of related work found other authors presenting costs for both
physical and virtual labs (Blezard, 2004; Bullers et al. (2006), Burd et al. (2009), Kissler & Hoyt,
2005; Seay & Tucker, 2010; Terris, 2010; Toppin, 2008; Vouk (2008). Typically these costs
were for hardware and software. None of the works reviewed by this author segregated out the
implementation costs for their projects.
Table 3 contains a comparison of the implementation costs for the three proposed
solutions to the problem with using virtual machines in the SE12-306 lab. There is no
57
implementation costs associated with the first solution. The second two solutions are costs
incurred by BCIT.
Table 3
Comparison of implementation costs for proposed solutions (in Canadian dollars)
Solution
Per
Workstation ($)
Twenty-five
Workstations ($)
Students purchase portable,
external hard drives (250GB)
Install larger, internal hard
drives on lab workstations
(500GB)
8.32 208.00
Host virtual machines in an
enterprise-level, virtual server
environment
17,000.00
Virtualization Solutions
For the purpose of this paper, the author defines two categories of virtualization: desktop
and enterprise. Desktop virtualization is a hosted virtualization solution. This means the
virtualization software is installed on top of an operating system running on the computer
hardware. This is the solution used when virtual machines are installed on single workstations in
physical computer labs.
Enterprise virtualization solutions may or may not use hosted virtualization solutions.
Virtualization software that is installed directly on computer hardware without an existing
operating system is referred to as type-1 virtualization or a hypervisor (Li, 2010b; Lunsford,
58
2009). Virtual machines run in this environment just as they would in a desktop or hosted
virtualization solution.
The author‟s review of related research shows that educators and researchers have chosen
a variety of virtualization solutions based on the platforms they use to deploy virtual machines
and the costs associated with those deployments. VMware Workstation was used by Bullers et
al. (2006), Lunsford (2009), and Border (2007). Albee et al. (2007) used VMware Player. Toppin
(2008) used VMware Server. Burd et al. (2009) used VMware. Stockpole (2008) chose VMware
Workstation over Microsoft Virtual PC because it was a better fit for their application.
Stockpole et al. (2008) chose VMware because Microsoft Virtual PC lacked support for non-
Microsoft operating systems.
Yang (2007) used Microsoft Virtual PC because it was free and easy to use. Vollrath and
Jenkins (2004) also found that Microsoft Virtual PC easy to use; it was available free under their
MSDNAA membership agreement. Dobrilović and Odadžić (2006) also chose Microsoft Virtual
PC because they could obtain a licensed version. Rigby and Dark (2006) used both VMware and
Microsoft Virtual PC.
Li (2009, 2010a, 2010b) deployed a variety of virtualization solutions. In 2006, Li used
VMware Server and Player, in 2007, VMware Workstation, and, in 2008, Sun xVM VirtualBox.
Li‟s (2010a) conducted a comparative analysis of VMware products and VirtualBox. Li (2010a)
concluded that VMware was a better choice for “centralized labs hosted on college campuses”
(p. 17). Li (2009) joined the VMware Academic program allowing students free access to
VMware tools at school and at home.
59
Between 2007 and 2009, the author used VMware Server and Microsoft Virtual Server
2005 on the workstations in SE12-306 at BCIT. Both of these hosted virtualization solutions
were free of cost. In 2010, VMware Server was replaced with VMware Workstation and licensed
accordingly. Students and faculty can download and install, free of charge, a variety of VMware
products under the VMware Academic Program.
Lei and Rawles (2003) conducted an analysis of virtual machine technology, including
VMware Workstation and Connectix Virtual PC.8 They also investigated storage technology,
and host operating systems as part of a total cost of ownership analysis related to a facilitating a
system and networking lab. Lei and Rawles concluded that “the combination of virtual machine
technology, host machine with Windows OS, and network-attached storage is the recommended
solution for a laboratory-based course concentrating on systems and network administration
concepts and practice” (p. 88).
Cost Benefits of Virtualization
The cost of maintaining computers in labs was causing colleges and universities to move
to virtual server environments (Terris, 2010). Terris notes that in 2009 the University of Virginia
was spending $300,000 USD a year maintaining 375 public computers. The move to virtual
computing was also justified by the fact that in some universities, such as Temple University,
student computer ownership is 98.5% and “70% of those machines are laptops” (Terris, p. 23).
(At the University of New Hampshire, over 95% of the students have their own computer
(Blezard, 2004)).
8 Virtual PC was sold to Microsoft in 2003.
60
Toppin (2008) also described the economic benefits of virtualization. Toppin notes that
prices of new hardware and software ranged between $2,000 USD and $20,000 for a single
computing lab, like SE12-306, at Winston-Salem State University. Toppin states that the use of
virtual machines by students has meant that “the need to update and support [lab] hardware and
software has been eliminated” (p. 16).
Students in Brazil use virtualized desktops (“Wired Brazil”, 2009). A hosted, virtual
environment allows one computer to deploy virtual desktops to 10 workstations (“Wired
Brazil”). A total of 18,750 workstations were configured using the virtual desktop model, saving
“60 percent in upfront costs, 80 percent in annual power savings and additional savings in
ongoing administration and support costs as compared to a traditional PC-per-workstation
solution” (“Wired Brazil”, p. 13).
Burd et al. (2009) found, in comparing their physical and virtual labs, that they “incur
similar hardware and software costs and require comparable technical and infrastructure support”
(p. IIP- 69). The hardware costs for a 42 workstation virtual lab were $110,300 USD. Individual
computers cost $1,500 each. A comparison of the physical and virtual lab costs, including
amortization, showed an annual cost advantage of $89,920 for the virtual lab. The two largest
areas of annual cost savings were lab operations staff ($50,000) and floor space ($40,320). Burd
et al. stated that “the school had current site licenses for all required software” (p. IIP-60). They
also found, that with some applications, removing them from workstations in a physical lab and
moving them to a virtual lab reduced licensing costs.
Vollrath and Jenkins (2004) found that implementing virtualization increased the cost of
their lab hardware. The use of virtual machines increased the amount of random access memory
61
(RAM) required in their workstations. The amount of memory had to be doubled from 256MB
to 512MB, but Microsoft Corporation assisted them financially with the upgrades. However, the
use of virtual machines allowed them to reduce the number of paid lab workers.
Steinert-Threlkeld (2009) argued that the biggest driver of virtualization is cost savings in
terms space utilization, utilities, and capital and operating expenses for servers. Steinert-
Threlkeld felt it was cheaper to run multiple virtual machine images on a single system than a
single server running a single operating system. Yang (2007) also saved costs on hardware and
space by using virtual machines. But, once the virtual machines were installed in the lab,
students were given 24x7 access to the lab. Yang did not acknowledge that the increase in lab
access time would also cause an increase in security costs, utilities, and facility and equipment
maintenance.
Enck (2008) says that server virtualization is an important trend that will continue until
the year 2012. Enck suggests six best practices for implementing server virtualization. The best
practices include selecting the right applications, defining a storage strategy, calculating the
return on investment, starting small, understanding software issues, and performance planning.
When moving to a hosted, virtual server environment, Enck recommends starting small. There
are two phases to server virtualization deployment. The first phase is “server consolidation, cost
savings and increased hardware use” (Enck, p. 12). The second phase is “delivering new service
or improving the quality and speed of service” (Enck, p. 12) Enck recommends “full ROI
[return on investment] within six months or less” (p. 12).
62
Table 4 contains a cost comparison of the three proposed solutions to the problem with
using virtual machines in the SE12-306. The first solution is a cost incurred by students using
the lab. The second two solutions are costs incurred by BCIT.
Table 4
Comparison of costs for proposed solutions (in Canadian dollars)
Solution
Per
Workstation ($)
Twenty-four
Workstations ($)
Students purchase portable,
external hard drives (250GB)
54.99
Install larger, internal hard
drives on lab workstations
(500GB)
44.94 1,078.56
Host virtual machines in an
enterprise-level, virtual server
environment
119,143.00
Implementation Plan
There are three solutions to the problems related to virtual machines in the SE12-306 lab
at BCIT. The author has recommended that students purchase their own portable, external hard
drives with a USB cable. The author has also recommended that larger hard drives be
provisioned for the new workstations that will be purchased for the SE12-306 lab in the summer
of 2011.
For the enterprise-level, virtual server environment solution, the author has recommended
that a proof-of-concept project be initiated to determine the feasibility of BCIT‟s existing Citrix-
based, virtual server environment to host the virtual machines used in the author‟s Windows
63
Server system administration course. The author presents a strategic plan for hosting virtual
machines in the institute‟s Citrix-based, virtual server environment. The strategic plan begins
with a proof-of-concept project and culminates in a dedicated virtual server environment that
meets the needs of instructors who use virtual machines in teaching their courses.
Mission Statement
At BCIT, instructors use virtual machines to create complex, real-world computing
environments for students to learn state-of-the-are technologies.
Vision Statement
By the year 2015, BCIT will be the leading, post-secondary institution in the province of
British Columbia providing hosted, virtual lab services and expertise to all instructors within the
provincial, post-secondary education system.
Future State
The future state of the virtual lab environment will consist of the hardware, software and
professional resources necessary to support requests from both BCIT instructors and instructors
from other post-secondary institutions within the province to host the virtual machines used in
the their classes. The design of the lab will allow instructors to remotely configure and deploy
the virtual machines they use for their labs. BCIT will charge a fee to instructors from other
post-secondary institutions for these services. By the year 2015, BCIT will be able generate
$100,000 CDN a year in annual revenue from the virtual lab environment.
Milestones
Milestones denote the completion of key deliverables for a project. The key deliverables
for the implementation of a hosted, virtual lab environment include the following:
64
1. Complete the proof-of-concept project.
2. Successfully deliver the Windows Server system administration class using the virtual
machines hosted in the hosted, virtual server environment.
3. Survey BCIT instructors to determine their use of virtual machines in their courses.
4. Submit a Request for Proposal to purchase additional hardware and software for a virtual
server environment that supports the virtual machine needs of instructors at BCIT.
5. Implement the virtual server environment for BCIT instructors.
6. Conduct a pilot project with two other post-secondary institutions in British Columbia to
provide hosted, virtual lab services and expertise to the participating instructors from
those institutions.
7. Expand BCIT‟s hosted, virtual lab environment to meet the requests of post-secondary
institutions in British Columbia.
Timeline
The timeline for the project milestones is shown in Table 5. The timeline lists
milestones, sub-milestones, and starting or completion dates. The timeline covers a five year
period from 2011 through 2015.
BCIT’s Five-Year Strategic Plan
In 2009, BCIT published a five-year Strategic Plan for the period 2009-2014 (British
Columbia Institute of Technology, 2009). The plan calls for four, major strategic initiatives:
1. Education and Research.
65
2. Our Learners.
3. Our Employees.
4. Stewardship and Resource Development.
Each initiative has associated with it a list of objectives. For example, under Education and
Research, there are objectives related to Programming, Teaching and Learning, Recognition and
Validation, et cetera (British Columbia Institute of Technology). The objectives are designed be
achievable, monitored, and measurable.
In 2010, BCIT published an Implementation Plan 2009-20014 (British Columbia Institute
of Technology, 2010), derived from the institute‟s Strategic Plan. The Implementation Plan
consists of specific projects designed to meet the objectives of each initiative. Funding for
projects is not specified in the Implementation Plan. Instead, projects “are subject to
prioritization and approval during the Institute‟s operational planning and budget cycle each
year” (British Columbia Institute of Technology, p. 4).
Table 5
Timeline for implementing the milestones for the virtual lab environment solution
Milestone Date
Start the proof-of-concept project using the existing Citrix-based
virtual server environment.
January, 2011
Complete the proof-of-concept project. December, 2011
Teach the Windows Server system administration class using the
virtual machines hosted in the virtual server environment.
January, 2012
Survey BCIT instructors to determine their use of virtual machines
in their courses.
March, 2012
66
Evaluate the results of teaching the Windows Server class. May, 2012
Submit a Request for Proposal to purchase additional hardware
and software for expanding the virtual lab to meet the needs of
BCIT instructors.
September, 2012
Implement the virtual server environment for BCIT instructors. September, 2013
Evaluate the results of other BCIT instructors using the virtual lab
environment.
January, 2014
Conduct a pilot project with two other post-secondary institutions
in British Columbia to use BCIT‟s virtual lab services.
September, 2014
Evaluate the results of the pilot project with the other post-
secondary institutions.
January, 2015
Develop a plan for expanding the virtual lab environment to meet
the requests of other post-secondary institutions.
February, 2015
Expand BCIT‟s hosted, virtual lab environment to meet the
requests of other post-secondary institutions.
September, 2015
Enable other post-secondary institutions to subscribe to BCIT‟s
virtual lab services.
January, 2016
The existing Citrix-based, virtual server environment is a strategy and project under the
Implementation Plan. Under the Strategic Initiative 1, Education and Research, is Activity 5.7,
the AppsAnywhere Project (British Columbia Institute of Technology, 2010). The purpose of
this strategic project is to “install and implement the Citrix desktop management software at
BCIT” (British Columbia Institute of Technology, p. 18). This project will have a gradual
rollout with a completion date of September, 2011. The specific outcome “centralizes
application management in the BCIT data centre (software as a service) [and] instant or
scheduled delivery of applications to labs/users anywhere within BCIT” (British Columbia
Institute of Technology, p. 18). This project is designated as being in progress and on schedule.
67
The AppsAnywhere service is designed to allow students and staff remote access to
BCIT applications based on their role within the institution. Access is available from BCIT
computer labs and offices, and home and personal computers. In June, 2010, BCIT published a
list of software applications available in AppsAnywhere for September, 2010.9 The listed
included 28 applications that were currently available, thirty applications that were being staged,
and twenty-four applications planned for September, 2010. The AppsAnywhere project is hosted
on the existing Citrix-based, virtual server environment.
Activity 28.17 of the Implementation Plan, under Strategic Initiative 4, Stewardship and
Resource Development, calls for efficiencies in the use of computer labs. The activity specifies
that the institute conduct a “study of alternative lab hardware provision for students” (British
Columbia Institute of Technology, 2010, p. 78). This activity specifically references the
AppsAnywhere Project. The deliverable for Activity 28.17 is a report with recommendations,
which is due during the period 2011 to 2012. The specific outcome is a “flexible means of
provisioning computer labs with software (i.e. AppsAnywhere), hardware (i.e. Dumb Terminals)
and mobile computing devise (i.e. Laptop Strategy)” (British Columbia Institute of Technology,
p. 78). This project is designated to be implemented in the longer term.
Leadership and Management Actions
The leadership and management for the existing Citrix-based virtual server environment,
the AppsAnywhere Project, and the implementation of a new, virtual lab environment at BCIT
are under the direction of the Director, Information Technology (IT) Services. Reporting to the
Director is the Manager, Business Application Services and Enterprise Architecture. This
9 See http://www.bcit.ca/files/appsanywhere/applicationavailability.pdf
68
person is currently responsible for setting the overall direction and policy for the existing Citrix-
based, virtual server environment. Finally, there is a Senior Systems Analyst, Specialty Services
Team, who is responsible for the day-to-day technical management of the virtual server
environment.
The leadership and management actions required to providing a hosted, virtual lab
environment for BCIT instructors and interested instructors from other provincial, post-
secondary institutions are correlated with the solution‟s milestones. These actions include:
1. Providing physical and personnel resources for the proof-of-concept project.
2. Endorsing the survey of BCIT instructors who currently use virtual machines and who
are interested in having them hosted by IT Services in the existing virtual server
environment.
3. Analyzing the results of the proof-of-concept project and the survey to determine if an
expansion of the existing Citrix-based, virtual server environment is possible and
desirable.
4. Submitting a detailed plan and a budget request for expanding the existing Citrix-based,
virtual server environment.
5. Implementing the virtual server environment for BCIT instructors.
6. Endorsing a pilot project to offer hosted, virtual lab services and expertise to instructors
from two other post-secondary institutions in British Columbia.
69
7. Conducting a Return-on-Investment study to determine if establishing a virtual lab centre
for instructors within in the British Columbia, post-secondary institution system is
justified.
8. Designing and implementing a marketing plan for attracting instructors from other post-
secondary institutions within British Columbia to use BCIT‟s hosted, virtual lab services.
9. Planning and implementing a virtual lab centre to meet the virtual machine hosting needs
of post-secondary institutions within British Columbia.
10. Planning and budgeting for the ongoing funding for the virtual lab centre.
BCIT‟s Implementation Plan clearly supports the expansion of the existing, Citrix-based
virtual server environment for the hosting and deployment of software applications through the
AppsAnywhere Project. The author believes the Implementation Plan provides the framework
for supporting the Vision Statement presented above. Expanding the Citrix-based, virtual server
environment to host virtual labs promotes the efficient use of computing labs as specified in
Activity 28.17 of the Implementation Plan.
“If you build it, they will come”
This often misquoted phrase from the 1989 movie Field of Dreams does not apply to
faculty and students at universities using the resources of a virtual computing lab.10 It requires
more than a champion or evangelist to disseminate the benefits of using virtually hosted
applications. Even with funding and support from a school‟s administration, acceptance by
diverse interest groups across a university campus requires commitment and persistence.
10
The correct quote from the movie is “If you build it, he will come.”
70
The virtual lab pilot project at North Carolina State University was similar to BCIT‟s
AppsAnywhere project (Seay & Tucker, 2010). With the full support of the administration, a
pilot project was approved for the School of Business and School of Library and Information
Science. Presentations to the faculty and staff of other schools within the university were also
conducted. Once the Provost and Chief Information Officer of the university endorsed the
virtual computing lab, a formal pilot project was rolled out for the two schools.
In order for the virtual computing lab to gain support beyond of the schools of Business
and Library and Information Science, Seay and Tucker (2010) advocated the use of a facilitator.
The facilitator was someone with a direct interest in the adoption of the use of the virtual lab
initiative. Seay and Tucker found that the facilitator was essential to the success of lab because
of resistance from department heads and technical leads who saw the lab as being problematic or
requiring extra work for departmental employees. The facilitator was able to “build
communication channels, provide or find expertise, help the organization with funding, and act
as a handholder/cheerleader” (Seay & Tucker, p. 81) as the use of the lab expanded within the
two universities.
At the University of West Florida (White, 2008), the Information Technology Services
(ITS) department realized that simply building a virtual lab environment was not sufficient to
attract users. Their eDesktop virtual lab environment went live in September of 2007 with 150
seat licenses. By December of the same year, only 20 simultaneous seats were ever occupied at
any given time. The ITS department realized that a campaign targeted a students was needed to
communicate the availability and benefits of the eDesktop virtual computer lab. The marketing
71
campaign consisted of posters and one-on-one meetings with the chairs of academic
departments. These efforts improved usage of the service.
As BCIT moves forward with its virtual computing lab initiatives, it needs to realize that
the success of the projects will depend upon a facilitator and a marketing plan to diffuse the
innovation these services provide to the institute‟s population. Currently, the AppsAnywhere
project has not been publicized within the author‟s School of Computing and Academic Studies.
In spite of this lack of publicity, some departments, like Mathematics, are using AppsAnywhere
to host tools, such as Maple, which are needed by students in certain mathematics courses.11
The implementation plan provides a timeline for delivering an enterprise-level, virtual
server environment to BCIT instructors for the purpose of solving problems related to the use of
virtual machines in physical computing labs. The future state of virtual server environment
offers virtual lab services to instructors at other post-secondary institutions in the province of
British Columbia. The timeline for implementing the plan begins in January, 2011, with a proof-
of-concept project and ends in January, 2016, with a virtual server environment at BCIT that can
provide virtual lab services on a fee basis.
Proof-of-Concept Project
The author has received an Instructional Enhancement Grant from BCIT for the purpose
of hosting virtual computer labs in the existing Citrix, virtual server environment. The goals of
11 In the case of Maple at BCIT, its use is limited by the license agreement: It won‟t work off campus and students
can‟t run it on their laptops. Off campus licensing requires additional licensing. Maple is associated with a course
number. Anyone enrolled in that course can use it. Students must use a school owned computer, on campus, to
access Maple.
72
the project are to solve the three problems the author has with the virtual machines in the SE12-
306 lab. There are three primary deliverables for the project:
1. Deliver virtual labs through an enterprise-level computing environment.
2. Deploy a working set of virtual labs for either the CIT course ACIT 3620 (Systems
Administration using Linux) or ACIT 4620 (Enterprise Systems Administration).
These virtual labs will be used as a prototype for instructors to create virtual labs for
their own courses.
3. Deliver an instructor‟s manual for creating and deploying virtual labs on the
enterprise-level virtual server.
Currently, virtual labs are deployed and maintained on each workstation in the labs where
instructors use them. This requires reconfiguration and redeployment at the beginning of every
term. This involves a significant amount of time by instructors and ITS staff. Hosting virtual
labs on an enterprise-level, virtual server means that they are not reconfigured and redeployed
every term. This frees up significant resources on the lab computers for applications used in
other full-time and part-time programs. This project is designed to have the following impact on
learning and instruction at BCIT:
1. Allow instructors to create complex, real-world computer environments for students to
learn state-of-the-art technologies.
2. Allow instructors to create and deploy labs in a secure environment without having to
worry about limited computer resources and loss of data.
73
3. Save money by reducing the involvement of ITS staff in configuring and deploying
virtual labs to workstations in the physical labs.
4. Allow students access to virtual labs both from the classroom and from their own
computers using a web browser over the Internet.
The success of this project will be measured by the deployment of a working set of virtual labs
for the CIT course ACIT 3620 or ACIT 4620 on an enterprise-level server hosted by BCIT‟s ITS
department. Success will also be measured by the creation and dissemination of an instructor‟s
manual for creating virtual labs on the new virtual server environment. The schedule for the
project is shown in Table 6.
Table 6
Schedule for the Author’s Instructional Enhancement Grant at BCIT
Target Date Key Deliverable
January – March, 2011 Research and selection of virtual lab environment, i.e. Citrix (Xen
Server) or Microsoft Hyper-V Server.
April – September, 2011 Configuration of the virtual server environment, including
deployment of the working set of virtual labs.
October – November, 2011 Write instructor‟s manual for using the virtual lab environment.
December, 2011 Deployment of virtual labs for use in teaching ACIT 4620 (starting
Jan. 2012).
Conclusion
The author uses virtual machines to teach courses in system administration in a physical
lab at BCIT. The use of virtual machines, both by the author and other instructors in the same
lab, has created three problems: (a) the size of the virtual machines exceeding the available hard
74
drive space on lab workstations, (b) virtual machines being deleted, and (c) students unable to
perform lab exercises on the virtual machines outside of the physical lab. The author has
recommended solutions to each of the three problems: (a) students purchase an external, USB
hard drive, (b) install larger hard drives in the laboratory workstations during their next
replacement cycle, and (c) host virtual machines in an enterprise-level, virtual server
environment. These problems are similar to those experienced by educators and researches
teaching networking and system administration courses with virtualization technologies at
colleges and universities in the United States and Europe (Albee et al., 2007; Border, 2007;
Bullers et al., 2006; Dobrilović & Odadžić, 2006; Li, 2010; Li et al., 2009; Rigby & Dark, 2006;
Stackpole, 2008; Stackpole et al., 2008; Stockman et al., 2005; Vollrath & Jenkins, 2004; Yang,
2007).
The review of related work illustrates the use of virtual machines on single workstations
in physical labs (Albee et al., 2007; Bullers et al., 2006; Dobrilović & Odadžić, 2006; Li, 2009;
Lunsford, 2009; Stockman et al., 2005; Toppin, 2008; Vollrath & Jenkins, 2004; Yang, 2007).
Like BCIT‟s AppsAnywhere project, other universities are hosting applications on enterprise-
level servers (Blezard, 2004; Einsmann & Patel, 2007; Kissler & Hoyt, 2005; Schaffer et al.,
2009; Seay & Tucker, 2010; Vouk, 2008; Young, 2008; “Wired Brazil”, 2009; White, 2008).
Finally, educators are using enterprise-level, virtual server environments to create virtual labs
using virtual machines (Border, 2007; Burd et al, 2009; Li, 2009; Rigby & Dark, 2006). This
allows students, especially distance learners, remote access to virtual labs anywhere/anytime.
The author has presented a strategic plan for BCIT to be the leading, post-secondary
institution in the province of British Columbia providing hosted, virtual lab services and
75
expertise to all instructors within the provincial, post-secondary education system by 2015. The
first step in this process is to conduct a proof-of-concept project. The author has been awarded a
grant to start the proof-of-concept in January, 2011.
76
References
Albee, P. B., Campbell, L. A., Murray, M. A., Tongen, C. M., & Wolfe, J. L. (2007). A student-
managed networking laboratory. Proceedings of the 8th ACM SIGITE Conference on
information Technology Education, USA, 67-74. Doi:10.1145/1324302.1324319
Blezard, D. J. (2004). Thin-clients for clusters: working ourselves out of a job? Proceedings of
the 32nd Annual ACM SIGUCCS Fall Conference, USA, 310-314.
doi:10.1145/1027802.1027873
Border, C. (2007). The development and deployment of a multi-user, remote access
virtualization system for networking, security, and system administration classes.
Proceedings of the 38th SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education,
USA, 576-580. doi: 10.1145/1227310.1227501
British Columbia Institute of Technology. (2009). Strategic Plan 2009-2014. Retrieved from the
http://www.bcit.ca/files/about/pdf/stratplan.pdf
British Columbia Institute of Technology. (2010). Implementation Plan 2009-2014. Retrieved
from the http://www.bcit.ca/fiveforward/sites/bcit.ca.fiveforward/files/pdf/BCIT_2009-
2014_Imp_Plan_FINAL.pdf
Bullers, W. I., Burd, S., & Seazzu, A. F. (2006). Virtual machines - an idea whose time has
returned: application to network, security, and database courses. Proceedings of the 37th
SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education, USA, 102-106. doi:
10.1145/1121341.1121375
Burd, S., Seazzu, A., & Conway, C. (2009). Virtual Computing Laboratories: A Case Study with
Comparisons to Physical Computing Laboratories. Journal of Information Technology
Education, 8, IIP-55-IIP-78.
Chu, D. (2006, November 6). Virtualization and Licensing: What Customers Need [Web log
post]. Retrieved from http://blogs.vmware.com/console/2006/11/licensing.html
Citrix Systems, Inc. (2010). Creating a XenDesktop 4 Demo Environment using Citrix XenServer
and Lap Manager (Solution Brief). Retrieved from
http://www.citrix.com/english/ps2/products/documents.asp?contentid=163057#top
Dobrilović, D. & Odadžić, B. (2006). Virtualization Technology as a Tool for Teaching
Computer Networks. Transactions on Engineering, Computing and Technology, 13,126-
130.
Einsmann, J. & Patel, M. (2007). Centralized windows application deployment app2go.
Proceedings of the 35th Annual ACM SIGUCCS Fall Conference, USA, 73-74.
doi:10.1145/1294046.1294064
Enck, J. (2008). Six Best Practices for Server Virtualization. Computerworld Hong Kong, July,
12.
Kissler, S. & Hoyt, O. (2005). Using thin client technology to reduce complexity and cost.
Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM SIGUCCS Fall Conference, USA, 138-140.
doi:10.1145/1099435.1099466
77
Lei, K. & Rawles, P. T. (2003). Strategic decisions on technology selections for facilitating a
network/systems laboratory using real options & total cost of ownership theories.
Proceedings of the 4th Conference on information Technology Curriculum, USA, 76-92.
doi:10.1145/947121.947139
Li, P. (2009). Exploring virtual environments in a decentralized lab. SIGITE Newsletter, 6(1), 4-
10. doi:10.1145/1507561.1507562
Li, P. (2010a). Selecting and using virtualization solutions: our experiences with VMware and
VirtualBox. Journal of Computing Small Colleges, 25(3), 11-17.
Li, P. (2010b). Centralized and decentralized lab approaches based on different virtualization
models. Journal of Computing Small Colleges, 26(2), 263-269.
Li, P., Toderick, L. W., & Lunsford, P. J. (2009). Experiencing virtual computing lab in
information technology education. Proceedings of the 10th ACM Conference on Sig-
information Technology Education, USA, 55-59. Doi:10.1145/1631728.1631747
Lunsford, D.L. (2009). Virtualization Technologies in Information Systems Education. Journal
of Information Systems Education, 20(3), 339-348.
Ma, J. & Nickerson, J. V. (2006). Hands-on, simulated, and remote laboratories: A comparative
literature review. ACM Computing Surveys, 38(3), 7. doi:/10.1145/1132960.1132961
McAuley, D. (2005). Personal Computing and the Power of Illusion. IEE Review, February.
Microsoft Corporation. (2008, November). Application Server License Mobility (Volume
Licensing Brief). Retrieved from http://www.microsoft.com/Licensing/about-
licensing/virtualization.aspx#tab=3
Microsoft Corporation. (2009a, January). Licensing Microsoft Windows Sever 2008 with
Virtualization Technologies (Volume Licensing Brief). Retrieved from
http://www.microsoft.com/Licensing/about-licensing/virtualization.aspx#tab=3
Microsoft Corporation. (2009b, December). Licensing Microsoft Sever Products in Virtual
Environments (Volume Licensing Brief). Retrieved from
http://www.microsoft.com/Licensing/about-licensing/virtualization.aspx#tab=3
Microsoft Corporation. (March, 2010). Licensing Windows 7with Virtual Machine Technologies
(Volume Licensing Brief). Retrieved from http://www.microsoft.com/Licensing/about-
licensing/virtualization.aspx#tab=3
Rigby, S. & Dark, M. (2006). Designing a flexible, multipurpose remote lab for the IT
curriculum. Proceedings of the 7th Conference on information Technology Education,
USA, 161-164. doi:10.1145/1168812.1168843
Schaffer, H.E, Averitt, S.F., Holt, M.I., Peeler, A., Sills, E.D. & Vouk, M.A. (2009). NCSU‟s
Virtual Computing Lab: A Cloud Computing Solution. Computing, 42(7), 94-97.
Seay, C. & Tucker, G. (2010). Virtual Computing Initiative at a Small Public University.
Communications of the ACM, 53(3), 75-83. doi:10.1145/1666420.1666441
78
Shankland, S. (2007, February 27). VMware fires broadside at Microsoft [Web log post].
Retrieved from http://news.cnet.com/VMware-fires-broadside-at-Microsoft/2100-
1016_3-6162690.html?tag=mncol;9n
Stackpole, B. (2008). The evolution of a virtualized laboratory environment. Proceedings of the
9th ACM SIGITE Conference on information Technology Education, USA, 243-248.
doi:10.1145/1414558.1414618
Stackpole, B., Koppe, J., Haskell, T., Guay, L., & Pan, Y. (2008). Decentralized virtualization in
systems administration education. Proceedings of the 9th ACM SIGITE Conference on
information Technology Education, USA, 249-254. doi:10.1145/1414558.1414619
Steinert-Threlkeld, T. (2009). The Key Phases of Virtualization: The conversion of physical
servers, data storage devices and desktop computers into virtual machines is prompting a
sea change in how data centers are configured on Wall Street. Information
Management, 19(7), 14. Retrieved October 5, 2010, from ProQuest Computing.
(Document ID: 1850920331).
Stockman, M., Nyland, J., & Weed, W. (2005). Centrally-stored and delivered virtual machines
in the networking/system administration lab. SIGITE Newsletter, 2(2), 4-6.
doi:10.1145/1072968.1072969
Terris, B. (2010). Computer Laboratories Get Rebooted as Lounges: New gathering places for
laptop users help colleges save on upkeep. The Education Digest, April, 21-23.
Toppin, I. (2008). The Virtual Computing Lab. ATEA Journal, 36(1), 14-17.
Vollrath, A. & Jenkins, S. (2004). Using virtual machines for teaching system administration.
Journal of Computing Small Colleges, 20(2), 287-292.
Vouk, M. (2008). Cloud Computing -- Issues, Research and Implementations. Journal of
Computing & Information Technology, 16(4), 235-246. doi:10.2498/cit.1001391
White, M. (2008). eDesktop. Proceedings of the 36th Annual ACM SIGUCCS Fall Conference:
Moving Mountains, Blazing Trails, USA, 75-78. doi:10.1145/1449956.1449981
Wilson, J. H. (2002). Recipe to lab management or the cookie cutter approach to building labs.
Proceedings of the 30th Annual ACM SIGUCCS Conference on User Services, USA, 298-
300. doi:10.1145/588646.588728
Wired Brazil. (2009). Industrial Engineer, 41(6), 13.
Yang, L. (2007). Teaching system and network administration using virtual PC. Journal of
Computing in Small Colleges, 23(2), 137-142.
Young, J. (2008). A Computer Laboratory That Students Use but Never See. Chronicle of
Higher Education, 54(38). Retrieved from the Education Research Complete database.