The problem with VMWare Server is that it is a discontinued product for longer time and they don't provide us with a suitable replacement.
So our institute had to switch to VMWare workstation that can be run as a server, too. I'm running CentOS 5.5 as the Host OS and 5.5 and RHEL6beta as guests. We didn't try out RHEL6 (waiting for CentOS6 :-)
GS
On Saturday, December 18, 2010 04:19:25 am Gerhard Schneider wrote:
The problem with VMWare Server is that it is a discontinued product for longer time and they don't provide us with a suitable replacement.
VMware wants more people to get hooked on vSphere, so their 'suggested' VMware GSX^H^H^HServer replacement is vSphere Hypervisor, aka ESXi Free Edition. If you have suitable hardware you will get better performance with ESXi, but to get any of the more advanced functionality will require $$$ and vCenter Server.
I have been looking at transitioning from VI3 (vCenter Server 2.5 and ESX 3.5) to something else; the price of vSphere 4 is simply too large to justify, and, while I have a valid license for vCenter Server Standard 4, I don't for ESX4 (it is a long story, and involves some rather precise timing of a difference in purchase and support dates for our original VI3 purchase, done in two phases). If I had a valid license for the full vSphere 4, I'm still not sure I'd run it, as the vCenter Server hardware requirements are steep.
So I'm very seriously considering transitioning from VI3 to CentOS 6 KVM; for my situation it might be doable, but I have a lot to learn about KVM before I can think about it. Well, and CentOS 6 has to be out, too. I use many of the more advanced VI3 features, including vMotion, that means I really have to be careful. I'd want to cluster the hosts and have shared storage on my three onsite EMC Clariions. I'd like to 'RAID' the shared storage between two Clariions, actually, which ESX won't do, AFAIK. So a learning curve is up ahead Q1 or Q2 2011.....
Greetings,
On Sat, Dec 18, 2010 at 9:13 PM, Lamar Owen lowen@pari.edu wrote:
On Saturday, December 18, 2010 04:19:25 am Gerhard Schneider wrote: So I'm very seriously considering transitioning from VI3 to CentOS 6 KVM; for my situation it might be doable, but I have a lot to learn about KVM before I can think about it.
Have a serious very look at RHEV.
Mindblowing.
But watch out: RHEL full-install that I did not contain bridge utils (brctl) which is the virtual and real nerve controller -- heart and neocortex former of any virtualization.
I would also suggest very strongly that one should do HA first, get it right and then play around with virtualization. else a lot of frustration will result. In the same breath I would warmly warn against playing around the idea of real world *any* Virtualization on a single box. Inviting lotsa bother.
Centos 5 has all of it and more just be very careful about not munging the kvm packages. exclude xen altogether if you want kvm.
Its not funny to watch troubleshoot xen and kvm fighting for control over the real resources. both have, well, attitudes.
I must thank the CentOS team from the bottom of my heart for their tremendous and humongous efforts under extreme heat and light of the community :).
Regards,
Rajagopal
On Dec 18, 2010, at 10:43 AM, Lamar Owen lowen@pari.edu wrote:
On Saturday, December 18, 2010 04:19:25 am Gerhard Schneider wrote:
The problem with VMWare Server is that it is a discontinued product for longer time and they don't provide us with a suitable replacement.
VMware wants more people to get hooked on vSphere, so their 'suggested' VMware GSX^H^H^HServer replacement is vSphere Hypervisor, aka ESXi Free Edition. If you have suitable hardware you will get better performance with ESXi, but to get any of the more advanced functionality will require $$$ and vCenter Server.
I have been looking at transitioning from VI3 (vCenter Server 2.5 and ESX 3.5) to something else; the price of vSphere 4 is simply too large to justify, and, while I have a valid license for vCenter Server Standard 4, I don't for ESX4 (it is a long story, and involves some rather precise timing of a difference in purchase and support dates for our original VI3 purchase, done in two phases). If I had a valid license for the full vSphere 4, I'm still not sure I'd run it, as the vCenter Server hardware requirements are steep.
So I'm very seriously considering transitioning from VI3 to CentOS 6 KVM; for my situation it might be doable, but I have a lot to learn about KVM before I can think about it. Well, and CentOS 6 has to be out, too. I use many of the more advanced VI3 features, including vMotion, that means I really have to be careful. I'd want to cluster the hosts and have shared storage on my three onsite EMC Clariions. I'd like to 'RAID' the shared storage between two Clariions, actually, which ESX won't do, AFAIK. So a learning curve is up ahead Q1 or Q2 2011.....
There is XenServer from Citrix and I think there is a community version too.
-Ross
On Sat, Dec 18, 2010 at 5:44 PM, Ross Walker rswwalker@gmail.com wrote:
There is XenServer from Citrix and I think there is a community version too.
-Ross
I'd welcome your opinion. I did a bunch of integration with CentOS/RHEL 4 with the older, open source Xen utilities.
On Sat, Dec 18, 2010 at 10:12:09PM -0500, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
On Sat, Dec 18, 2010 at 5:44 PM, Ross Walker rswwalker@gmail.com wrote:
There is XenServer from Citrix and I think there is a community version too.
-Ross
I'd welcome your opinion. I did a bunch of integration with CentOS/RHEL 4 with the older, open source Xen utilities.
This is slightly out of date now, but I evalauted a few virtualization systems, including XenServer: http://sweh.spuddy.org/Essays/Virtualization_options.html
On Sun, Dec 19, 2010 at 9:51 AM, Stephen Harris lists@spuddy.org wrote:
On Sat, Dec 18, 2010 at 10:12:09PM -0500, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
On Sat, Dec 18, 2010 at 5:44 PM, Ross Walker rswwalker@gmail.com wrote:
There is XenServer from Citrix and I think there is a community version too.
-Ross
I'd welcome your opinion. I did a bunch of integration with CentOS/RHEL 4 with the older, open source Xen utilities.
This is slightly out of date now, but I evalauted a few virtualization systems, including XenServer: http://sweh.spuddy.org/Essays/Virtualization_options.html
Now, *that* is what reviews should be like. Clear side by side comparisons on the performance, features, and missing bits you need to do yourself, very useful. It is a bit out of date: I hope you get a chance to try the same tests with CentOS 6.
On 12/19/10 9:33 AM, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
On Sun, Dec 19, 2010 at 9:51 AM, Stephen Harrislists@spuddy.org wrote:
On Sat, Dec 18, 2010 at 10:12:09PM -0500, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
On Sat, Dec 18, 2010 at 5:44 PM, Ross Walkerrswwalker@gmail.com wrote:
There is XenServer from Citrix and I think there is a community version too.
-Ross
I'd welcome your opinion. I did a bunch of integration with CentOS/RHEL 4 with the older, open source Xen utilities.
This is slightly out of date now, but I evalauted a few virtualization systems, including XenServer: http://sweh.spuddy.org/Essays/Virtualization_options.html
Now, *that* is what reviews should be like. Clear side by side comparisons on the performance, features, and missing bits you need to do yourself, very useful. It is a bit out of date: I hope you get a chance to try the same tests with CentOS 6.
But the ESXi version isn't exactly fair to someone who would deploy on the hardware intended. Also, the restriction to 1 CPU isn't built-in - there's a place where you select the number of CPUs you will use when you are registering for the free license. I don't know what the actual maximum is, but it is at least 2 with a fairly large number of cores.
On 12/19/10 8:40 AM, Les Mikesell wrote:
But the ESXi version isn't exactly fair to someone who would deploy on the hardware intended. Also, the restriction to 1 CPU isn't built-in - there's a place where you select the number of CPUs you will use when you are registering for the free license. I don't know what the actual maximum is, but it is at least 2 with a fairly large number of cores.
I'm running the free ESXI on a 4-socket (single core opteron) server, no problems with the licensing, and I don't recall it asking how many cores per socket, just how many sockets.
I can confirm the socket/cpu limitation is at least 8, at least on ESXi 3.x. I have an 8 core IBM x445 running on a free license. :-)
On Dec 21, 2010, at 9:41 AM, Drew drew.kay@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/19/2010, John R Pierce pierce@hogranch.com wrote:
On 12/19/10 8:40 AM, Les Mikesell wrote:
But the ESXi version isn't exactly fair to someone who would deploy on the hardware intended. Also, the restriction to 1 CPU isn't built-in - there's a place where you select the number of CPUs you will use when you are registering for the free license. I don't know what the actual maximum is, but it is at least 2 with a fairly large number of cores.
I'm running the free ESXI on a 4-socket (single core opteron) server, no problems with the licensing, and I don't recall it asking how many cores per socket, just how many sockets.
CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
I can confirm the socket/cpu limitation is at least 8, at least on ESXi 3.x. I have an 8 core IBM x445 running on a free license. :-)
The free and essentials licensing is restricted to max 2 sockets, max 6 cores a socket.
-Ross
I can confirm the socket/cpu limitation is at least 8, at least on ESXi 3.x. I have an 8 core IBM x445 running on a free license. :-)
The free and essentials licensing is restricted to max 2 sockets, max 6 cores a socket.
The vSphere Essentials license is limited to 3 servers of 2 sockets w/ 6core CPU's each. I have two sites right now running on licensed editions.
The ESX/ESXi host is limited to a maximum of 32 logical (sockets x cores x hyperthreading) CPUs. The free license only allows access through the vSphere client and all other features such as vMotion/vStorage/HA are disabled. Otherwise the host's hardware limits are the same.
I can confirm the socket/cpu limitation is at least 8, at least on ESXi 3.x. I have an 8 core IBM x445 running on a free license. :-)
The free and essentials licensing is restricted to max 2 sockets, max 6 cores a socket.
The vSphere Essentials license is limited to 3 servers of 2 sockets w/ 6core CPU's each. I have two sites right now running on licensed editions.
Correct.
The ESX/ESXi host is limited to a maximum of 32 logical (sockets x cores x hyperthreading) CPUs. The free license only allows access through the vSphere client and all other features such as vMotion/vStorage/HA are disabled. Otherwise the host's hardware limits are the same.
All the nifty VMware features are technically bound to the existance and functioning of a vCenter Server. It's all controlled by it and without one (reboot, failure, whatever) the VMs will go on running but no vMotion, HA or DRS will work. This is the case for whatever vSphere product and feature set you choose. Of course, beyond the 60 days trial period the vCenter Server must be licensed as well the required number of physical CPUs.
The named vSphere Essentials license does not cover vMotion and HA, not to speak about Storage vMotion. Neccessary to choose at least vSphere Essentials Plus.
</offtopic>
Drew
Alexander
On 12/23/2010 10:02 AM, Alexander Dalloz wrote:
The ESX/ESXi host is limited to a maximum of 32 logical (sockets x cores x hyperthreading) CPUs. The free license only allows access through the vSphere client and all other features such as vMotion/vStorage/HA are disabled. Otherwise the host's hardware limits are the same.
All the nifty VMware features are technically bound to the existance and functioning of a vCenter Server. It's all controlled by it and without one (reboot, failure, whatever) the VMs will go on running but no vMotion, HA or DRS will work. This is the case for whatever vSphere product and feature set you choose. Of course, beyond the 60 days trial period the vCenter Server must be licensed as well the required number of physical CPUs.
The named vSphere Essentials license does not cover vMotion and HA, not to speak about Storage vMotion. Neccessary to choose at least vSphere Essentials Plus.
</offtopic>
To put this back in the context of comparison to other free virtual host servers, you can run the console client (windows app) to connect to as many ESXi servers as you want, but on a one to one basis. That is, open a new instance of the client for each connection, and within those you can open consoles to as many VM guests as you want (although once the network is up I usually prefer to use vnc or NX/freenx directly to the guest). The licensed vCenter stuff refers to a single app that is simultaneously aware of all of your ESXi servers and their guests and can move/fail resources across servers - concepts that I don't think the other hypervisors even have.
I don't think there is an overall restriction on how many of the free ESXi servers you install - you just have to treat them as standalone instances.
Greetings,
On Thu, Dec 23, 2010 at 4:27 PM, Les Mikesell lesmikesell@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/23/2010 10:02 AM, Alexander Dalloz wrote: The licensed vCenter stuff refers to a single app that is simultaneously aware of all of your ESXi servers and their guests and can move/fail resources across servers - concepts that I don't think the other hypervisors even have.
Duh.. What is RHEV then?
I am in front of the box now. Can you tell me which feature is missing? if any, perhaps we can raise a point with redhat.
Regards,
Rajagopal
On 24/12/10 06:35, Rajagopal Swaminathan wrote:
Greetings,
On Thu, Dec 23, 2010 at 4:27 PM, Les Mikesell lesmikesell@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/23/2010 10:02 AM, Alexander Dalloz wrote: The licensed vCenter stuff refers to a single app that is simultaneously aware of all of your ESXi servers and their guests and can move/fail resources across servers - concepts that I don't think the other hypervisors even have.
Duh.. What is RHEV then?
I am in front of the box now. Can you tell me which feature is missing? if any, perhaps we can raise a point with redhat.
Maybe this one answers some of your questions ... http://www.redhat.com/virtualization/rhev/server/features-benefits/
kind regards,
David Sommerseth
On 12/18/10 3:19 AM, Gerhard Schneider wrote:
The problem with VMWare Server is that it is a discontinued product for longer time and they don't provide us with a suitable replacement.
Do you need something that the 1.x series won't do? If something works and serves your purpose it doesn't matter if it is discontinued or not.
So our institute had to switch to VMWare workstation that can be run as a server, too. I'm running CentOS 5.5 as the Host OS and 5.5 and RHEL6beta as guests. We didn't try out RHEL6 (waiting for CentOS6 :-)
The other option is to run ESXi and move anything you were running on the host to a guest. You'll get better performance that way but you need to run the converter tool on some other machine to get the images copied in.
-
Alexander Dalloz -
David Sommerseth -
Drew -
Gerhard Schneider -
John R Pierce -
Lamar Owen -
Les Mikesell -
Nico Kadel-Garcia -
Rajagopal Swaminathan -
Ross Walker -
Stephen Harris