|
Sleepstupid posted:I want to make another "instance" of that VM, is that possible? Can I just copy the one I already converted or do I have to re-convert the same laptop again (which took over 3 days)? Sleepstupid posted:OK, I found the Datastore browser, copied the existing files to a new folder, created a new VM and pointed it at the new folder. Now when I try to start the new VM I get a blue-screen during windows boot. Did I miss anything?
|
# ? Apr 19, 2012 20:55 |
|
|
# ? May 13, 2024 08:11 |
|
Im thinking of beefing up my Desktop to do some home learning. Is the main bottleneck for running VMs the hard drive speed? I already have a nice quadcore CPU, but I'm loath to spend a lot on SSDs. I just want to learn the ins/outs using ESXI and whatever, probably with virtualbox like in the OP. Will I hate myself without them or would getting a couple more regular drives and tons of RAM be fine?
|
# ? Apr 19, 2012 23:09 |
|
Sylink posted:Im thinking of beefing up my Desktop to do some home learning. You can get an SSD and have most your VM's and other VM's run flawlessly, thin provision your SSD's and you should be good. Just get an ample amount of ram, which is dirt cheap
|
# ? Apr 19, 2012 23:15 |
|
Wonder_Bread posted:
I have two 2008 R2 servers with VMXNET3. Iperf only gives me 628Mbits/sec, what am I doing wrong? I checked that both VMs are running on the same ESX host. vvv yeah same.. Also if I enable Jumbo Frames (9000) on both network cards, iperf shows 322Kbits/sec. That was only a test though, I don't think I have Jumbo Frames enabled on the hosts. zapateria fucked around with this message at 14:27 on Apr 20, 2012 |
# ? Apr 20, 2012 12:08 |
|
In the same port group / VLAN?
|
# ? Apr 20, 2012 12:11 |
|
Sylink posted:Is the main bottleneck for running VMs the hard drive speed?
|
# ? Apr 20, 2012 12:15 |
|
Obviously the main bottleneck is RAM if you don't have enough. But once you have enough RAM, an SSD is definitely going to give it a huge boost.
|
# ? Apr 20, 2012 12:21 |
|
HalloKitty posted:Obviously the main bottleneck is RAM if you don't have enough. But once you have enough RAM, an SSD is definitely going to give it a huge boost.
|
# ? Apr 20, 2012 14:32 |
|
Okay, I swear that I hot-added memory to VMWare ESXi 4 machines before, but now I'm getting an error when trying it about my license not permitting it. I've never had a license other than the free one; was there some time limit that I wasn't aware of?
|
# ? Apr 20, 2012 14:42 |
|
zapateria posted:I have two 2008 R2 servers with VMXNET3. Iperf only gives me 628Mbits/sec, what am I doing wrong? I tested another separate vCenter now, but with pretty much the same hardware and versions, and I get around 900Mbit/sec.
|
# ? Apr 20, 2012 14:50 |
|
Less Fat Luke posted:Okay, I swear that I hot-added memory to VMWare ESXi 4 machines before, but now I'm getting an error when trying it about my license not permitting it. I've never had a license other than the free one; was there some time limit that I wasn't aware of? Memory hot-add does not work in the free version (as far back as 2009, at least). It may have worked under a trial license?
|
# ? Apr 20, 2012 15:04 |
|
I know VMconverter lets you go physical to virtual, does it let you do the reverse as well? I'm a retard/not too knowledgeable on it yet so this may be a stupid question.
|
# ? Apr 20, 2012 15:35 |
|
I heave heard that people use VMware for their virtualization, and then Citrix for the remoting instead of using View. What is it that Citrix does better? How do they compare under low bandwidth connections?
|
# ? Apr 20, 2012 16:26 |
|
Sylink posted:I know VMconverter lets you go physical to virtual, does it let you do the reverse as well? Not exactly. The process is called V2P, and vmware has a few docs on the subject. In short, the process entails taking your vmdk and using it to image a system, but, as you can imagine, taking a virtualized hardware configuration and unvirtualizing it can be... tricky.
|
# ? Apr 20, 2012 16:40 |
|
Sylink posted:I know VMconverter lets you go physical to virtual, does it let you do the reverse as well? There is no good reason to do this (and it isn't as easy as P2V)
|
# ? Apr 20, 2012 16:50 |
|
three posted:Memory hot-add does not work in the free version (as far back as 2009, at least). It may have worked under a trial license?
|
# ? Apr 20, 2012 16:51 |
|
Rhymenoserous posted:There is no good reason to do this (and it isn't as easy as P2V) Actually there are (placating support engineers who blame your running virtual for poo poo that's got nothing to do with it). Calling back 45mn later with: "oh yeah and BTW this is on bare metal" is pretty hilarious.
|
# ? Apr 20, 2012 16:53 |
|
DevNull posted:I heave heard that people use VMware for their virtualization, and then Citrix for the remoting instead of using View. The vast majority of IT professionals in the Desktop Virtualization realm are Citrix people due to VMware being new to the market and Citrix having massive market share there. That said, there are a few things Citrix does better, but it's not massive.
|
# ? Apr 20, 2012 16:56 |
|
evil_bunnY posted:Actually there are (placating support engineers who blame your running virtual for poo poo that's got nothing to do with it). I've had that discussion before, usually it ends up with me beating someone to death with their own error message. "No you calling a function that doesn't exist isn't a problem with virtualization idiot"
|
# ? Apr 20, 2012 17:01 |
|
evil_bunnY posted:Actually there are (placating support engineers who blame your running virtual for poo poo that's got nothing to do with it). 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. "No way man, you're totally running on your own dedicated 12-core 48GB box, man. It's your code."
|
# ? Apr 20, 2012 21:18 |
|
Rhymenoserous posted:I've had that discussion before, usually it ends up with me beating someone to death with their own error message. "No you calling a function that doesn't exist isn't a problem with virtualization idiot" I hide the vmtools tray icon and lie through my teeth.
|
# ? Apr 20, 2012 22:23 |
|
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 |
|
adorai posted:The problem typically isn't virtualization, it's people with poo poo VMware environments that are terribly sized. By requiring bare metal, you can at least avoid that problem. We have many vendors that do not support running virtualized, and we just went ahead and did it anyway. We purchased 5x licenses of plate spin just in case. True. Plus, I'm not seriously saying the developers are always the ones at fault. However, I do run into the case a lot of times where a new project comes along and it sounds like a good fit for VMWare: low I/O and CPU requirements, just memory-hungry. But the the lead developer will flee at the first sight of a VMWare environment because they've had poor experiences with it in the past. My guess is that a lot of people have tried out virtualization on their own desktop, or used it back when the hypervisor ran on top of an OS and performance was not so good. Virtualization has come a long way; a properly-architected VM environment is really drat good.
|
# ? Apr 20, 2012 23:16 |
|
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. OH hay it's like you've been on the conference calls with our BI vendor this week....
|
# ? Apr 21, 2012 03:39 |
|
Anyone else run Virtual AD instances to remote sites for clients? I am thinking about starting up cloud AD instances, my VCAP-DCA teacher really liked it a lot, just not sure how to market it. Basically Clouded AD enviroments
|
# ? Apr 22, 2012 21:23 |
|
Corvettefisher posted:Anyone else run Virtual AD instances to remote sites for clients? I am thinking about starting up cloud AD instances, my VCAP-DCA teacher really liked it a lot, just not sure how to market it. I did some work for an MSP that does this. I dont really know how to market it either to be honest. But it worked pretty nice. Our biggest implementation would be small businesses and 9 times out of 10 they would be existing customers. Basically the situation would be a business with an SBS server or real similar. Usually only 1 or 2ish onsite servers. We would spin up a virtual environment, DC, email and anything else they needed, go in and decommission all their onsite physical stuff and then open up vpns to our datacenter usually using redundant commodity internet then switch them over to monthly service billing.
|
# ? Apr 25, 2012 15:25 |
|
I have a few small servers at work I am looking at virtualizing using ESXi.. (whatever it is called these days) My only problem is a shoe string budget.. I can't really buy anything additional at this point. I have a older whitebox/supermicro server I think would be suitable. All the hardware is listed as compatible on the "Whitebox HCL". Specs:2.66Ghz Core 2 Duo, 6GB RAM,SuperMicro mobo w/ dual on-board Intel NICs, PCI-Ex 3Ware 9650 RAID card - 7 SATA discs attached. I am looking at a Windows 2003 DC/DNS instance and 2 small linux instances (one very lightly loaded intranet web server and the other for a UniFi controller). Would this hardware run that comfortably? And what about the RAID config.. I was thinking maybe 6 disks in RAID10, with the 7th as hot spare?
|
# ? Apr 25, 2012 15:56 |
|
stevewm posted:I have a few small servers at work I am looking at virtualizing using ESXi.. (whatever it is called these days) The raid card doesn't seem to be on there for 5, you may need to use 4.1 ESXi or look into something else. Worst case is VMware won't install because it can't detect any storage. You might just want to go RAID 5 + 2 Hot Spares waiting if you can, unless you have some highly utilized SQL DBs
|
# ? Apr 25, 2012 16:01 |
|
This has instructions on getting the 9650 to work with 5.0 U1, it takes a little work, but is worth it. I wouldn't recommend running raid10 or raid5 with hotspares, the 9650 supports raid6, and with write cache enabled (and BBU or UPS, preferably) it performs pretty well for being an "old" raid controller. I would try to get more than 6 gigs of ram though, if at all possible.
|
# ? Apr 26, 2012 09:48 |
|
Wibla posted:This has instructions on getting the 9650 to work with 5.0 U1, it takes a little work, but is worth it. Awesome... thanks!
|
# ? Apr 26, 2012 14:34 |
|
Wibla posted:This has instructions on getting the 9650 to work with 5.0 U1, it takes a little work, but is worth it. Oh it has a decent sized write cache, okay then yeah raid 6 is a good option.
|
# ? Apr 26, 2012 14:37 |
|
Strange issue I am seeing, anyone care to share some insight? vMotion between these two hosts used to work (to my knowledge). There are identical units (Dell R610). Both have Intel E5620 cpus. Verified VT settings are the same. Already tried powering down a VM, resetting all CPUID mask settings to default. No go. Both hosts are currently running ESX 4.1.0 433742
|
# ? Apr 26, 2012 16:05 |
|
Shot in the dark, do they both have the same Hyperthreading settings enabled/disabled in BIOS?
|
# ? Apr 26, 2012 16:11 |
|
Are the host bits identical (on the vMotion source)?
|
# ? Apr 26, 2012 16:19 |
|
Both have HT enabled. How would I determine if the host bits are identical (google isn't helping me today)? Edit: I see no difference. Moey fucked around with this message at 17:27 on Apr 26, 2012 |
# ? Apr 26, 2012 17:00 |
|
Not sure if this is the right place, but I couldn't find a dedicated Citrix thread; I'm trying to setup the Citrix Receiver on my local machine to look for more than one Endpoint, or to attempt a connection on multiple Endpoints. Right now, we have an issue with outages on one ISP, and I want for the Citrix Receiver to see that it can't access that specific server and try another instead. Is there any way to do this? I've done some research and looked into some registry settings, but none of them suit my needs.
|
# ? Apr 26, 2012 20:16 |
|
Cthulhuite posted:Not sure if this is the right place, but I couldn't find a dedicated Citrix thread; This is a bit beyond my knowledge and something that has changed a lot over the years, but I don't think you want to be doing this on the local side. The Citrix Receiver shouldn't be looking at a specific XenApp server. It would be looking at a specific CAG / WI. Do you administer this Citrix farm or are you a user?
|
# ? Apr 26, 2012 20:26 |
|
Internet Explorer posted:This is a bit beyond my knowledge and something that has changed a lot over the years, but I don't think you want to be doing this on the local side. The Citrix Receiver shouldn't be looking at a specific XenApp server. It would be looking at a specific CAG / WI. Do you administer this Citrix farm or are you a user? It's my Farm, but I came into it long after it was all setup, and it currently points to a specific XA server. I suggested setting up a CAG, but my boss doesn't want to spend the time rejigging the whole system, and wants a local 'patch' to make it work. If there's no way to do it, though, I can push for a better CAG\WI setup and see where I get.
|
# ? Apr 26, 2012 20:33 |
|
The proper way to do it is with a CAG/WI. If it is all local or over a VPN / private WAN you can get away with just the WI. What would happen in this instance is the session would go down if XA01 went down, but would then reconnect a new session to XA02. What version of XenApp are you running? There is an older version of the "Citrix Receiver" called XenAppHosted or any of the older versions that contained Program Neighborhood that would do what you want. If you can't find a version of the older client with Custom ICA Connections allowed, let me know and I can get it to you. But yeah, a WI isn't "rejigging the whole system" and is the better long term solution.
|
# ? Apr 26, 2012 20:53 |
|
|
# ? May 13, 2024 08:11 |
|
So I'm basically in support hell right now. I've got VMware saying I'm having a Netapp problem and Netapp saying I have a VMWare problem. ARGH!!!!!! So what's happening is that for some reason my NSF shares seem to disappear for a bit. For example: Is what happended last night. Now this only started happening after I upgraded to 5.0, everything was running perfectly on 4.1. VMware's first response was to webex in, take a look and immediately assign blame on Netapp and said I had to open a trouble ticket up with them. I just shrugged and did as I was told. Netapp was much more thorough and mead me generate an autosupport and we went through the log files. We didn't find any network disconnect and nothing to indicate that the the shares were being shut down. Next we created a new NFS share on the other interface and moved some of the more heavy I/O intensive VM's over there and surprise surprise I didn't have any lost connections with that share. After running a few other support tools I was passed back off to VMware. Now my VMware support person is trying to blame the network despite my monitoring tools showing no downtime and the log files from our procurve showing nothing to indicate there is a problem. Has anyone had a problem like this since upgrading to 5.0? Anyone have any ideas?
|
# ? Apr 27, 2012 00:53 |