|
bull3964 posted:So, what IS a decent virtualization aware backup solution? I see people complain about Veeam quite a bit, but it seems like that's all that everyone uses. If your environment is not big, Backup Exec is not that bad. Yes Symantec sucks and yes Backup Exec does sometimes crap out errors that you do not expect nor should it crap them, but overall for small environments, even virtual ones, its not that bad. Veeam is also not terrible for smaller environments. Yes again it may do some stupid stuff from time to time and their support can sometimes be stupid but it does support Hyper-V and Vmware alike so would work ok in a small mixed environment. If your environment was going to be bigger than I would say 3 hosts and you were using all vmware, I would reccomend PHD virtual. So far everyone I've talked to likes it and we demoed it and liked it a lot ourselves. Not sure if I would use DPM. I hear it works fine but if you really do have such a mixed environment then it will be hard to use DPM because DPM is all about keeping you in the Microsoft software silo.
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2013 17:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 8, 2024 21:40 |
|
|
bull3964 posted:So, what IS a decent virtualization aware backup solution? I see people complain about Veeam quite a bit, but it seems like that's all that everyone uses. I'm pretty happy with the built-in VDP, it de-dupes, it's fast as hell, free and so far it just works. Which is more than I can say for a lot products. But we aren't huge, ~50 VMs per site, so maybe it falls down at huge scale. Edit: Crap, didn't notice you were on HyperV now. VDP is Vmware of course.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2013 18:18
|
|
|
Yeah, we are just caught right at the cusp between smaller and larger and that causes some issues. It's tricky finding solutions that we can afford while at the same time offer scalability. We are constantly fighting this battle of either butting up against the limits of SMB hardware/software while the next level of stuff remains tantalizingly out of reach. We have a mix of 50 or so physical and VMs with the VMs on two hyper-v 2008 R2 machines. As I said, we are primarily a .NET shop, but we do have our older legacy platform running an oracle DB server and Oracle Application Server along with Coldfusion, all mostly on RHEL. I've been pounding away at the fact that all this stuff is on aging 7 year old hardware and we don't have a prayer in the world of setting it back up from scratch again. So, I've been given tentative approval to move the majority of all our remaining physical boxes over to VMs while at the same time replacing the hardware we already have in place for virtualization (which are two white box Supermicro servers that I loathe with all my being.) So, while the vast majority of our business is running IIS servers and other windows machines with windows services with a MSSQL backend (that will remain non-virtualized for now), we do have some legacy Linux systems as well as a few non-legacy linux systems (primarily mongodb.) So, the future of our platform is in flux right now. Switching to VMWare is possible in part or in totality. Right now I'm more inclined to have a small VMWare footprint for our linux stuff while going 2012 Hyper-V for our windows stuff, but nothing is set in stone yet. Right now, we're just sizing the hardware requirements with Dell. I just know there's no way in hell I'm going to get approval to purchase System Center AND a replacement backup system. If we go 3rd party for backups, the cost of system center puts it off the table and I lose the management piece that I really need. Yet, DPMs inability to deal effectively with linux and VMware really puts a hurt on its viability. Nukelear v.2 posted:I'm pretty happy with the built-in VDP, it de-dupes, it's fast as hell, free and so far it just works. Which is more than I can say for a lot products. But we aren't huge, ~50 VMs per site, so maybe it falls down at huge scale. I was looking into the viability of VDP for the linux pieces possibly in conjunction with DPM (keeping the VDP datastores somewhere that could be backed up by DPM). But that seems like an overly complex solution that could be prone to breakdown. bull3964 fucked around with this message at 18:47 on Jan 24, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2013 18:40
|
|
|
bull3964 posted:Yeah, we are just caught right at the cusp between smaller and larger and that causes some issues. It's tricky finding solutions that we can afford while at the same time offer scalability. We are constantly fighting this battle of either butting up against the limits of SMB hardware/software while the next level of stuff remains tantalizingly out of reach. What is your plan for virtualization then? Sounds like your current platform is not great so you can't shift your physical env into that. So your real budget item is going to be building out something for that. We're pretty similar, we run a mix of .Net/Win and Linux/Java with an MSSQL backend. We've moved everything onto vmware except the sql servers. Dell servers, 10G EQL storage. Really surprisingly cheap, much cheaper than the datacenter it replaced. We use Opsview for monitoring, which is basically a nice gui wrapper around nagios, the windows agent is fairly nice. Totally free with commercial options available. Can write plugins in perl/python/whatever to monitor anything you want. And as mentioned previously, VDP for backup, free with vmware.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2013 18:50
|
|
|
I have heard good things about PHD Virtual for Vmware. We just pulled the trigger on licensing for our XenServer hosts so I'll find out soon how it handles those.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2013 18:54
|
|
|
bull3964 posted:MSSQL backend (that will remain non-virtualized for now) Any particular reason why? bull3964 posted:
I don't see an upside to managing VMware and Hyper-V. The downside, obviously, is that you'll be managing both VMware and Hyper-V at the same time. My preference would be all VMware, but I think all Hyper-V is still preferable to both. Wouldn't System Center then be viable?
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2013 18:56
|
|
|
Nukelear v.2 posted:What is your plan for virtualization then? Sounds like your current platform is not great so you can't shift your physical env into that. So your real budget item is going to be building out something for that. Correct. We did some data collection with dpack earlier in the week and are going to discuss the results with Dell tomorrow to get a feel for hardware sizing. Here's the real skinny. Virtualization started out as "easy way to add some test servers" to "poo poo, the test servers were faster than our production servers so lets move all our stuff on to it." The really wasn't surprising since the old webservers were p4 based xeons and the new VM hosts had dual X5560s in one and dual X5670s in the other. I was out of the hardware purchasing loop when these machines were bought about 2.5-3 years back and the person who originally speced them out has since left. I never liked what he purchased and how he went about purchasing them. That process basically consisted of "buy white box supermicro chassis with bare minimum RAM/disk allotment and go 3rd party to fill out drive bays and RAM slots." These Hyper-V hosts were both using local storage. For awhile, that was fine. Really even today we don't have much for IO issues as the webservers really don't pound the disk that much. RAM usage was getting close, but nothing alarming yet, CPU usage was only running about 30% for one VH and about 55% for the other. Physical to virtual processor ratio on the both virtual hosts was well in spec too. However, local storage did come back to bite us. Remember what I said about the whole "buy servers as shells and then fill out disks"? We have 4 servers of this chassis across our prod and test environments for various purposes, all purchased within 18 months or so of each other and every single drat one of them has a different RAID controller with their own drive compatibility list. Then you had the Thailand flood constraining disk supply right around the time that we needed to add more storage and the end result was just throwing any drat disk we could get a hold of in there, compatibility list be damned. Fast forward to 3 weeks ago and one of those VH had a RAID controller reset event which caused windows to bluescreen and when the machine came up a whole volume was missing. I was not surprised. We've had raid controller issues with virtually every single drat recent supermicro machine we've had (I think Iv'e RMA'd about 4 raid controllers from various machines over the past 2 years and replaced one backplane.) This was something that had been brought up, but the answer was "we'll take the risk for now." Well, we lost about 10 VMs. There was no platform downtime due to redundancies and no real data was lost as backups had that covered. But lack of host level backup ability meant we had to spend the next week rebuilding VMs and suffer a degraded level of redundancy and some degraded level of performance until they were completed. So, NOW the risk is deemed not worth it and things are progressing. I ran some general spit balling of hardware/software costs to get the process moving and to get them used to the idea of spending money and now I'm with talks with Dell to get a comprehensive solution actually hammered out. I have a general idea what they are going to recommend based on what we have now and what the dpack results where (Likely 3-5 R620 with an Equilogic PS4100 providing storage) but I won't know until tomorrow when we discuss the results. My gut right now is telling me VMWare essentials Plus with two R620s to handle the current and legacy linux and 3 R620s with Hyper-v for our windows boxes that don't quite need all the HA options that VMware provides, but I freely admit that stems from me both being comfortable with Hyper-V on 2008 R2 and wanting to play with the new Hyper-V 2012 features. My main goals right now are to get things to the point where a) we can lose a complete host and not suffer any degraded performance or degraded redundancy b) can easily recover and be back up to full configuration after host is recovered Erwin posted:Any particular reason why? Our MSSQL backend has just come off of a hardware upgrade cycle this past summer and is current sitting as a stable and well performing cluster with hardware that's all under warranty. In short, there's no reason to mess with it. bull3964 fucked around with this message at 19:44 on Jan 24, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2013 19:38
|
|
|
bull3964 posted:So, what IS a decent virtualization aware backup solution? I see people complain about Veeam quite a bit, but it seems like that's all that everyone uses. vRanger and PHD Virtual have been decent. I once compared Veeam's handling of snapshots to walking a dog while the owner is on vacation, letting it die, and continuing to walk it every day but not telling anyone. The gentleman assured me he did not kill my dog, though.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2013 20:35
|
|
|
bull3964 posted:My gut right now is telling me VMWare essentials Plus with two R620s to handle the current and legacy linux and 3 R620s with Hyper-v for our windows boxes that don't quite need all the HA options that VMware provides, but I freely admit that stems from me both being comfortable with Hyper-V on 2008 R2 and wanting to play with the new Hyper-V 2012 features. Your gut should be telling you to dump hyperv as well, running two virtual platforms sounds awful. HV's only real compelling feature is cheaper windows licensing, use the best tool for the job, not the cheapest. With 2 platforms both need excess compute capacity to handle failure, they won't share disk space on your san, personnel need to know both, two backup platforms, etc etc. Headaches. Hardware wise that's pretty much what we run, disk-less R620's using PS4110 storage with PowerConnect 8100's (I know this might eventually bite me in the rear end, but god drat Cisco is expensive.) Also, go 10gig for your storage network, don't get the 4100. Yes switches cost more, and yes you don't think your webservers use enough IO to need it, but it will save your rear end. SAN negotiating 101: Before they present you with their EQL solution tell them you are planning on using a Netapp\vnxe but you'll entertain their quote. Eql can get very very cheap. Nukelear v.2 fucked around with this message at 21:33 on Jan 24, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2013 20:52
|
|
|
Moey posted:Oh Veeam.... We have three zones and one backup job for all VMs in a zone. It's like 40 total VMs being backed up. Not much of anything really.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2013 20:53
|
|
|
Nukelear v.2 posted:Your gut should be telling you to dump hyperv as well, running two virtual platforms sounds awful. HV's only real compelling feature is cheaper windows licensing, use the best tool for the job, not the cheapest. With 2 platforms both need excess compute capacity to handle failure, they won't share disk space on your san, personnel need to know both, two backup platforms, etc etc. Headaches. I agree that having everything the same is the way to go and in a vacuum I would jump at it. There are just other considerations. We have ZERO staff expertise with VMware. None. A significant amount of our Windows infrastructure is already on hyper-v. I know there are routes for conversion of Hyper-V VMs to VMWare, but I want to be sure I understand all the caveats of that before I even consider it. Keep in mind that we don't strictly need HA on the vast majority of our windows machines. Our platform is fairly distributed and we can easily survive the temporary loss of groups of machines. I'm really more concerned about how easy it is to get them up and running again after the hardware is recovered. Cost is also a major consideration. Any more than 3 VH and and we're going to either have to do multiple Essentials Plus kits or move up to enterprise. Multiple essentials plus kits pretty much means managing two systems anyways (albeit both of the same platform) since I'll only have centralized management of 3 hosts per kit. Enterprise pricing is just flat out of the budget. There's also the ongoing support cost to consider. It may be the case that we start out with a VMWare footprint enough to meet the needs of our legacy linux systems (because gently caress trying to run RHEL 4 on Hyper-V) with an expansion of that later, converting the Hyper-V hosts to VMWare as we gain comfort. Any increase in cost in one area is going to cause a pull back in another and right now we do not have any real centralized management software for windows outside of a WSUS installation. So, the decision I may have to make is "Do I want to go all VMWare and forego Windows OS management or do I get that Windows management software and have to maintain two virtualization platforms?" quote:Hardware wise that's pretty much what we run, disk-less R620's using PS4110 storage with PowerConnect 8100's (I know this might eventually bite me in the rear end, but god drat Cisco is expensive.) Again, it all comes down to cost. I'm not sure if we'll be able to afford 10gig switching off the bat. We got a guy in our finance department that lives for negotiating quotes, so we should be able to beat them up on pricing pretty good. When all is said and done though, I have about ~$100k (give or take) to cover this end to end. That's hardware, operating systems, hypervisor software, and management software (if we actually purchase any.) There are certain fixed points (~$3800 per machine on Server 2012 datacenter pricing) but other unknowns right now (how many VHs do we REALLY need, what is our storage going to look like, VMWare or not to VMWare) that may need to be bent and flexed in a certain way to get this done in a way that's not wasting money but puts us in a better position than we are now. bull3964 fucked around with this message at 21:58 on Jan 24, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2013 21:54
|
|
|
bull3964 posted:I agree that having everything the same is the way to go and in a vacuum I would jump at it. There are just other considerations. We have ZERO staff expertise with VMware. None. A significant amount of our Windows infrastructure is already on hyper-v. I know there are routes for conversion of Hyper-V VMs to VMWare, but I want to be sure I understand all the caveats of that before I even consider it. Keep in mind that we don't strictly need HA on the vast majority of our windows machines. Our platform is fairly distributed and we can easily survive the temporary loss of groups of machines. I'm really more concerned about how easy it is to get them up and running again after the hardware is recovered. On the cost front: Essentials kits can be upgraded very cheaply and individual processor licenses purchased, it's how we did ours with a 4 node site. No need for 2 kits and 2 vcenter installs. A dual proc R620 doing Vmware enterprise is ~$5k, if you spend $4k for WinDC, not a huge differential. Windows licenses can be pricey, but if you are using Web Edition for most of your installs then that isn't bad at all. Vmware brings more to the table than just better HA, the whole platform is leagues ahead of HV. In terms of VH's, right now you are looking at 2+4. Assuming you have 1 node spare capacity in each platform, consolidating platforms bring you down to 5 hosts and the associated VM savings, (4k win or 5k vm) + 6k hardware. 10 grand right off the bat in addition to all the other software you now won't have to duplicate. Your finance guy won't have the same leverage that you will. Name a competing product and they will dip into special pricing just for loving over certain competitors. Netapp/EMC are your best bets. 100k is entirely doable. I bought way more for not that much more. What you have now: This is probably your most compelling argument for sticking with HyperV, but if you need vmware to run linux then you're going to learn it anyway. As you said growing into is probably a good option, get a 2/3 node kit + san, migrate your legacy apps and once you feel comfortable then expand and migrate the HyperV nodes.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2013 22:40
|
|
|
Goon Matchmaker posted:We have three zones and one backup job for all VMs in a zone. It's like 40 total VMs being backed up. Not much of anything really. Sounds similar sized as my old environment. What I did that ended up "fixing" a lot of Veeam's issues was create an individual job for each VM, then use post processing to command line trigger the next job in line. A little pain in the rear end to setup, but never again did I have one screwed up VM backup cause me to have to run fulls on EVERY loving VM.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2013 23:04
|
|
|
Nukelear v.2 posted:On the cost front: Windows 2012 DC is going to be purchased regardless. DC license grants unlimited virtualization rights per physical host (up to 2 procs) so it's way more economical than buying licenses piecemeal. Web Edition doesn't exist anymore. You pretty much buy either standard or datacenter and if you are running more than 8-10 windows VMs on a VH, it's more economical to buy DC. The only effect VMWare has on the cost is increasing it. If we go VMware across the board, it doesn't allow me to buy less of anything else (other than no internal drives on the server.) I'm not saying you don't get something pretty significant for that increase in cost or that it isn't worth it, it's just never the cheaper solution.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2013 23:31
|
|
|
I'm about to install appassure for the first time in an environment of a similar size to yours, will be interesting. We were driven to try something other than Veeam for all the reasons above.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2013 23:33
|
|
|
bull3964 posted:Windows 2012 DC is going to be purchased regardless. DC license grants unlimited virtualization rights per physical host (up to 2 procs) so it's way more economical than buying licenses piecemeal. At first I thought you were talking out of your rear end, but I ended up checking and sure enough each Datacenter 2012 licenses now covers 2 cpu packages per host instead of one. That's going to save me some money. As for cost savings with VMware, they can be there with very large installations because you're going to get a better consolidation ratios which is going to reduce rack space, hardware, and power/cooling load. For a small/medium shop where a handful of hosts can handle everything, that probably won't be significant compared to the savings of just virtualizing on anything to begin with. BangersInMyKnickers fucked around with this message at 23:54 on Jan 24, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2013 23:51
|
|
|
bull3964 posted:Windows 2012 DC is going to be purchased regardless. DC license grants unlimited virtualization rights per physical host (up to 2 procs) so it's way more economical than buying licenses piecemeal. Wow, didn't notice they got rid of Web. That's an interesting move. So yea using DC to license your VMs make sense. Not saying VMware is itself the cheaper option, even with Web it was always going to be more. The savings come when you offset the costs of having to run two different platforms.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2013 00:22
|
|
|
BangersInMyKnickers posted:At first I thought you were talking out of your rear end, but I ended up checking and sure enough each Datacenter 2012 licenses now covers 2 cpu packages per host instead of one. That's going to save me some money. Yup, I honestly think they made this move to make System Center more palatable for people. On a two socket system, 2012 DC + System Center 2012 DC is the same cost as just licensing 2008 R2 DC. Make sense if you think about it since you are locked into SA with System Center if you want to continue using it after two years, so Microsoft gets continual payments every two years for SA on System Center instead of nothing if they just bought server licenses. BangersInMyKnickers posted:
Yeah, but that's assuming you aren't virtualized at all yet. We're already running around 30ish VMs under hyper-v. We basically have 4 physical linux machines that we can't easily virtualize under hyper-v (we are running about 6 other CentOS VMs under hyper-v with zero issues). So, that's why there's a lot of indecision on my part whether or not it's worth changing ALL the VHs over to VMWare just because 4 P2V conversions will require it. Now, once we have VMWare capability, we'll probably move a few other linux machines over to it. That's mostly for HA sake though rather than hypervisor capability with the host OS. For example, we are running Kayako as our support ticketing software and that's CentOS under hyper-v right now. There's no easy way to run multiples of that software behind a loadbalancer or cluster it, so HA under VMWare is the logical choice. bull3964 fucked around with this message at 01:01 on Jan 25, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2013 00:49
|
|
|
BangersInMyKnickers posted:At first I thought you were talking out of your rear end, but I ended up checking and sure enough each Datacenter 2012 licenses now covers 2 cpu packages per host instead of one. That's going to save me some money. Surprise, the 2012 DC licenses cost twice as much as 2008 ones, and were traded on a 2:1 ratio when upping from 2008->2012 on SA. quote:If you have Software Assurance on Datacenter edition, you will be entitled to Windows Server 2012 Datacenter edition. Today, a Datacenter license covers up to 1 processor. A Windows Server 2012 Datacenter license will cover up to 2 processors. So for every two current Datacenter licenses with Software Assurance, you will receive one Windows Server 2012 Datacenter edition license. http://download.microsoft.com/download/4/d/b/4db352d1-c610-466a-9aaf-eef4f4cfff27/ws2012_licensing-pricing_faq.pdf
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2013 01:17
|
|
|
bull3964 posted:So, what IS a decent virtualization aware backup solution? I see people complain about Veeam quite a bit, but it seems like that's all that everyone uses.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2013 02:00
|
|
|
Pretty sure the best use of Veeam's marketing budget right now is to put out a hit out on Misogynist.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2013 02:17
|
|
|
ragzilla posted:Surprise, the 2012 DC licenses cost twice as much as 2008 ones, and were traded on a 2:1 ratio when upping from 2008->2012 on SA. Ha, yeah, you're actually right on this. I was thinking of enterprise edition which was around $2500 per machine (not licensed per proc) and not the $1800 of 1 proc of 2008 R2 DC. Misogynist posted:We're pretty happy with PHD Virtual. The management software sucks, but it's a small price to pay for not needing Veeam. Thanks, that's the second recommendation for PHD Virtual. I'll be sure to check out pricing if we decide to go 100% VMWare route. It doesn't look like they support Hyper-V yet, but it seems as though it's coming this year. bull3964 fucked around with this message at 02:36 on Jan 25, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2013 02:32
|
|
|
So I'm planning on setting up a linux server in the nearish future, and I'd love to use it as a print server, but my printer has no linux drivers. Could I set up an XP VM or something to allow that to work?
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2013 02:33
|
|
|
bull3964 posted:So, what IS a decent virtualization aware backup solution? I see people complain about Veeam quite a bit, but it seems like that's all that everyone uses. I've got nothing but love for CommVault, but I'm coming from an EMC Networker background.. I'd rather dig out my eyes with a rusty spoon than ever use Networker again so anything is good in comparison. CV can auto discover vm's for backup based on policy (resource pool/datastore/cluster etc), change blocked tracking with synthetic fulls, deduplication, image/vmdk/file based restores from block level backups, multi site replication. I never have to think about managing it and am confident that we can recover any data we ever need.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2013 02:34
|
|
|
I think CommVault licensing is out of our league. I think I could probably blow the entire infrastructure budget for this year on just setting up backup.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2013 02:40
|
|
|
Mierdaan posted:Pretty sure the best use of Veeam's marketing budget right now is to put out a hit out on Misogynist.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2013 02:45
|
|
|
sanchez posted:I'm about to install appassure for the first time in an environment of a similar size to yours, will be interesting. We were driven to try something other than Veeam for all the reasons above. Be very cautious with appassure. It's penchant for nonsensical errors when nothing has changed makes backup exec look divine by comparison. My advice would be to install agents to a few servers at a time and not to do a hard switchover. This will make working through the errors more manageable.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2013 02:52
|
|
|
buffbus posted:Be very cautious with appassure. It's penchant for nonsensical errors when nothing has changed makes backup exec look divine by comparison. My advice would be to install agents to a few servers at a time and not to do a hard switchover. This will make working through the errors more manageable. Interested in any more feedback you have on AppAssure. We need to rethink our backup situation right now, as we got burned on Veeam a while back and fell back to agent-based DPM backups inside of VMs, and Dell is pitching AppAssure pretty hard.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2013 04:00
|
|
|
bull3964 posted:The only effect VMWare has on the cost is increasing it. If we go VMware across the board, it doesn't allow me to buy less of anything else (other than no internal drives on the server.) I'm not saying you don't get something pretty significant for that increase in cost or that it isn't worth it, it's just never the cheaper solution. bull3964 posted:Windows 2012 DC is going to be purchased regardless. DC license grants unlimited virtualization rights per physical host (up to 2 procs) so it's way more economical than buying licenses piecemeal.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2013 10:18
|
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:I thought that was only if you virtualize on Hypah-hypah? Nope, DC covers you on any virtualization platform. Microsoft just doesn't give SUPPORT to Windows when it is installed on any other virutalization platform. This is from the 2012 Virtualization licensing brief. quote:If a server is running ESX/ESXi as the virtualization technology, then Windows Server is not deployed as a host The big thing to remember about Windows licensing in a virtual environment is those licences are supposed to be assigned per machine. Say you have two windows 2012 servers on one VH and two windows servers on another VH and you have them set to failover to each other in the event of host failure. You would then need to license 4 OSEs per physical host, not 2 since the maximum number of OSEs that could occupy the host at once is 4. So, you would need a total of 4 Standard edition licenses (each licence covers 2 virtual OSEs) instead of just 2. So, when you start factoring in HA, you get to a point REAL quick where it's cheaper and simpler just to license every VH for Datacenter. I never had an issue managing 2008R2 Hyper-V. It's been pretty much set and forget for the most part. Our environment is pretty simple though. bull3964 fucked around with this message at 15:04 on Jan 25, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2013 14:50
|
|
|
ragzilla posted:Surprise, the 2012 DC licenses cost twice as much as 2008 ones, and were traded on a 2:1 ratio when upping from 2008->2012 on SA. My per-license cost didn't change but that's academic prices for you.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2013 15:01
|
|
|
A third vote of confidence for PHD Virtual. We use it at a few dozen clients, and we've been partners with them since their esXpress days. If you can't do SAN-level backups, then PHD Virtual is really the best game in town.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2013 15:49
|
|
|
Hey View admins, anyone every test out ThinApp Factory? Just came across it and it looks pretty awesome. http://blogs.vmware.com/thinapp/2012/06/thinapp-factory-released.html
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2013 17:08
|
|
|
Moey posted:Hey View admins, anyone every test out ThinApp Factory? Just came across it and it looks pretty awesome. Ugh, I really want to use View and all this fun stuff, but I need aero on 4 screens. I think that's happening with 5.2 and I can't wait.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2013 17:25
|
|
|
BangersInMyKnickers posted:My per-license cost didn't change but that's academic prices for you.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2013 17:46
|
|
|
Misogynist posted:Nothing to do with academic pricing -- whereas 2008 R2 was licensed per socket, 2012 is licensed per core. If you're paying for SnS for those upgrades, MS gives you four cores for every socket, which fucks you over if you're running 6- or 8-core CPUs as your standard across your virtual environment. Server OS licensing is not per core though, it's still per socket. Only SQL Server has gone to per core.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2013 17:48
|
|
|
Erwin posted:Ugh, I really want to use View and all this fun stuff, but I need aero on 4 screens. I think that's happening with 5.2 and I can't wait. Aero on only 2 screen is a limitation of the software rendering. You should be able to do it with ESX 5.1, but you will need a hardware GPU. Just curious, why do you need 4 screens with Aero? What is it that Aero gets you?
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2013 18:02
|
|
|
Moey posted:Hey View admins, anyone every test out ThinApp Factory? Just came across it and it looks pretty awesome. Wow that looks really cool thanks
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2013 18:21
|
|
|
VMware also just put out a vCenter plugin to create and manage all your support requests, including automatically grabbing and anonymizing log files. Seems like the kind of thing that should have been created 4 years ago but better late than never.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2013 18:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 8, 2024 21:40 |
|
|
Mierdaan posted:Interested in any more feedback you have on AppAssure. We need to rethink our backup situation right now, as we got burned on Veeam a while back and fell back to agent-based DPM backups inside of VMs, and Dell is pitching AppAssure pretty hard. I'm in the same boat right now. Currently using Backup Exec and it's ok but I'd be open to making a change. I'm having an end-to-end Dell solution being pitched at me and of course it has AppAssure in it. I don't know much about hte product to be honest so I guess I'd better get to reading...
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2013 19:46
|
|
