As above, given a config where there are multiple ESX/i hosts & multiple VMFS volumes, normally you would configure clusters, then present the shared storage to the clusters etc.
However I'm seeing a config at the moment where there are a number of "independant" hosts (managed by the same VCenter) which are *not* in a cluster, but each host is currently running VMs from the same shared storage.
Is this a sensible config? It seems not to me! I'm looking into why they haven't clustered (they have Enterprise licenses) but I wanted to double-check whether this is an acceptable (i.e. supported) config because it seems a little odd to me!
(If I could be pointed towards a document covering it then it'd be ideal supporting material to my argument).
The only purpose of presenting VMFS datastores to a Cluster is ease of use, easily manageable, Scalable, easy to troubleshoot.
From Support perspective they can't say NO to you even if you share Storage without Vmware Cluster.
Thanks for the response.
So just to confirm, there's no requirement similar to windows where the only way to share disks is within a cluster, otherwise the windows hosts will likely corrupt the volume that has been presented to both hosts?
the only thing that you have to take care is that any VMFS should not be presented to other OSes (Like Windows/Solaris Etc) they should only be presented to ESX hosts.
Please also make your network configuration the cluster failover as well and you have VMkernel configured for vMotion
(Yep, I'm aware that such volumes should ONLY be presented to ESX).
I've actually carried out a few deployments (VI3 & vSphere) but mine have always been fully clustered etc. whereas the environment I've just walked into has a config where they have 5 hosts in a vCenter with 2 sharing VMFS volumes on one pair of FC storage devices and 3 sharing access to VMFS on another hybrid storage (fc backend presented via iSCSI) but with none of the hosts clustered (despite having Enterprise licenses) so I feel they're missing a trick and a great deal of flexibility so just wanted to confirm what areas of their config are supported or not.
Thanks again all!