VMWARE Capacity Planner or Platespin Power Recon

[meistermn]

On the following URL was a Comparision abot VMware Capacity Planner and Plation Power Recon made:

http://www.vmug.nl/downloads/virtualization_capacity_sizing_and_planning_matrix.pdf

1.) Capacity Planner supports more OS than Platepin Power Recon.

Since we have not yet windows 64 bit systems, this is not a big

advantage. Platespin has the advantage that it support although

Virtual Iron

2.) Platespin has better and more Reporting options.

3.) In the analysis part their seems vmware capacity planner has more

advantages than platespin power recon.

Anomalies , trend deviation and Server comparision

4.) Huge price difference between capacity planner and power recon.

What is not mentioned is that if you buy power recon on yearly basis

you get although a monitoring solution.

Although I don't know if capacity planner has charts like

power recon.

Although if you have several virtualization projects inhouse and do it in steps like 250 servers in first three month and repeat this 5-10 times,

than if want to do it on our own platespin is the better solution.

On the other side using vmware capacity planner which is done only by vmware or partners using their huge datawarehouse is helpful.

The comparision Matrix should be add through the product cirba,

which analysis form their datasheet much deeper.

www.cirba.com

Anyone out there who uses power recon and capacity planner?

Message was edited by:

meistermn

[meistermn]

So form posts in vmware forum found following statements:

http://www.vmware.com/community/thread.jspa?messageID=550778&#550778

There is also a tool from Platespin (Power Recon) that does the same thing... the only thing I dislike about capacity planner is that the data goes offsite... there's no option to keep it internal

PowerRecon is a great alternative. Firstly there are two models, per use and continuous use. The modeling tool is excellent too, though you need some time to "tweak the setup to get good results.

I have used it 5+ times in varying environments. It has it share of bugs, but nothing you can't manage (with help from support).

I like the way Powerrecon worked but Vmwares capacity planner gave me good external advice and recommendations.

Given the choice I'd opt for PowerRecon.

It's slicker, more intuative and you have total control.

The other huge benefit of using PowerRecon is the ability to create jobs based on the performance metrics and then feed these directly into PowerConvert (P2V tool). Cap-Planner just can't do this. You've also got the ability to monitor the virtual environment after the migrations (if you nuy the correct licences).

Downside: You must have WMI installed on all your target machines before PowerRecon can monitor them.

I know Capacity planner also has this requirement, but it can pull some information from the registry without WMI.

http://www.vmware.com/community/thread.jspa?messageID=690271&#690271

As for CapacityPlanner, it is hosted only. The collector software runs on a local machine, but it sends the data to VMware's data warehouse for aggregation, analysis, and comparison with other systems. There is quite a bit of analysis that can be performed, but it often amounts to information overload.

http://www.vmware.com/community/thread.jspa?messageID=607300&#607300

A friend of mine at a large utility company uses the PlateSpin solution and finds its the best, especially because he can run the scenarios during the implementation of the project instead of just relying on the output produced during the assessment itself.

[meistermn]

How accurate are the tools?

Can anyone share there experience?

If the analysis is done, should 10 - 30 % added to the capacity report,

to be save.

In the book esx technical advanced guide was told, that applications

could be differently behave in a virtual enviroment.

Beyond he capacity report.

What about the next windows operation system longhorn.

This needs more resources.

Should the new hardware longhorn certified?

If you have the choice to start a bigger virtualization project is Q4 2007,

Q1/Q2 the better alternative , because of new options in the server hardware?

[Gabrie1]

Hi

I've been working with both. I prefer VM Capacity Planner over PowerRecon because of the technical aspect when retreiving data. I ran CP on a VM and it collected data without ever failing. Also the load on the VM was low.

PowerRecon was running in a VM, but the SQL database it connected to (same VM) just couldn't pull it, which caused a lot of failures. I sometimes missed data for a few days. It was also difficult to see which data I was missing, through the interface I could get some global reports, but not exactly see from which time to which time I missed data.

Capacity planner had no trouble retreiving data from servers in other domains and whit strict security settings. If there was a problem, the reasons why there was a failure were very clear. In powerrecon you could only guess why things didn't work.

In PowerRecon you have a little more freedom creating your own reports, at least, it looks like that. First you see the options to create nice queries, but soon it turns out that you can't always get what you want. (Hey that would make a great song!).

I've not worked with PowerRecon v3, which was released in april. I did see a demo on TSX in Nice, but I remember that to me the reporting was mainly a visual upgrade with nice colours and more types of graphics. I remember I was dissapointed to see that the query engine hadn't change much.

Gabrie

[meistermn]

Hi,

how does the CP work. Collects the data local in database and then send it

to vmware dataware house?

Or does it send the data directly over internet to vmware dataware house?

After the data are in the warehouse, how are the reports generated?

Can the reports be done on my own?

How accurate are these reports?

Did you do what if analysis?

Message was edited by:

meistermn

[Gabrie1]

Hi

CP collects the data in a local Access MDB. It then outputs them into a outbox folder on the harddrive. You can manually or automatically let CP upload the data to vmware. The data that is sent is clear text, so you can check whatever it will sent. After send is succesfull, the files are moved to the archive folder where you can decide if you want to delete them yes or no.

You can also have multiple CP in your environment and have only on connect to the internet. Just copy the files from the other CP outboxes to the outbox of the one with internet connection.

After upload you can check the VMware website to see if the data has been received. The data is normally processed within 24hrs. After that you have this available on the website and start playing with it.

You can generate your own reports and do whatif analyses. These reports are generated immediately. You can also have severall templates to base your reports on.

When doing what-if analyses, I found it very nice that there is a hughe database of existing servers with reallife performance values. This was rather limited in powerrecon.

When looking at reports, you can see the measures values, the industry values and the xxxxxxxxxx (forgot the exact name). The industry value shows what values the VMware CP users are reporting, so you can see if your server performs worse or better compored to other CP users. The 3rd value compares to what the software vendor thinks is a good value. For example, microsoft says the cpu-queue should never be higher than 2.

Gabrie

[meistermn]

After you did what if analyses and get your end result,

ordered the new hardware and finished the virtualizition project,

did the cp results matched with the ordered hardware, or did real life showed, that you need more resources?

And is it helpful to order 20 % more resources

than the cp result showed to be save?

Message was edited by:

meistermn

[Gabrie1]

Unfortunately, this was a real real life scenario. Which means that we would start with a 2 cluster farm according to CP, but because of politics we now have 7 clusters \!!! Some of which only hold 2 hosts \!!!

Can't say anything about the perfomance yet, because we only just started migrating.

When creating a scenario, you can set parameters to indicate how much load you want to put on the servers.

Gabrie

[meistermn]

Today I read a whitepaper from cirba. www.cirba.com

This tool is able to make a decision if a os (virtuozzo) or hypervisor virtualization is a better solution for the application. You can although use it in unix and linux environments as CP.

It is not easy to decide between this three tools.

Maybe we see here something new at VMware Worlds?

Message was edited by:

meistermn

[meistermn]

More experience to share?

[admin]

Just a little clarification regarding the earlier post about Data Synchronization: Data is not sent from the Capacity Planner Data Collector over clear text - we use HTTPS, which employs the SSL Cryptographic protocol, when sending data from the Data Collector to the Information Warehouse.

In addition, the Dashboard through which you can view the data uploaded, along with the reports and Consolidation Scenarios, is also HTTPS-only, adding another layer of security.

[sbmy234]

you can take the data from CP that is in access DB and load it into the currax server consolidation analysis tool www.currax.com there you can do scenarios and see from a total cost of ownership which server platform is the most cost effective.

[kix1979]

Personally, I like Capacity Planner. It was acquired for AOG and the technology is extremely robust. However, the downside is you don't really get to keep the data (it's store at VMware's data center) and you have to buy services with the product. Even though those are two detractors, I find the data to be extremely valuable, easy to setup and run aka. set it and forget it.

Now it should be said I also do like the PowerRecon solution from Platespin. The biggest detractor is the cost to me, typically $1 per server per day. So if you have 1000 servers and want a REAL baseline you are talking about 30 - 90 days or $30k - $90k. If you can stomach the cost, you get the keep the data, but all of the data will only be yours. So to that end you don't get the nice thing like CP in that it can add your data and compare it to what others are doing/seeing.

Kix

[Cloneranger · Accepted solution]

I used power recon,

Having said that I literally doubled the harware it suggested,

but it was useful for reporting,

[admin]

Perhaps VMware will make our decision a little easier with CP capabilities built into Virtual Center 2.1 with server consolidation advisor:

http://www.virtualization.info/2007/08/vmware-esx-server-31-virtualcenter-21.html

Chris

[meistermn]

Very good info.

I talked with cibra and they mentioned that vmware capacity planner and power recon reports 90 % can be consolidated.

Where as the cirba tool mentioned only 40 - 60 % can be consolidated.

They told me that they have a lot of customers which have used in the first step vmware capacity planner and platespin power recon and then used cirba for the complete consolidation project.

As if capacity planner is in vc 2.1 , like the url

http://www.virtualization.info/2007/08/vmware-esx-server-31-virtualcenter-21.html mentioned , platespin powerrecon is to expensive.

Message was edited by:

meistermn

[ibmer007]

Hi,

The only reason we get to go with Platespin Power Recon is when customers are so sensetive about sending their data online.

As with VMware Capacity Planner you must send the customers data to the VMware Capacity Planner site, where with Power Recon you don't have to do that.

Though with being able to collect data with VMware Capacity Planner & queue them offline then being able to upload them at a later time after customer inspection, a lot more customers are getting to accept VMware Capacity Planner when they compare the cost to Platespin Power Recond. A good procedure of how to do VMware Capacity Planner for places which does not allow you to send their data online can be found at:

http://www.virtualizationteam.com/virtualization-vmware/capacity-planner/vmware-capacity-planner-on-...

"Nothing can't be virtualized, even people"

VMware Certified Professiona (VCP)

http://www.virtualizationteam.com Active Memeber

[lanamarkinc]

Novell PlateSpin Recon and CiRBA Data Center Intelligence are enterprise-centric tools designed for ongoing use. Using these tools for delivering assessment, planning and design services is not practical - that's not what they were designed for. Furthermore, these tools can only be used for server virtualization capacity planning.

VMware Capacity Planner is a good product but it only support the VMware platform and it forces the data to go offsite. Also, its reporting is much more limited compared to Novell PlateSpin Recon. The best part about VMware Capacity Planner is that it's free!

If you are a solution provider and are looking for a platform-agnostic solution that will allow you to deliver assessment, planning and design services as well as build end-to-end desktop virtualization, server virtualization and storage solutions, have a look at Lanamark Suite. The product was designed from the ground-up for the IT channel.

www.lanamark.com