I hear rumors all the time about what's going to be in the next release of ESX. A full-featured [virtual] volume manager in ESX certainly would be a nice feature.
By submitting your email address, you agree to receive emails regarding relevant topic offers from TechTarget and its partners. You can withdraw your consent at any time. Contact TechTarget at 275 Grove Street, Newton, MA.
Existing VMware file systems today are very robust -- they can be extended in size online, but I don't think anyone really ever shrinks volumes very much, so I don't really see a huge need for that. [VMware's] VMFS [Virtual Machine File System] is designed to house VMware disk files and not meet the need of every possible data storage need. So if we see [a virtual volume manager in ESX], that's great. If not, a well-designed implementation doesn't need one.
As for virtual routers, I don't see where that makes a whole lot of sense. I don't want to see ESX become a multipurpose operating system. After all, it's a hypervisor, and a really good one. I'd rather let the router folks do the routing, just like I wouldn't want to see virtual machines running in a router.