Running version 6.5.0, build 5973321.
Anyone else getting the wrong information returned on snapshot size? Seeing this with the get-snapshot cmdlet and also from the 'manage snapshots' view within vCenter. It's doesn't appear to read the delta vmdk file size.
Not sure I understand your remark, the snapshot size displays what is in the delta file, not including the size of the VMDK.
In other words you would only see the changes made to the VMDK after the snapshot is taken.
Perhaps you could show us an example screenshot of what you mean?
Blog: lucd.info Twitter: @LucD22 Co-author PowerCLI Reference
Exactly, which used to be the size of the *-delta.vmdk file. But now it clearly is not for us. Not exactly certain when this changed for us, but it was sometime after Oct 25th of this year.
> Get-Snapshot * |select *
Description : Taken prior to upgrade
Created : 11/28/2017 10:00:00 PM
Quiesced : False
PowerState : PoweredOff
VM : Mango
SizeMB : 0.06697845458984375
SizeGB : 0.000065408647060394287109375
IsCurrent : True
IsReplaySupported : False
3.5G Mango-000001-delta.vmdk
From where did you obtain that VMDK size?
From the datastore browser in the Web Client?
Blog: lucd.info Twitter: @LucD22 Co-author PowerCLI Reference
So that information is from a 'du' command executed from a linux host with the datastore mounted NFS.
I went with an SSH onto the ESXi node, and indeed, the size returned by Get-Snapshot seems to be "strange".
In fact I have no idea how they get to these values.
Looks like a "feature"
Blog: lucd.info Twitter: @LucD22 Co-author PowerCLI Reference
So it's not a PowerCLI "feature" but a vSphere one?
Blog: lucd.info Twitter: @LucD22 Co-author PowerCLI Reference
I know I too am reviving an older post (and really just saying me too), but we are just now experiencing the problem too. PowerCLI has reported correctly for many years. We are running VMware ESXi, 6.5.0, 13004031 . Just tried to open a support call with VMware and they basically said, yes it's an issue but wouldn't support PowerCLI. Warnox did you have proof this was addressed? If so can you share some more info.
Did anyone else find a resolution? We've built several processes around this information and it is now unreliable at best.