[THIN] Re: VMWare ESX Server

  • From: "Joe Shonk" <joe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: <thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Thu, 9 Dec 2004 06:00:17 -0700

I call it the "common sense" methodology.  Use it when it makes sense.
Every environment and every situation is different. Each client has a
different objective and goal when it comes to technology (and of course that
changes over time too!).  If the technology makes sense, use it.  If not,
then move on.

 

It's just like Metaframe. It's a great product, but it's not a cure all.
There are some situations where it not a suitable choice and another
solutions needs be devised.

 

Joe

 

  _____  

From: thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf
Of Ron Oglesby
Sent: Wednesday, December 08, 2004 8:44 PM
To: thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [THIN] Re: VMWare ESX Server

 

I would totally agree. Obviously there are tons of servers/apps that are
"not a perfect fit". But on the consolidation side, servers that are really
under utilized (<30% on any of the core four resources) it's a no brainer.
Now if you have servers that DON'T perform as well in the VMworld given the
same amount of memory and other resources, then you have to make the
business decision if the benfits of a VM are wroth the cost of making TWO or
more VMs to split the load.  

 

On a consolidation front two studies I have done for clients put the VM to
Phys machine (when looking at consolidation) at about a 1:3 cost ratio. On
the non consolidation front, those non0strike zone servers takes that up to
a 1:1 or 1:1.25. Now if it's a mixed environment of strike zone and
non-strike zone consolidation servers then we are somewhere in between.
Anyway if you are going to POUND a server then maybe physical is better
unless you need one of the other features, like near instant recovery. Then
the additional cost becomes part of your DR scheme and not really
provisioning itself. 

 

 

 

Ron Oglesby

Director of Technical Architecture

 

RapidApp, Chicago

Office: 312 372 7188

Mobile: 815 325 7618

email: roglesby@xxxxxxxxxxxx

  _____  

From: thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf
Of Chris Fraser
Sent: Wednesday, December 08, 2004 12:47 PM
To: thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [THIN] Re: VMWare ESX Server

 

Hi there Brian

 

I would disagree that virtual anything can never be as good as the real
thing. In fact I think VMware ESX-based anything can be quite a bit better
than the real thing _BUT_ you need to have a good understanding of your
workload and usage patterns (sound familiar anyone?).

 

Hardware-cost and form-factor are trivial expenses compared to the overall
TCO or $$$ impact of downtime.

 

I've seen scenarios where the vendor, with a minimum of troubleshooting or
problem isolation, pointed the finger at VMware. After further investigation
we were able to determine that the issue was actually the application or the
OS and it was only exposed or magnified by running on VMware.

 

VMware will not give you something for nothing. It is absolutely key that
you understand what you have and where you need to get to and then plan and
build it accordingly.

 

  _____  

From: thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf
Of RMC - Brian Hill
Sent: Wednesday, December 08, 2004 10:24 AM
To: 'thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx'
Subject: [THIN] Re: VMWare ESX Server

I've never been a fan of VMs in the production environment.  I have used
them for development a few times, but even then, I prefer a "real world"
scenario for development as well.  I've had DC's that were flaky, with the
only variable being VMWare.  Dunno, maybe it's just me.  Hardware cost are
relatively cheap these days, the form-factor is small, so I don't think VMs
buy you a whole lot.  They have their place I suppose, but they are not
something I pursue.  Virtual "anything" can never be as good as the real
thing IMO.

 

Brian

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Jennifer Hooper [mailto:jennifer.hooper@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, December 08, 2004 12:23 PM
To: 'thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx'
Subject: [THIN] VMWare ESX Server

Hi Guys - 

 

    Here's the situation.  We are about 1/4th of the way through converting
our production data center (full of old, out of warranty Compaq servers) to
IBM BladeCenters running VMWare ESX Server 2.0 (I think... whatever the
latest version is).  We use Platespin to convert the physical server to the
VMWare image and move it over to the Blade it's going to live on.  Right
now, we have an average 5 servers per blade planned, and several have
already moved over, because the hardware failed that they were on.  However,
some of the application folks are uncomfortable with this solution, not so
much the Blade technology, as the VM technology.  Needless to say, we're
already experiencing failures, and stuff not running right - performance
issues, network issues, etc.  (Can you believe that they are going to run
our Root Domain Controllers on this?)  I have already experienced a drag on
one of my Citrix servers that moved to virtual space, and can't fix it up.

 

    So what I would like to do before things get too much more hairy, is to
try to find out what the success rate of running something like this in
production, and if there are a lot of people out there doing this.  Feel
free to share with me any nightmare stories too! :)  

 

Thanks much!

 

Jen

 

Jennifer Hooper
Peregrine Systems, Inc.
Sr. Network Engineer

mailto:jennifer.hooper@xxxxxxxxxxxxx

 

Other related posts: