|
Corvettefisher posted:My boss does that with our DC and some other VM's I remember the guy who told us his boss made him give his DC for a small company some ridiculous amount of RAM only to find out it was something completely unrelated to the guest that was causing the performance problem. Our biggest VM RAM wise is our exchange datastore server. 8GB of RAM for 600+ mailboxes. We have a few 2 core SQL boxes. Our DCs are a MAXIMUM of 1 core 2GB 40GB.
|
# ¿ Feb 28, 2012 06:18 |
|
|
# ¿ Apr 18, 2024 07:03 |
|
luminalflux posted:Anyone have any hard numbers on performance gains/losses using jumbo frames on iSCSI VMware storage and vMotion over GbE?
|
# ¿ Mar 7, 2012 01:48 |
|
anyone running a VMware cluster on AMD? we are going to eval a few HP DL165C 1U servers to possibly use in our next refresh this spring. We figure 16 "core"/128GB/4x 1Gbe is about right density wise. Just curious if I should expect disappointment from our eval.
|
# ¿ Mar 9, 2012 03:02 |
|
I have a hard time taking some of these reviews seriously, specifically when I don't think the reviewers really understand datacenter needs. For instance, having 16 integer cores vs 8 hyperthreaded cores has some tangible benefits in a typical high density VMware environment where you see 1000s of idling VMs vs simply maxing out the processors and reporting which ones complete the workload faster. CPU contention is a real concern, and whether you solve it by throwing more cores at the problem or simply throwing raw compute at it to get rid of workload faster can result in a very different experience. I'm really interested in anecdotal experience, even if I run the risk of calling in the fan boys. anandtech in particular has great reviews regarding raw performance, but I am not convinced that carries over to real life datacenter needs. I don't even know how you would measure it beyond throwing a certain load on VM after VM until you hit a certian CPU ready threshold.
|
# ¿ Mar 9, 2012 04:03 |
|
Erwin posted:Why do people ever touch the browser on a server? Webex
|
# ¿ Mar 10, 2012 13:54 |
|
zacd posted:I usually share RDP/putty/etc from my PC. Am I doing it wrong?
|
# ¿ Mar 10, 2012 15:11 |
|
Erwin posted:I have a laptop that I usually use for this, but why not make a Windows 7 VM, then use the browser in that for Webex, then RDP to the server that the vendor needs?
|
# ¿ Mar 11, 2012 04:19 |
|
evil_bunnY posted:On another subject: I'm trying to put together some hosts, and hitting an information wall: can I run a 8GB and a 4GB DIMM per channel (for 96GB totalon a 2socket box), or a 8GB and a 16GB DIMM per channel (for 192GB total) and still run them at 1.6ghz? Dell website says yes, but my rep checked with an Intel presales guy and he said 1.3ghz max?
|
# ¿ Mar 14, 2012 00:25 |
|
if you guys have HA VMware clusters and are having trouble backing up large fileservers in a timely fashion, it may be worth your while to spin up a VM that provides CIFS or samba with a snapshotable filesystem (such as ZFS). You could avoid the veam backup and just use the built in functionality of the filesystem to perform your filesystem backups.
|
# ¿ Mar 14, 2012 23:31 |
|
FISHMANPET posted:Is there some way to dd an RDM into a VMDK? I've got two SCCM servers with RDM, and at some point it sounds like I need to move these to VMDK.
|
# ¿ Mar 20, 2012 00:44 |
|
FISHMANPET posted:Though from my naive view it doesn't matter much since VMWare can't use all that memory license wise anyway.
|
# ¿ Mar 22, 2012 23:09 |
|
only partially related to virtualization, but can anyone recommend an FM1 motherboard that supports IOMMU? I want to build a new combo VMware / NAS box, passing my disk controller into the NAS VM via IOMMU.
|
# ¿ Mar 28, 2012 00:58 |
|
would I see a significant performance difference on bulldozer processors running 5.0 rather than 4.1u2?
|
# ¿ Mar 30, 2012 23:16 |
|
Kachunkachunk posted:I haven't heard anything about Bulldozers gaining or losing performance between versions, really. Was there anything in particular that made you wonder (such as existing performance hits on 4.x for any reason at all)?
|
# ¿ Mar 31, 2012 00:54 |
|
evil_bunnY posted:Bulldozer single thread performance is horrible, but I wasn't expecting it to be this bad.
|
# ¿ Mar 31, 2012 14:00 |
|
Misogynist posted:The main concern when using iSCSI is that most people opt to use software HBAs. Even with TOE and other hardware acceleration turned on, the CPU usage of iSCSI is significantly higher than using Fibre Channel. In 99% of production use cases, you'll never notice this CPU usage. However, one impact is that if you are pegging the CPU on your system at 100% utilization, or otherwise jamming up the scheduling queue (i.e. by scheduling a VM that uses every core on the box), you run a much higher risk of introducing random I/O timeouts and errors into your stack than if you used Fibre Channel.
|
# ¿ Apr 1, 2012 22:30 |
|
Maggot Monster posted:This is probably the laziest thing I'll ever post but does anyone have a decent "business case" they've used that successfully laid out the pricing for machines, storage, cabling, 10G infrastructure, the full works. I started with a number in mind that I figured was palatable for me to spend, and framed the discussion around our DR site. The hardware was lacking if we were to have a real disaster. What I did was priced out a full refresh of our production site, and we will move our production hardware to the DR site. We got 2 years out of it in production, and will now get another 3 years out of it at our DR site. Realistically, I know my business environment, and it's very easy to justify purchases when the FDIC suggests that you do so.* Knowing nothing about your company, I would probably just try to make one of the sites the red headed stepchild, and get a 2 year refresh cycle, moving stuff from site a to site c now, and in two years refreshing site b and moving the gear that is there to site c, repeating this process every 4 years. So site C gets 4 year old gear for 2 years. *On this note, does anyone have any suggestions on how to explain how VMware HA and clustering works to an IT examiner that clearly doesn't understand it? Last year one of the examiners told us that when we did DR testing, we had to bring each VM up on each cluster member to prove that the cluster member could run the VM. We decided we were going to ignore his request, but if he comes back I need to have a reasonable response to him, and I really don't even know where to begin with this guy.
|
# ¿ Apr 12, 2012 00:37 |
|
fatjoint posted:It's not completely unreasonable, just put members of your cluster in HA into maintenance mode in a rolling fasion to show the vms migrating and existing on different nodes.
|
# ¿ Apr 12, 2012 04:01 |
|
Wonder_Bread posted:I don't believe this is the case at all. It doesn't even make sense to me. The E1000 is an emulated 1Gb Intel NIC, I don't see how it could go faster.
|
# ¿ Apr 17, 2012 23:58 |
|
Cidrick posted:VMWare would make a mint by adding a paid extension that completely hides all things VMWare from dmidecode, lspci, and the like, just from admins who want to prevent braindead developers from blaming their performance issues on the hypervisor.
|
# ¿ Apr 20, 2012 23:03 |
|
bob arctor posted:what's the easiest cheapest way to to do backups of VMs under essentials (4.1). I have client backup exec on the main servers, but ideally I'd also like to backup the whole VMs to a NAS on a daily or weekly basis.
|
# ¿ Apr 29, 2012 15:12 |
|
Bitch Stewie posted:I guess I'm curious under what circumstances you'd use separate vSwitches?
|
# ¿ May 5, 2012 22:16 |
|
Bitch Stewie posted:I'm asking purely about VM traffic destined for different VLANs.
|
# ¿ May 5, 2012 22:42 |
|
i have a qos question regarding UCS. We have 6x UCS rack servers each with 2x 10Gbe nics connected to seperate Nexus 5548 switches. We plan to carve these links up into vNICs and apply QOS to them. My plan is to have each port carved into 1x management, 1x vmkernel for NFS traffic, 1x VM traffic, and 1x vMotion. I was planning to give highest priority to NFS, second to VM, third to vMotion, and last to management. Does this seem reasonable?
|
# ¿ May 8, 2012 01:21 |
|
ValhallaSmith posted:So is it bad news to run databases in vitual machines still? I was going to use redhat's KVM virtualization tools to do the VMs. Either way, to answer your question, we run every DB server we have in VMware today. None of them are nearly that size, but to echo evil_bunny, IO will likely be a problem that you need to solve long before CPU and memory.
|
# ¿ May 13, 2012 14:30 |
|
we have names like exchmail, lar1, lar2, dc5, callmgr1, etc.. creativity at it's finest.
|
# ¿ May 17, 2012 22:49 |
|
We run everything except management off of a dvswitch.
|
# ¿ May 28, 2012 02:39 |
|
Swink posted:We have two vshpere hosts, with a vcenter server running on one of them. If the server that is hosting vsphere goes down, I lose HA and the ability to vmotion our VMs on to the other host, correct?
|
# ¿ Jun 3, 2012 06:25 |
|
HalloKitty posted:No, I meant as a minimum generally, I didn't mean all VMs get a fixed number or something I would strongly suggest you read up on coscheduling. Allocating two vCPUs when it is not needed will typically reduce performance not just overall, but also on that specific VM.
|
# ¿ Jun 6, 2012 23:55 |
|
HalloKitty posted:Does it not matter if you have cores to spare? I guess I should read up before I make another stupid statement, thanks all When you read that you should allocate the minimum number of cores necessary, it's not just a suggestion. We size based on MHz. If a single core VM is running 50% CPU or higher for extended amounts of time, and the application is multithreaded, we will add a core. Otherwise it is just 1 core, no matter what. We regularly tell application vendors to gently caress off on their requirements.
|
# ¿ Jun 7, 2012 23:06 |
|
MrChupon posted:My question is: What sort of hardware am I looking at if I want to run that many OSes at once and have them be generally responsive? I know you don't need to dedicate CPU cores to a VM, but if I spread 5 VMs plus a host OS over a quad-core processor, is it going to be horrible usability wise? Do I need to dedicate RAM to each VM or can I "over-provision" that too? (RAM seems cheap, though). My guess is that for your testing you will have only one or two VMs actually doing things at any given time, the rest will be idle. Buy as much RAM as you can, a CPU that supports virtualization extensions, and have fun.
|
# ¿ Jun 13, 2012 05:51 |
|
is it esxi 4.x or 5.0? The process is different but at least similar. http://virtualgeek.typepad.com/virtual_geek/2009/01/a-multivendor-post-to-help-our-mutual-iscsi-customers-using-vmware.html
|
# ¿ Jun 18, 2012 12:57 |
|
i would rather put together 3x newegg boxes for virtualization at that price.
|
# ¿ Jun 22, 2012 00:41 |
|
GrandMaster posted:We are in the process of migrating into a new ESXi5 cluster and it looks like any guests with v7 hardware are all running in older EVC modes (Westmere/Nehalem etc), but v8 machines are on Sandy Bridge.
|
# ¿ Jun 28, 2012 04:56 |
|
In my opinion, you are often better off building two boxes. One lower powered one jsut for storage, and one for VMware. You can buy a zacate motherboard, case and power supply for pretty drat cheap, and then you don't have to worry about iommu or a VMware supported storage controller.
|
# ¿ Jul 14, 2012 21:35 |
|
Corvettefisher posted:Does anyone here actively use SRM? Any gripes about it? So far it seems pretty amazing.
|
# ¿ Jul 19, 2012 22:54 |
|
theperminator posted:Both machines are on the same subnet, with a switch for each path
|
# ¿ Jul 20, 2012 01:06 |
|
For anyone curious, we are running our entire environment (600 employee bank/holding company/title company) off of 6 single proc 8 core 2.8GHZ intel servers with 96GB of RAM each. We average around 50% CPU and 80% RAM utilization at peak hours. We can probably bump them up to 128GB each before we hit CPU contention. We have a similar setup at our DR site but only run about 10 VMs there.
|
# ¿ Jul 27, 2012 23:28 |
|
three posted:Oracle like a real man.
|
# ¿ Sep 6, 2012 01:38 |
|
|
# ¿ Apr 18, 2024 07:03 |
|
thebigcow posted:Was Oracle ever the best, or at least a good database? I don't know anything about it but from reading this thread I don't understand how they are a business. Oracle is straight up awesome, but only if you have a team dedicated to it. For most shops where you have some says admins who know how to google up some SQL poo poo, oracle is not a fit.
|
# ¿ Sep 7, 2012 03:47 |