[THIN] Re: VMWare
- From: "Kaftan, John" <jkaftan@xxxxxxx>
- To: <thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2005 12:25:51 -0700
We looked at VMware ESX and the major stumbling block was cost. However
we were looking at buying GSX and putting it on every server with a
single VM on it just to maximize our flexibility. If a particular
physical server died we could easily move the dsk file to another
server. Also we could get one copy of ESX for DR and easily port
multiple GSX dsk files to the ESX server if need be.
We never got the project off the ground but we are still thinking about
it.
________________________________
From: thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Jeff Pitsch
Sent: Friday, October 28, 2005 9:53 AM
To: thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [THIN] Re: VMWare
If it wasn't for the linux kernel then none of it would be possible.
On 10/28/05, Chris Fraser <chrisfraser@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
ESX will always have better performance because the VMkernel (not linux
kernel) has full control to manage all hardware resources and doesn't
have to pass request through an OS layer (like GSX).
Single proc is definitely the way to go on almost all VMs. I'm still
puzzled at the reasoning behind announcing 4-way SMP, esp since it will
benefit maybe %1 of VMs.
Best Practices Using VMware Virtual SMP
http://www.vmware.com/pdf/vsmp_best_practices.pdf
ESX Server Architecture and Performance Implications
http://www.vmware.com/pdf/esx2_performance_implications.pdf
ESX Performance Tips and Tricks
http://www.vmware.com/pdf/esx_performance_tips_tricks.pdf
Reference & Planning for Virtualizing Citrix
http://www.vmware.com/pdf/esx_citrix.pdf
Reference and Capacity Planning with Citrix Presentation Server (for ESX
Server 2)
http://www.vmware.com/pdf/esx2_citrix_planning.pdf
Jeff Pitsch wrote:
> ESX will always have better performance than GSX because ESX is tied
> more closesly to the linux kernel. GSX is strictly a service and
> doesn't tie deeply into the OS at all.
>
> Jeff
>
>
> On 10/28/05, *Jon D* <rekcahpmip@xxxxxxxxx
> <mailto:rekcahpmip@xxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
>
> I run citrix in VMware GSX, and I have an identical physical
citrix
> box. Both production.
>
> I wish I would have put it in ESX with SMP because the citrix box
> can only use 1 processor which isnt good(even with GSX dual
> processor license).
>
> I would say VMWare burns 20-30% of the resources(the physical can
> probably handle 20-30% more connections).
>
> The performance problems I see is the physical disk, and mainly
the
> processor. 1 3Ghz processor is only good for maybe 23-25
processes.
>
> Overall I do like it though. If my manager messes up the virtual
> citrix server I just revert it to the last snapshot and its fixed.
> If he messes up the physical one, I've got a a solid week of
redoing
> it ahead of me.
>
>
>
> -Jon-
>
>
>
>
> .
>
>
--
Check out my eBay auctions
(http://search.ebay.com/_W0QQsassZchrisfraser1111QQhtZ-1)
and my GEMM store ( http://cfraser1111.gemm.com
<http://cfraser1111.gemm.com> )
********************************************************
This Weeks Sponsor: Cesura, Inc.
Know about Citrix end-user slowdowns before they know.
Know the probable cause, immediately.
Know it all now with this free white paper.
http://www.cesurasolutions.com/landing/WPBCForCitrix.htm?mc=WETBCC
********************************************************
Useful Thin Client Computing Links are available at:
http://thin.net/links.cfm
ThinWiki community - Excellent SBC Search Capabilities!
http://www.thinwiki.com
***********************************************************
For Archives, to Unsubscribe, Subscribe or
set Digest or Vacation mode use the below link:
http://thin.net/citrixlist.cfm
Other related posts:
