[THIN] Re: VMWare Farm

  • From: Eldon <u2htdaab@xxxxxxxxx>
  • To: thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2006 14:12:22 -0500

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: