VMware Cloud Community
RParker
Immortal
Immortal

vSphere vCenter 5 VMA Works!

Don't believe the hype!  I know I made some faux paus and ate crow, made some remarks that turned out to be false (I am human, my bad!).

BUt what yellow bricks wrote about vSphere 5 Linux Appliance is COMPLETELY untrue.

VMA supports only 5 hosts / 50 VM's. (with embedded database)

FALSE!  It support 100 hosts / 1000 VM's (pg 43 of the setup guide) shows this to be accurate. (WITH embedded DB2 database)

VMA does NOT support Update manager.

FALSE! It does work, I installed UM (on Windows no less) and verified (by pointing the UM to my Linux vCenter Appliance) no complaints, plug-in works.  There are no updates, so I can't test it.. but functionally it DOES work.

Those are 2 so far that I KNOW to be true, so not sure where they attained that info, but the VMA works GREAT so far, I haven't found anything that DOESN'T work actually..

the VMA is faster, is more robust, and has built in features, system logs, command line, everything in one place.  VDR is ALSO faster using the VMA ver 5 (in my testing).

So don't believe the hype!  Jump in, the Linux Appliance is great!

Reply
0 Kudos
8 Replies
AKostur
Hot Shot
Hot Shot

Haven't read the original post you're referring to, but looking just at your post, the part about Update Manager depends on your interpretation.  In my interpretation, Update Manager doesn't "work" with VMA in the sense that it depends on another box (Windows) to work.  You cannot just install VMA and use just that box to do the updates, which is what I used to be able to do with vCenter 4.  So what I used to be able to do with one box (vCenter 4 + Update Manger), I can no longer do with one box (vCenter 5 + Update Mangager, where vCenter 5 is the appliance).   I'm switching to the appliance so I don't have to have a Windows server to deal with my vSphere stack.  But if I want to do updates, I still have to deploy a Windows box.  (So why use the appliance at all....)

I don't have more than 5 hosts, so I can't comment on that.  Although I don't see why it wouldn't work for more... give the appliance more horsepower, and it should be able to support more hosts.

Reply
0 Kudos
RParker
Immortal
Immortal

AKostur wrote:

Haven't read the original post you're referring to, but looking just at your post, the part about Update Manager depends on your interpretation.  In my interpretation, Update Manager doesn't "work" with VMA in the sense that it depends on another box (Windows) to work.  You cannot just install VMA and use just that box to do the updates, which is what I used to be able to do with vCenter 4.  So what I used to be able to do with one box (vCenter 4 + Update Manger), I can no longer do with one box (vCenter 5 + Update Mangager, where vCenter 5 is the appliance).   I'm switching to the appliance so I don't have to have a Windows server to deal with my vSphere stack.  But if I want to do updates, I still have to deploy a Windows box.  (So why use the appliance at all....)

I don't have more than 5 hosts, so I can't comment on that.  Although I don't see why it wouldn't work for more... give the appliance more horsepower, and it should be able to support more hosts.

OK I don't understand your comment.  There is a difference between using a product and what you believe how a product should work.  Just because the VMA requires external add-ins STILL doesn't limit its functionality.

ALL vsphere, ESX and previous versions have worked this way, so in essence that's how they were designed.  The post was that UM (update manager) would not function with VMA (Linux appliance), the argument isn't whether or not it's included with the appliance (embedded).  That makes no sense anyway, because vSpehere is a group of products, not a single integrated install.  NO Component of vSphere is complete without adding other products, Orchestrator, Heartbeat, VDI, so your dependence is a pretty lousy argument to say it doesn't "work".  If you install vCenter in Windows you STILL need to install something else to get UM to work even if it's installed on the same host or not.. it's a speparate piece.

So your point that you can install vCenter 4 is incorrect, but EACH one of those is a separate install.. so it's not accurate to say you don't NEED to install anything else.

I'm switching to the appliance so I don't have to have a Windows server to deal with my vSphere stack.  But if I want to do updates, I still have to deploy a Windows box.  (So why use the appliance at all....)

I don't have more than 5 hosts, so I can't comment on that.  Although I don't see why it wouldn't work for more... give the appliance more horsepower, and it should be able to support more hosts.

The appliance isn't lacking horsepower, the pre built appliances are fine, embedded databases (such as SQL Server Express) wasn't supported for more than a small number of hosts.. My only testament was that yellow bricks reported the support incorrectly.. and they said UM wouldn't work (AT ALL).  Neither of these are true.  So you are so anal that installing a component in another VM is a waste of space?  If you have to restart an appliance, you have to restart ALL the components on that same box, that's the MAIN reason you separate them, so they don't cause an outage someplace else.  Also you didn't read the VM Ware technical notes, that install SQL Express and Update Manager in the same VM as your vCenter is NOT supported..  So you did it that way, but it's not OFFICIALLY the correct way to do it, you are SUPPOSED to install UM separate from vCenter and the Database (which can be a currently used Database) are ALL different machines.

Besides which you would rather argue my point and say that you can't be bothered to install unless it's under one VM, rather to see my point that the appliance will ultimately be faster .. That is the ENTIRE point of using the Linux Appliance in the FIRST place, PERFORMANCE.  I guess that was lost on you.. It wasn't to simply make you install for the sake of supporting a different platform, it's to reap the rewards of hosting in Linux to make it more efficient...

Reply
0 Kudos
AKostur
Hot Shot
Hot Shot

Sure, fair enough.  (And note I didn't dispute that an Update Manager running on a separate host would function).   My comment/observation is that the utility of the VMA is diminished in that in order to do (IMHO) some basic things with one's vSphere stack (like manage the upgrades of the underlying ESXi instances), you still need a separate Windows box to accomplish that.  If I install vCenter on Windows, I can at least use the same box (and with vRAM limitations now, this could get important....).  My installation isn't so sophisticated that I need to separate these tasks to different machines for load purposes.

Yes, I do understand that the VMA is a new product and doesn't replicate all of the existing functionality (I had a side conversation with a VMware tech on this), and I expect in the future that these features will get added to the VMA.  I'm currently using the VMA, I've just given up on the Update Manager for now.

Reply
0 Kudos
RParker
Immortal
Immortal

AKostur wrote:

Sure, fair enough.  (And note I didn't dispute that an Update Manager running on a separate host would function).   My comment/observation is that the utility of the VMA is diminished in that in order to do (IMHO) some basic things with one's vSphere stack (like manage the upgrades of the underlying ESXi instances), you still need a separate Windows box to accomplish that.  If I install vCenter on Windows, I can at least use the same box (and with vRAM limitations now, this could get important....).  My installation isn't so sophisticated that I need to separate these tasks to different machines for load purposes.

Yes, I do understand that the VMA is a new product and doesn't replicate all of the existing functionality (I had a side conversation with a VMware tech on this), and I expect in the future that these features will get added to the VMA.  I'm currently using the VMA, I've just given up on the Update Manager for now.

OK so let me get this straight, today you like the Appliance because it has Update manager, VDR, and vCenter, along with command line and system logging ALL in one place (let's say it works that way -- TODAY!).

So in order to extend the fuctionality say orchestrator, but because this wasn't included with the original release, it will require  another VM, so NOW all of a sudden that appliance isn't viable because you have to use ANOTHER VM to get the features you want.. Is that what you are saying?

ZERO sense.. It doesn't need to WORK as one appliance to work completely.

Also your understanding/comprehension/technical expertise/observations are TOTALLY erroneous..

vRAM is based upon usage, not VM allocation.

2 VM's 2GB of RAM each does NOT mean that's 4GB of vRAM, if you install vCenter in one, and UM in the other, and they EACH use 1GB, your vRAM is 2GB (based upon ACTUAL usage) of the services\programs installed.  So 1 VM 4GB only using 2 GB, or 2 VM 2GB only using 1GB each is EXACTLY same amount of vRAM.  If you are that tight on vRAM anyway, you have other issues.. a side note on vRAM anyway it's a 12 month AVERAGE not a spike..

did you read ALL of the documentation about the merits benefits and how vSphere works, or are you purposely just throwing stuff out there because this is how you ASSUME this works?  It doesn't sound like you have a THOROUGH undersrtanding of vSphere.

Reply
0 Kudos
AKostur
Hot Shot
Hot Shot

You're reading things I didn't say.

You're using phrases like "isn't viable" when I said "utility of the VMA is diminished".  Big difference.  You're suggesting that it has become useless (or at least not sufficiently useful to justify its existance).  I'm suggesting that it could be more useful than it currentliy is.  (And I wish to reduce the number of Windows instances that I must support)

(and to comment on your edits)

Yep.  Fully aware that vRAM applies to actual in-use RAM (running VMs), not merely configured VMs.   So if I have a 2 GB VM running VMA currently.  Which uses less vRAM, adding a theoretical Update Manager to the existing VMA instance, or spinning up a new 2 GB Windows instance to run the Update Manager?  And don't you leave your vCenter and your Update Manager running continuously?  Doesn't that make your attempted browbeating about transient vs. average load a moot point?

And based on your responses, it does not appear that you wish to engage in intelligent discourse, but you want to throw out random insults and browbeating by assuming whatever you will.  Good day.

Reply
0 Kudos
RParker
Immortal
Immortal

AKostur wrote:

You're reading things I didn't say.

You're using phrases like "isn't viable" when I said "utility of the VMA is diminished".  Big difference.  You're suggesting that it has become useless (or at least not sufficiently useful to justify its existance).  I'm suggesting that it could be more useful than it currentliy is.  (And I wish to reduce the number of Windows instances that I must support)

Wait so it's ok to "observe" and "interpret" my posting, but when I try to understand when you say "diminished capacity" is dissimilar to "isn't viable"?

Is English your first language?

You MUST be kidding me.  The VMA isn't diminished just because it doesn't install the UM in the SAME location (which isn't support with your current setup).  So that tells me you won't be able to use (what is the purpose of using the appliance -- your words).. which means you don't LIKE the way it works, so you are basicaly saying it's NOT something you would use.

to summarize.. isn't viable.. .  Meaning you don't feel its worth your time...

So yes to you it's is useless because you are stuck on the fact that you NEED to install some other VM to make it work.. which is how it was DESIGNED.

If you want to reduce the Windows instances, then fine.  Take a Windows VM install UM/SQL separate it from vCenter or UM/Oracle if using Linux Appliance.. voila, done.  It's not good practice to lump all services WITH vCenter, which is why the embedded database has limited functionality...

I still fail to see why you think it is "... (not) more useful", when clearly the problem is YOU don't want to install VM's to make the vSphere work the way it was intended.  That's not a flaw, that is a oversight on your part.

I didn't imply that EACH feature needs it's own VM.  vCenter is your main component to manage ALL your ESX hosts, you want vCenter to be clean.  Everything else can lump together in a VM, although a Database should be on it's own, and in my experience on physical hardware.

Reply
0 Kudos
jayctd
Hot Shot
Hot Shot

I agree with your assessment with most of the smaller deployments i run across Virtual Center and Update manger are the two pre-requesates that are needed togeather as a minimum.

The appliance would be more usefull if it had the ability to perform both functions to reduce the windows footprint needed to maintain and patch. in bigger situations role seperation becomes more of an issue and there will be other servers to put the update manager but on the small and ultra small maintaining licensing and updating extra windows boxes is something to be avoided when possible.

As a point of clarification to others based on context i think we are talking about the new vCSA(vCenter Server Appliance) not the VMA appliance which is something seperate at this point. That being said good to see them making a larger pre packaged appliance and starting to handle a bit more scale they are going in the right direction.

##If you have found my post has answered your question or helpful please mark it as such##
Reply
0 Kudos
wdroush1
Hot Shot
Hot Shot

Hold on, before we claim victory.

While we can mix and match software on our desktops in IT to compensate for it, I want VMWare to finish the appliance, and get full Linux support for our vCenter installs (virtual OR physical).

We can claim victory when I can manage vCenter entirely from a Linux environment, with a Linux vCenter box.

Also, no web access? Bah, comeon...

RParker wrote:

the VMA is faster, is more robust,


It's Linux, of course! Smiley Wink

Reply
0 Kudos