|
And you should be able to do shared-nothing vmotion with the VM running if you: a) are running 5.5 b) are using the web GUI. It doesn't allow it from the thick client.
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2014 19:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 04:30 |
|
|
adorai posted:Why does he disable the serial and parallel port in the bios instead of just deleting them from the VM? Seems like a waste for the hypervisor to emulate them just to disable them. It wastes more time to do it that way, and more effort is obviously better.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2014 20:47
|
|
|
three posted:It's a 6 year old blog post. Almost as if it was made for a nearly 6 year old OS. Don't get me wrong 2012 has some awesome stuff but it's adoption rate is less than moderate. Serfer posted:So maybe one good piece of advice (indexing), a whole bunch of OCD stuff, and two pieces of bad advice (disable firewall and ipv6). Hypervisor level AV/FW's own, not a fan for turning off the windows stuff but if you are already doing FW/AV on the hypervisor level what purpose does these OS FW serve? adorai posted:Why does he disable the serial and parallel port in the bios instead of just deleting them from the VM? Seems like a waste for the hypervisor to emulate them just to disable them. gently caress if I know, never really asked that. I should look into it more. Dilbert As FUCK fucked around with this message at 02:15 on Jul 13, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2014 02:02
|
|
|
I can guarantee most of you did things differently 6 years ago. Virtualization was still fairly new in 2008. Critiquing and/or using a 6 year old blog post is really dumb.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2014 02:46
|
|
|
three posted:Critiquing and/or using a 6 year old blog post is really dumb. I'll give it to you that using a blog post for a old OS when 12 R2 is out is dubm but MS hasn't changed the core much since 09. I mean seriously what's the percentage of the adaptation rate of 2012? I'd like to admit it's above a 2012 domain structure but I doubt it.' PS: PVS sucks,Studio/Director, and citrix in general blows. This is a garbage product compared to view. I honeslty do not know how people can defend citrix desktop unless they are locked into old mentality of desktop delivery systems... I mean poo poo it "works" but only if you want to be someone who uses out of date architectures....
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2014 03:22
|
|
|
Sure, I'll take the bait from the guy arguing you should tweak Windows 2008 R2 for virtualization... What is the equivalent of PVS in the View world that works better?
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2014 04:00
|
|
|
Internet Explorer posted:Sure, I'll take the bait from the guy arguing you should tweak Windows 2008 R2 for virtualization... What is the equivalent of PVS in the View world that works better? There is no equivalent because linked clones reduce so much since SSD's exist. Linked clones on SSD and delta's on own, they serve the best of both worlds. Maybe because you want to lower complexity and not rely on some PXE bullshit? Or if you are silo''ing you environment not rely on relays for TFTP or PXE. Just silot and not factor in un-needed dependencies. also I am only saying 2008 R2 because the slow adoption rate of 2012X; Also you should always try to tweak any OS to the best you can for any virtual environment; not matter how small; you can script it and save your customer/client valuable IOPS and perform improvement games as needed. Dilbert As FUCK fucked around with this message at 04:16 on Jul 13, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2014 04:11
|
|
|
Been a while since I worked with both but PVS can load the whole image into memory, eliminating any IOPs from frequently reading the image. In one part of your post you say with SSDs it doesn't matter, then the next you say you should tweak for every last IOP. What is it? And what are these tweaks you do on Windows 2008 R2? People have asked several times. And reducing reliance on PXE to reduce complexity? Really? How often do you have issues with PXE?
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2014 04:26
|
|
|
Internet Explorer posted:Been a while since I worked with both but PVS can load the whole image into memory, eliminating any IOPs from frequently reading the image. quote:In one part of your post you say with SSDs it doesn't matter, then the next you say you should tweak for every last IOP. quote:What is it? And what are these tweaks you do on Windows 2008 R2? People have asked several times. quote:And reducing reliance on PXE to reduce complexity? Really? How often do you have issues with PXE? How does not relying on Option 66/67, and TFTP not reduce complexity?
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2014 04:38
|
|
|
You do not have to use PXE or TFTP with PVS. You can easily use BDM, and XenDesktop since 7 has had it built in to set it up for you super easily in the wizard. I always recommend going the BDM route. Not sure how to refute your points on Citrix without some kind of example. Things XenDesktop has that View does not: layering (personal vDisk), profile management that is integrated into the product, Citrix Director for help desk usage to shadow and manage desktops, multiple deployment technologies (MCS is actually more efficient than Linked Clones), supports RDS in a less than bare bones manner (PVS/MCS both support deployment of server, View can't manage server deployment), Universal Print Driver/Server, ability to redirect client drives into the session, vGPU support, better Powershell integration, XenClient (not personally a fan), integration with SCCM, better separation of components, etc. etc. Regarding PVS, it does lower IOPS requirements; however, I personally am a proponent of using AFA setups... and to take it a step even further, I hate non-persistent. It's a terrible schema developed because storage couldn't adequately cope back in the day. NP is not better operationally or for user experience. Use an AFA with Dedupe/Compression and either Persistent full desktops or layered desktops (e.g. Unidesk/CloudVolumes). PVS is great if you have bad storage, but it's becoming a dinosaur. CItrix knows this as well, and you'll see a PVS 2.0 soon that merges with MCS for best of both world. PVS is still the fastest and most efficient way to apply updates at scale. The problem is that most Citrix dudes still do things the old way, so if you don't take the time to learn the new ways, you'll think Citrix is old and bad. Most Citrix admins (and to extend, most people in IT at all) are bad at their job.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2014 04:49
|
|
|
I agree 100% about that. Citrix definitely doesn't do themselves any favors in that department. They can't do consistency to save their lives.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2014 04:55
|
|
|
For something completely random, I've ran 3DMark on my system to see how much difference Hyper-V makes, since I've read complaints about up to 50% framerate difference versus running without (complainers seemed to own almost exclusively ATI cards, tho). The difference pretty much falls within what I consider an error margin (of 2%). In case you were wondering how it may affect your personal computer for gaming, especially since some WinPho developer guys in this forum were complaining, too... https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1hR5KmiLMZ2ZcH6iINESeXENjtGs58Q1YfBsLIjzj444/edit?usp=sharing
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2014 17:25
|
|
|
Dilbert As gently caress posted:Hypervisor level AV/FW's own, not a fan for turning off the windows stuff but if you are already doing FW/AV on the hypervisor level what purpose does these OS FW serve? What percentage of 2008r2 VMs would you say are running on ESXi hosts with a hypervisor firewall of any kind?
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2014 00:32
|
|
|
Dilbert As gently caress posted:Hypervisor level AV/FW's own, not a fan for turning off the windows stuff but if you are already doing FW/AV on the hypervisor level what purpose does these OS FW serve? There are applications that will flip out if the Windows Firewall is not running. So just set it to Allow/Allow and you're good.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2014 00:59
|
|
|
Dilbert As gently caress posted:Hypervisor level AV/FW's own, not a fan for turning off the windows stuff but if you are already doing FW/AV on the hypervisor level what purpose does these OS FW serve? Using traditional tools and letting the security/windows teams manage their own poo poo. Not joking. Hypervisor-level stuff is great for VDI and a few other use cases, but it's not even close to one-size-fits-all
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2014 02:30
|
|
|
I'm looking to import a couple of virtual box Vms and a xen flat file disk image based vm into esxi. What's the best tool for converting the disk images to a VMware compatible format ?
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2014 19:16
|
|
|
How many of you are using the vCenter appliance? It's time to go from 5.1 to 5.5 and we are debating if we should make the switch to it (and just keep a Windows box around for VUM).
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2014 19:21
|
|
|
jre posted:I'm looking to import a couple of virtual box Vms and a xen flat file disk image based vm into esxi. What's the best tool for converting the disk images to a VMware compatible format ? I've had god luck with Starwind Converter for image format conversions.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2014 20:16
|
|
|
TeMpLaR posted:How many of you are using the vCenter appliance? It's time to go from 5.1 to 5.5 and we are debating if we should make the switch to it (and just keep a Windows box around for VUM). Using it for our internal infrastructure. I haven't had too many issues with it at all. Even the upgrade from 5.1 to 5.5 was pretty straightforward.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2014 20:48
|
|
|
TeMpLaR posted:How many of you are using the vCenter appliance? It's time to go from 5.1 to 5.5 and we are debating if we should make the switch to it (and just keep a Windows box around for VUM). We are at 5.0 U3 right now and are going to be moving to 5.5 U1 in ~2 weeks. 80 hosts/3500VMs. Part of this is changing out our old Oracle db-backed Windows 2008 vCenter for the vCSA. Since it is Oracle, we can upgrade vCenter, power it down, bring up a fresh vCSA, point it to the existing DB, and supposedly all just *works*. Went seamlessly in test and VMware says it should be good. That said, I'd be lying if I said I wasn't a bit worried... I guess ask me how life is in 3 weeks 
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2014 21:15
|
|
|
TeMpLaR posted:How many of you are using the vCenter appliance? It's time to go from 5.1 to 5.5 and we are debating if we should make the switch to it (and just keep a Windows box around for VUM).
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2014 00:55
|
|
|
I'm pretty happy with VCSA 5.5 managing our 20-odd ESXi hosts, but then again I am comparing it to the sheer agony of having managed 20-odd ESXi hosts by hand, before VCSA so I'm kind of biased. One thing of note is that it doesn't look as if you can install vCenter Update Manager on VCSA since it's a Windows app. You'll need to go through and create a separate windows area for update manager to live and then you can tie that into VCSA. I'm not sure what the best practices were for install update manager on a vCenter server anyway so I can't comment. It's worth noting that, for me, the Web UI is still ridiculously slow and buggy so I use the thick client exclusively. I'm sure there are people out there who prefer the Web UI, but I can honestly say I haven't met any.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2014 01:16
|
|
|
Dilbert As gently caress posted:There are many ways depending on what kind of environment you run but these guides are pretty good: Got to "disable the firewall", stopped reading. Most of that stuff is horseshit.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2014 02:27
|
|
|
Still waiting to hear what mysterious "depends on the client" Windows 2008 R2 tweaks we're supposed to be making.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2014 03:29
|
|
|
The vSphere Web Client is terribly slow and clunky. It's to the point now where I use the thick client for everything I can and use PowerShell for the rest I can't honestly believe anyone thought it was ready for production use.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2014 06:04
|
|
|
When you open a console for a VM, is it normal to get a black screen that only reveals when you click into it? I've been using right click, but I always worry that I'll accidentally select the "self-destruct" button.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2014 06:40
|
|
|
Dr. Arbitrary posted:When you open a console for a VM, is it normal to get a black screen that only reveals when you click into it? When that happens for me it's usually that the VM has turned the "monitor" off and activity wakes it back up. It's the windows power saving settings, usually.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2014 07:08
|
|
|
Doing some testing on my own computer before a live implementation... It's an odd sight...
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2014 10:31
|
|
|
angus725 posted:Doing some testing on my own computer before a live implementation... idgi
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2014 10:58
|
|
|
orange sky posted:idgi First time working with VMs with little IT background. Lot of new stuff quite quickly.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2014 12:12
|
|
|
angus725 posted:First time working with VMs with little IT background. Lot of new stuff quite quickly. Oh! Have fun then  . It's a huge, very fun world. Virtualization brought us good stuff.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2014 13:17
|
|
|
Coming soon for you, that moment when you realize your home lab is both more up to date, and follows more best practices, than your production environment.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2014 16:38
|
|
|
Number19 posted:The vSphere Web Client is terribly slow and clunky. It's to the point now where I use the thick client for everything I can and use PowerShell for the rest Lots of engineers at VMware have been yelling about this for a few years. There was a thread about it in the VMware forums that finally got traction. With the VMware release cycle length, it should only take a few years to get it cleaned up. There were actually little posters around VMware a year ago encouraging engineers to use the web client. Most of them ended up with graffiti saying stuff like "It sucks" or "Too slow." You think this would have been a sign that it was not great, but it was ignored. Many of us use workstation and the command line stuff.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2014 16:49
|
|
|
I actually like the web client, I mean it's poo poo in IE<any version> but works well in any modern chrome or firefox version
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2014 17:05
|
|
|
Dilbert As gently caress posted:I actually like the web client, I mean it's poo poo in IE<any version> but works well in any modern chrome or firefox version I like the idea of a web client. I don't like how it was executed. It is slow, and a pain to get setup. It is not a good solution for managing a single ESX machine either.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2014 17:11
|
|
|
Are there any real drawbacks to using PVSCSI and VMXNET3 over their emulated counterparts anymore? I remember there was a big hoo-haw about PVSCSI back in the day, but I'm not sure if that's still relevant. I've been deploying a few servers with both PVSCSI and VMXNET3 and haven't had any issues, but I don't know if there are any caveats to be concerned about.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2014 17:51
|
|
|
Martytoof posted:Are there any real drawbacks to using PVSCSI and VMXNET3 over their emulated counterparts anymore? I remember there was a big hoo-haw about PVSCSI back in the day, but I'm not sure if that's still relevant. Always do VMXNET3. Do PVSCSI if you need a lot of storage performance.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2014 17:53
|
|
|
I always use both unless there's a specific compatibility reason listed by a vendor. The only minor hassle is with PVSCSI and Windows and you can solve that by building your template with it and attaching the floppy during the template installation.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2014 19:09
|
|
|
DevNull posted:Lots of engineers at VMware have been yelling about this for a few years. There was a thread about it in the VMware forums that finally got traction. With the VMware release cycle length, it should only take a few years to get it cleaned up. I'm a big fan of it randomly deciding to refresh the entire VM list and spend a long time "locating <vm>" which has nothing at all to do with what I was working on. Then when it's done it selects a completely different VM from the one I had selected and takes me to the Monitoring tab. I am using Chrome on a machine with lots of RAM and an SSD and it's still Real Bad.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2014 19:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 04:30 |
|
|
Martytoof posted:Are there any real drawbacks to using PVSCSI and VMXNET3 over their emulated counterparts anymore? I remember there was a big hoo-haw about PVSCSI back in the day, but I'm not sure if that's still relevant. I use the PVSCSI at any chance I can, it's not a huge improvement over the defaults unless you hit high IO loads but eh.. Every bit helps.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2014 19:19
|
|