[THIN] Re: VMWare Farm

I'm with Jeff on this one.  VMWare has it's place but I wouldn't trust my
entire farm to it.  Web interface, license server, test environments etc.
Small things that don't need lots of attention or power.

5 vmware servers and licensing for ESX will also cost a small fortune.  Not
to mention the SAN space etc.  If you spent 3k per server on 15 Hp DL360
servers, you would be looking at 45k for the farm.  5 vmware servers, plus
support, plus vmware esx, HBA's, SAN space etc will be a lot more than 45k
and not perform as well.  It will perform OK, but once you get loaded up
with lots of users, the physicals will outperform.

I like the fact that running on physical boxes is a known commodity.  When
you are running things on VMware and there is a problem, it gets brought up.
The vendors point fingers at it, management wonders about it.  Then you have
to move it to a physical box to prove it is or is not a vmware issue etc.
it just becomes a hassle.  A hassle you paid more money to have.

Greg

On 8/1/06, Jeff Pitsch <jepitsch@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: 

This all depends on what your DR needs are but Zone Preference and
Failover will allow for automatic redirecting of clients to the DR site
without any need for you to get involved.

As for the 15 VM's, that depends on many factors.  What hardware are you
moving from and moving too?  How many users?  How much load were on your old
servers?  Have you looked at 64-bit at all?  How did you determine that 5
servers running VMWare would meet your needs?  Have you done any real
testing to see if this solution would work?


Jeff Pitsch
Microsoft MVP - Terminal Server

Forums not enough?
Get support from the experts at your business
http://jeffpitschconsulting.com



On 7/31/06, Eldon <u2htdaab@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>  Thanks to all providing very good info so far.  Now, which features
> specifically in PS 4 would resolve my DR needs (not totally up to speed with
> PS 4).  Also, isn't running 15 VMs running on only 5 servers improving my
> farm based upon consolidation?
>
>
>  On 7/31/06, Jeff Pitsch <jepitsch@xxxxxxxxx > wrote:
> >
> >  mm, i would argue that you probably have space to consolidate anyway
> > but moving to 64-bit OS and hardware would allow you to consolidate very
> > easily and the features that are in PS4 would allow for exactly what your
> > looking for from a DR perspective.  Just remember that you will not get the
> > same performance out of a VM that you would out of pure hardware.  Now there
> > are obvious considerations here like you may be using really old hardware,
> > etc but do not be surprised that you could very easily end up running more
> > than 15 VM's to handle the same amount of users in a virtualized
> > environment.
> >
> > As well, don't agree to anything until you can actually test all of
> > thi sout.  Anyone can promise the world, it's up to you to make sure that
> > it's actually the world you want.  I've seen to many people fall into this
> > trap and only listen to what they are being told, then sign the agreements,
> > then live to regret because they didn't do due diligence to make sure that
> > the solution would actually work.
> >
> >
> > Jeff Pitsch
> > Microsoft MVP - Terminal Server
> >
> > Forums not enough?
> > Get support from the experts at your business
> > http://jeffpitschconsulting.com
> >
> >
> >
> > On 7/31/06, Eldon <u2htdaab@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > >  Being the OP, the lure of VMware to me is twofold:  1 - to
> > > consolidate hardware in my current deployment of HP G1 hardware (15) to
> > > support 250 concurrent connections to a published dekstop and other siloed
> > > apps; and 2 - to allow failover to our DR site by using our current EMC 
SAN
> > > located in our main site and a future EMC SAN (Centerra) at our DR
> > > location.  Portability of moving VMs between SANs in a DR scenario is very
> > > appealing.
> > >
> > > I am in the process of waiting on a quote from a Solutions
> > > Architect, but the way it was explained to me is that I would be looking 
at
> > > consolidation of 3 current servers into 1 (3 VMs per server).
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On 7/31/06, Jeff Pitsch <jepitsch@xxxxxxxxx > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >  Hence my statement of lightly used servers.  Most companies care
> > > > about getting more users on a system vs less.  Now granted the OP 
didn't say
> > > > how many users, how many servers but in the end if you try to take an 
entire
> > > > farm and port it to VM's, you will typically end up using more VM's than
> > > > phsyical boxes.  VM's simply cannot get the same amount of users on a 
system
> > > > as physical hardware can at this point in time.  If you aren't utilizing
> > > > your servers to their full potential or even close to their potential, 
then
> > > > yes you could move to VM's and not notice much of difference.  But 
let's be
> > > > realistic for a moment, most people move to VM's to consolidate 
servers.  As
> > > > well, many many companies that do this with Presentation Server aren't 
using
> > > > their boxes to nearly their potential anyways so moving to VM's for that
> > > > reason is simply ridiculous.  I would be willing to bet that many PS
> > > > implementations have never taken the time to benchmark or stress test 
their
> > > > servers to see how many users they can get on a system.  They have no 
idea
> > > > what their sytems can handle and therefore over buy on the systems
> > > > required.  Now overbuying isn't necessarily a bad thing (for 
redundancy) but
> > > > I've been into many many companies that do it because they simply don't 
know
> > > > what their systems can handle.
> > > >
> > > > whew, gotta get off that soapbox.  Sorry everyone
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Jeff Pitsch
> > > > Microsoft MVP - Terminal Server
> > > >
> > > > Forums not enough?
> > > > Get support from the experts at your business
> > > > http://jeffpitschconsulting.com
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >  On 7/31/06, Selinger, Stephen <SSelinger@xxxxxxxxx > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >   Jeff,
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Respectively I hope that you are only taking about highly
> > > > > utilized production Citrix servers and not other servers as VMs. 
There are
> > > > > many companies including where I work that have production VMs of 
various
> > > > > sorts and flavours. ESX is absolutely a production ready product that 
is
> > > > > capable of running production VMs. Yes there will be servers that 
have too
> > > > > high of utilization to be running on ESX but there are tons of over 
powered
> > > > > underutilized servers out there.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >  ------------------------------
> > > > >
> > > > > *From:* thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> > > > > *On Behalf Of *Jeff Pitsch
> > > > > *Sent:* July 31, 2006 11:29 AM
> > > > > *To: *thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > > > *Subject:* [THIN] Re: VMWare Farm
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I believe the general concesus is is that for production, VM's
> > > > > are not the way.  Lightly used servers are fine, but for an entire 
farm the
> > > > > performance is ismply not there yet.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Jeff Pitsch
> > > > > Microsoft MVP - Terminal Server
> > > > >
> > > > > Forums not enough?
> > > > > Get support from the experts at your business
> > > > > http://jeffpitschconsulting.com
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On 7/31/06, *Eldon* < u2htdaab@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Currently running FR3 on 2000 SP4, and am beginning to evaluate
> > > > > and look at building a separate Windows 2003 CPS 4.0 Farm on the
> > > > > VMWare ESX platform.  Just wanted to get an idea if anyone on the 
list has
> > > > > something similar in production today, what hardware you deployed to 
support
> > > > > published apps on ESX and VMotion, and how you designed your farm 
(including
> > > > > Data Collector and Database).  Also looking for Best Practices and 
Things to
> > > > > Avoid!
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks!!
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > *
> > > > >
> > > > > This communication is intended for the use of the recipient to
> > > > > which it is addressed, and may contain confidential, personal and or
> > > > > privileged information. Please contact us immediately if you are not 
the
> > > > > intended recipient. Do not copy, distribute or take action relying on 
it.
> > > > > Any communication received in error, or subsequent reply, should be 
deleted
> > > > > or destroyed.
> > > > > *
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Other related posts: