|
evil_bunnY posted:nolicense ESXi 5 is limited to 32GB vRAM. I think 4 can still take you up to 192, but at this point, just buy the cheapest VMware licence for 5, it is actually pretty reasonable.
|
#
¿
Feb 20, 2012 14:38
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 04:35 |
|
|
Corvettefisher posted:Hmm I will check on that I am sure it can use more, maybe I was using 4 http://www.vmware.com/products/vsphere-hypervisor/faq.html VMware posted:How much vRAM does a VMware vSphere Hypervisor license provide? Yeah, 4 lets you use more. Infact, 32GB is generous, since originally when the free version of 5 hit, they wanted to limit it to 8GB. Everyone cried, they upped the limit. Edit: for some reason I thought 4's free entitlement was 192GB, actually, it is 256: 
HalloKitty fucked around with this message at 17:01 on Feb 20, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Feb 20, 2012 16:58
|
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:Isn't that for 2 CPUs? Even the cheapest pay-for VMware package is only 2 physical CPUs, but any number of cores (off the top of my head). So yes, as far as I'm aware, the licence for 4 and 5 free is as shown - 2 sockets, up to 6 cores.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 20, 2012 20:29
|
|
|
Rhymenoserous posted:I hate having to actually talk people to get a rough estimate of how much something will cost. Yes, yes, yes. I loving hate that you have to get quotes for something they clearly price up every single goddamn day: just make the price clear.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 11, 2012 23:40
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
Foolishly I've licenced a server, then hosed it without thinking to revert to trial mode beforehand (a complete change of plan in the server's role, so I basically just pulled the drives and made a new RAID array without thinking about it). So now vCenter is telling me I have no CPU entitlement left, even though of course I'm not using all my entitlement, and of course I already removed the server from vCenter. Anyone got a quick fix for this clusterfuck? Haha, apparently it was more trivial than I guessed it might be, and I just closed the vSphere Client and re-opened it and logged back in to vCenter. HalloKitty fucked around with this message at 12:19 on May 1, 2012 |
|
#
¿
May 1, 2012 12:14
|
|
|
Martytoof posted:Sometimes I think I'm the only one who considers formulaic, purpose-driven hostnames sexier than anything form popular culture No, I do too. Pop-reference junk might be funny for a year until you no longer care about the reference, but a good name will be meaningful long after you're gone. Of course if it's a home network, go nuts, but that goes without saying
|
|
#
¿
May 28, 2012 09:03
|
|
|
To be fair I don't really think CPU provisioning is too critical, and I'd give everything at least 2, and just use reservations to make sure each VM gets a guaranteed minimum. RAM of course I would prefer to provision rationally based on physical amounts. If that's 2008 R2, though, 1GB is a bit low, I would personally say. 8GB for a DC doing nothing else at all though? That's probably excessive for almost any business.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 6, 2012 21:19
|
|
|
Erwin posted:You really give every VM 2 vCPUs, or am I reading that wrong? No, I meant as a minimum generally, I didn't mean all VMs get a fixed number or something
|
|
#
¿
Jun 6, 2012 23:25
|
|
|
It's good to know that before I inadvertently spread any other misinformation. Always good to find out the right way to do things, no problem admitting I'm wrong. Does it not matter if you have cores to spare? I guess I should read up before I make another stupid statement, thanks all Edit: bought the above book HalloKitty fucked around with this message at 09:15 on Jun 7, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Jun 7, 2012 08:41
|
|
|
adorai posted:Define cores to spare? If you have less vCPUs allocated than you have cores, then you will see no performance penalty. If, like the rest of the world, you are stacked up 5+ vCPUs to cores, you will see a penalty. A VM cannot run until it has all of the cores allocated to it available. So if you have a 2 vCPU VM that needs to run some work, and only 1 core is available, it will wait for the second core to become available. It will hold the idle core during this time. VMware's relaxed coscheduling can fudge this a bit, but for every clock cycle that one core runs, a second core must run as well. Makes sense to me, and it's obviously something I hadn't thought closely enough about. We have a Citrix VDI box that needs reconfiguring a bit based on this (that said, I didn't configure it, but I'll definitely rectify that!) By spare I mean simply that your vCPUs aren't exceeding physically available cores. I realise this probably isn't the most common of scenarios, but I do have a number of machines with 8-12 cores and a load that I can spread pretty evenly over them.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 7, 2012 23:12
|
|
|
Amazon is amazing in every way, the recommendations system is uncanny:
|
|
#
¿
Jun 12, 2012 22:51
|
|
|
Bob Morales posted:Those chips are from 2007-2008. You'd probably be better off with a single present-day i5. I don't know, it's twice as many as you've marked in that image there, he said it was 4x Quads not 2x Quads, and with that much CPU grunt and 72GB RAM, I'd argue that's a steal for $600 if you need a virtualization toy. I didn't follow what his use was, though. Edit: eh, followed back, it's for consolidating some servers that are running on single core P4s.. I don't see how that deal is all bad; of course I'd suggest a server with a warranty and so on, but I guess that's not an option here. Double Edit for a more relevant graph:  Also, I'd take that graph as the worst case:- You're going to have better multithreading performance than it indicates with that many CPUs. Each core would be better than the lousy old P4s. vv Yeah, I take your point, guess I just find it an attractive buy for the sheer lack of cost; but more than anything, that box will chow down on power. HalloKitty fucked around with this message at 13:58 on Jun 21, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Jun 21, 2012 13:45
|
|
|
^ As long as you don't actually use the in-case PSU. Edit: woah, wait a minute, that's AM2 and the original Phenom, from 2008. I personally wouldn't recommend it. adorai posted:i would rather put together 3x newegg boxes for virtualization at that price. It still has 72GB RAM. I'd take it even if I wasn't going to use it in production. That's a hell of a testing machine for the price, but that may not be needed or be relevant. HalloKitty fucked around with this message at 08:54 on Jun 22, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Jun 22, 2012 08:49
|
|
|
Do you have that monitor rotated or something? There's definitely ClearType turned on there, but the subpixels aren't lining up. Maybe it's just my eyes.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 28, 2012 09:27
|
|
|
Docjowles posted:Come on, man. I had a rough night, and I hate the fuckin' Eagles, man! *kicks you out onto the street* (although I will have that White Russian)
|
|
#
¿
May 12, 2013 15:38
|
|
|
Why do people insist on calling SMB "CIFS" even though it's now clear Microsoft abandoned CIFS as the name for SMB. gently caress, I was at a Microsoft training day and the two Microsoft guys doing the presentation had literally no idea what CIFS meant. I was sat there with a quiet growing need for drink, listening to these supposedly clever people showing me they were not.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 6, 2013 16:23
|
|
|
I saw some AV talk. I use F-Secure. I recommended it based on one recommendation in a thread on SH/SC ages ago. For about a year so far. I wish the support process wouldn't instantly push you to India until getting something useful.. and I've had a few problems.. but.. none of them seem to involve slowing the machines down or making them unmanageable. No AV solution seems to be perfect, but I chose F-Secure based on multiple criteria. Microsoft Forefront comes nowhere near in detection tests, F-Secure is not terrible to administer, so I can't complain too much. If you get through to Finland for support, know what you're doing, and want multiple products at once (including a Linux based proxy server) then F-Secure isn't a bad deal. If anyone from F-Secure ever reads this: clear up support channels. Badly. I mean, badly. Hire a shitload of people in Finland, fire all in other call centres, and make all the numbers directly there. You have a promising product, but support and documentation will ruin it. Another example: the most recent Linux proxy doesn't have a web interface! Don't go on holiday! Finish the web interface! Jesus Christ! Don't release half finished things. HalloKitty fucked around with this message at 00:33 on Jul 27, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Jul 27, 2013 00:29
|
|
|
evol262 posted:They sell Minis with Server for business that want to be Mac-y, and they do a lot better in that market. Yeah, and it blows. I wish I could toss this useless box and run it on one of our many real servers.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 16, 2013 09:25
|
|
|
evol262 posted:don't buy 1U gear for home. I did, it's very space efficient since I run it sideways. Absolutely minuscule footprint! Of course, it's noisy as gently caress.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 31, 2014 14:24
|
|
|
Mausi posted:Who the hell thought it was a good idea to not add support for virtual hardware version 10 to the Fat client? Yeah, this is ridiculous. Is there even a way now to manage all the features of a free ESXi install?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 17, 2014 14:45
|
|
|
Is this the gently caress Broadcom thread? I'm not at all looking forward to the Hyper-V and SCVMM that is without doubt in my future. Broadcom wants $FUCKYOU more each month for VMware. We have Datacenter licences for Windows already, but we'd rather pay for VMware on top and use that as our hypervisor than Hyper-V, but that's inevitably coming to an end with these stupid price increases. I don't really get the play here - if all SMBs switch to alternatives, it will not only hurt stable development of VMware (few customers = fewer testers hitting corner cases resulting in a less battle tested product), but also future adoption in general - if everyone starts out with Hyper-V, Proxmox or XCP-NG or maybe something else, then in future they'll go with what they're comfortable with. It's why Windows is so widespread; Microsoft got it in the classrooms around the world as best as it could. VMware is also learnt by many today, but that could change overnight, and probably will. Within a short time VMware will be a dead product and company. I guess they're hoping they can just coast with a few giant customers, but that's a dangerous strategy to intentionally pursue, as you become totally reliant on them. vv Yeah, it's honestly not a bad idea. IT can be an absolute shitshow at times. Or maybe it's all the time, and I'm getting less tolerant of the bullshit. HalloKitty fucked around with this message at 17:04 on Feb 12, 2024 |
|
#
¿
Feb 12, 2024 16:55
|
|
|
DevNull posted:Hock Tan said over and over that their plan was to stop dealing with all the smaller businesses an focus only on the top customers. That is how they operate with hardware, and they are applying the same formula for VMware. Yeah, I absolutely understand that, I remember that being said before the acquisition, but I do think they're misjudging this, but what do I know? It doesn't seem great they're burning bridges left and right with companies that are some of their largest resellers like HPE and Dell
|
|
#
¿
Feb 12, 2024 18:35
|
|
|
Zorak of Michigan posted:Not much reason for the youth to learn anyway. It's going the way of COBOL. At least not where I live; all of the new guys learn ESXi and vCenter as part of their education, and can apply it immediately in the workplace. That's going to be irrelevant in future, as all the customers in the market we serve won't be in Broadcom's exclusive club.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 13, 2024 07:45
|
|
|
the spyder posted:Correct - Hyper-V Server 2019 is the last stand-alone product. For reference, we currently have 100ish Hyper-V hosts ranging from 12 cores, up to 96. In January it was announced Hyper-V will remain as a feature in Server 2025, with new and improved features such as hot patching and NVMEoF. We've got a meeting scheduled with MS to discuss their current plan - as like many other companies, we were told very bluntly all R+D went into Azure Stack HCI and that it was not a 1:1 transition for an org of our size. Hence our initial vSphere and now, AHV migration. It's as expected and feared. Of course Microsoft will drop the ball on this opportunity. It'll be interesting to hear what Microsoft has to say.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 18, 2024 09:12
|
|
|
Kreeblah posted:Well, I switched my home host over to Proxmox. Some of it's a bit clunkier (like the UI doesn't seem to have any way to assign roles to groups, so I had to do that via the CLI, and the VM creation process has a lot of extra stuff to click that would be nice to be able to set as defaults), but so far, it seems to work OK. Windows guests? I hear those can be an issue with Proxmox
|
|
#
¿
Feb 19, 2024 12:44
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:They force you into VCF licenses or something? Seems likely. Tired of Broadcom's bs
|
|
#
¿
Feb 19, 2024 14:04
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 04:35 |
|
|
Subjunctive posted:Do you remember using it? Oof. I remember Connectix Virtual PC. Hyper-V is what resulted from that purchase. I remember VMware GSX, and early ESX, but I cannot remember the version. Mid 2000s, so probably 2 HalloKitty fucked around with this message at 20:42 on Mar 8, 2024 |
|
#
¿
Mar 8, 2024 20:30
|
|