VMware Cloud Community
itpassionate77
Enthusiast
Enthusiast
Jump to solution

Vcenter server Physical vs Virtual installation

Hello all, could you give me advices about how to implement Vcenter server in Vsphere 4.1? Physical or Virual installation of Vcenter server? Thanks for your help

Reply
0 Kudos
1 Solution

Accepted Solutions
golddiggie
Champion
Champion
Jump to solution

I've used virtualized vCenter Servers in production environments for a couple of years now... I did it first under 3.5 and have done it in 4.0 and also 4.1 without any issue at all... Performance of the vCenter Server (in production environments) has never been an issue due to using Enterprise grade storage, powerful host servers, and having them set up properly (the entire environment too)...

Beyond the already mentioned benefits of going with a virtual vCenter Server (which I've seen in action) I will second the mention of making it easier to administrate your entire environment... Cost savings are not to be dismissed either... Not only do you save by not needing to have another hunk of hardware running (even if it's one you've had on hand and simply re-purpose it) you save on power and cooling costs (not a small amount per year on older boxes)... There's also the added bonus of higher communication speeds (VM to VM networks run very, very fast)...

As for how complex it could make your network... Not really... Unless you're about to run out of IP addresses on your network (which would require either expanding your subnet range to allow for more addresses or adding another subnet within your DHCP server) you will just need to assing the IP to the VM (simple really) that is the vCenter Server... Unless you have hundreds of servers, you shouldn't need another VLAN/subnet range for the virtual environment...

I think you're really over-complicating the network side of things too... Think of it this way... Your host servers are on IP range 10.1.1.x, so you place the vCenter Server on the same IP range (just one more system on that range)... You place your VM's on the IP range they are on too (can be the same, can be different) connecting the host Virtual Machine port group NIC's to the correct physical switch ports. Depending on your storage/SAN, you connect those host ports to the correct physical switch ports...

You DO need to plan things out for how things will interconnect. That being said, it's not brain surgery here... I would advise planning on having redundancy at the physical switch and host NIC level for any connections... Such as two NIC's for the Management Network, x2 NIC's/ports for the VM port group traffic (depending on the size of the cluster/count of VM's you'll need to have enough connections to support demand), x2 NIC's/ports for the SAN connection, etc... This is why I typically have 8-10 NIC's/ports in every host I set up (production level hosts)... That includes (typically) the four onboard NIC's, so adding either a pair of dual port, or a quad port (always Intel server class NIC's here), or a combination, to each host.

If you're having trouble designing your network configuration, post up information such as physical switches (and how the ports are configured if broken into more than one VLAN) for both regular traffic and SAN connections, host configurations (include how many ports both onboard and through add-on cards), SAN make/model (as well as how many network controllers it has, and how many ports per controller), etc... Also post up how you're thinking of setting it all up and people here will assist in making sure it's done right (or best for the environment it's going into)... If the network is already set up, running well, and you're just looking to set more things up (within the cluster) then that's something else...

VMware VCP4

Consider awarding points for "helpful" and/or "correct" answers.

View solution in original post

Reply
0 Kudos
15 Replies
Troy_Clavell
Immortal
Immortal
Jump to solution

In my opinion, go virtual. As the old saying goes, "eat your own dog food" It's fully supported and you get the benefits of HA and DRS. I would however set the restart priority of your vCenter VM to high.

itpassionate77
Enthusiast
Enthusiast
Jump to solution

Hello Troy,

Thanks for your answer. As I'm totally new to Vsphere world, I probably making mistakes so be comprehensive. Smiley Happy

On my view, I had some doubts on the performances and reliability of the Virtual Infrastructure if you virtualize the Vcenter server.

On the budget view, it's definitively more interesting to virtualize this server but what about the complexity of the environment, more specifically on the network configuration. If I well read the documentation, the Vcenter server and the hosts it manages need to be on the same network (no NAT). Considerating this, I need to create one VLAN more at hosts level instead of switch level. So aren't you increase the points of failure.

I will do a lab to have a better view on the network architecture and performances in the 2 cases ( Virtual vs Physical installation).

Fianlly as I've read everywhere there are 2 schools about this topic and things are not really so clear.

Thanks for your comments,

Michaël

Reply
0 Kudos
WessexFan
Hot Shot
Hot Shot
Jump to solution

As Troy mentioned you will likely want to virtualize your vCenter. It will have HA and DRS benefits and save you on costs. There is absolutely no downside of running a virtual vCenter. In fact, you mention the complexity of the network, whereas virtualizing your vCenter server actually decreases the complexity of your network.

VCP5-DCV, CCNA Data Center
jamesbowling
VMware Employee
VMware Employee
Jump to solution

I am with Troy on this one. I personally feel that I am fully utilizing the advantages behind virtualization when I virtualize any part of it. One of the reasons I decided to go this way was because of a particular requirement for a BladeCenter S Chassis deployment that was meant for traveling to different sites. Putting everything inside the virtual infrastructure on the blades in it was perfect, no need to worry about cabling anything else, no need to worry about my vCenter server being damaged during shipping...it is nice. Definitely go virtual.

If you found this at all helpful please award points by using the correct or helpful buttons! Thanks!

James B. | Blog: http://www.vSential.com | Twitter: @vSential --- If you found this helpful then please awards helpful or correct points accordingly. Thanks!
Reply
0 Kudos
golddiggie
Champion
Champion
Jump to solution

I've used virtualized vCenter Servers in production environments for a couple of years now... I did it first under 3.5 and have done it in 4.0 and also 4.1 without any issue at all... Performance of the vCenter Server (in production environments) has never been an issue due to using Enterprise grade storage, powerful host servers, and having them set up properly (the entire environment too)...

Beyond the already mentioned benefits of going with a virtual vCenter Server (which I've seen in action) I will second the mention of making it easier to administrate your entire environment... Cost savings are not to be dismissed either... Not only do you save by not needing to have another hunk of hardware running (even if it's one you've had on hand and simply re-purpose it) you save on power and cooling costs (not a small amount per year on older boxes)... There's also the added bonus of higher communication speeds (VM to VM networks run very, very fast)...

As for how complex it could make your network... Not really... Unless you're about to run out of IP addresses on your network (which would require either expanding your subnet range to allow for more addresses or adding another subnet within your DHCP server) you will just need to assing the IP to the VM (simple really) that is the vCenter Server... Unless you have hundreds of servers, you shouldn't need another VLAN/subnet range for the virtual environment...

I think you're really over-complicating the network side of things too... Think of it this way... Your host servers are on IP range 10.1.1.x, so you place the vCenter Server on the same IP range (just one more system on that range)... You place your VM's on the IP range they are on too (can be the same, can be different) connecting the host Virtual Machine port group NIC's to the correct physical switch ports. Depending on your storage/SAN, you connect those host ports to the correct physical switch ports...

You DO need to plan things out for how things will interconnect. That being said, it's not brain surgery here... I would advise planning on having redundancy at the physical switch and host NIC level for any connections... Such as two NIC's for the Management Network, x2 NIC's/ports for the VM port group traffic (depending on the size of the cluster/count of VM's you'll need to have enough connections to support demand), x2 NIC's/ports for the SAN connection, etc... This is why I typically have 8-10 NIC's/ports in every host I set up (production level hosts)... That includes (typically) the four onboard NIC's, so adding either a pair of dual port, or a quad port (always Intel server class NIC's here), or a combination, to each host.

If you're having trouble designing your network configuration, post up information such as physical switches (and how the ports are configured if broken into more than one VLAN) for both regular traffic and SAN connections, host configurations (include how many ports both onboard and through add-on cards), SAN make/model (as well as how many network controllers it has, and how many ports per controller), etc... Also post up how you're thinking of setting it all up and people here will assist in making sure it's done right (or best for the environment it's going into)... If the network is already set up, running well, and you're just looking to set more things up (within the cluster) then that's something else...

VMware VCP4

Consider awarding points for "helpful" and/or "correct" answers.

Reply
0 Kudos
itpassionate77
Enthusiast
Enthusiast
Jump to solution

Hello,

Thanks all for your contribution. Things are more clearer.

Special thanks to golddiggie for his detailed explanations. Great post!

I won't forget rewards!

Reply
0 Kudos
mansof
Enthusiast
Enthusiast
Jump to solution

I am all for virtualize my vCenter 4.1 but after 4 months using it I am thinking about moving it back to virtual, or why not reinstall it.

I do not have a very large installation, 25 ESX and about 100 active VM's and 100 down VM's. We are connected to a CLARiiON CX4-390 as a SAN

We use an external ORACLE database in Linux.

These are some examples of problems found:

1. Complexity to set up a cluster specifically for a vCenter:

     1.1. I need to set up a Virtual Switch not a Distributed Virtual switch or in case we shut down the vCenter we would have real to get it back. This is fixed though. It is just annoying.

     1.2 We need to set up not more than 2 machines in this cluster to so when we shut it down we have 2 choices to find the vCenter, while we still have the HA and DRS benefits. This is annoying and a waste of resources, but at least we have virtualization benefits.

2. Once it is installed Tomcat memory usage goes way high, at least 2 GB, plus the 3 GB recommended we need a 6GB 64 bits  Windows 2008  R2 machine. Such a memory usage with our 8GB or 10GB or RAM ESX makes vCenter very slow, that we cannot connect to the machine using rdesktop to keep the memory resources down.

3. vCenter keeps dying for no reason. The logs just say that it is shutting down.

4. if I put more than one network on the box the machines gets so confused. I configured it to have an IT to our private network to talk to the ESX's and another IP on a public network so we can connect. it just does not work, the ESX's keep connecting and disconnecting.

  4.1. one of the issues is that if I do not shutdown the vCenter service by hand, on booting up the ORACLE database complains that it is lock by another vCenter and cannot be open, so I have to shutdown the ORACLE database, and start it up again, before starting vCenter service.

5. Not the Data Recovery backups do not work on this machine as DR cannot qiesce the VM when doing the snapshot. And the message complains about the fact that the VM cannot freeze the I/O to quiece the machine.

   5.1 the recommendation is to perform a backup using a backup agent like Legato NetWorker. Same for Exchange and high IO applications. I did not have the idea that vCenter was very IO intensive.

Before this Virtual vCenter we had vCenter 4.0 on a physical machine and never have an issue, so that is what is making me think about 2 options:

1. Reinstall vCenter in another Virtual machine, maybe I did something wrong on the installation.

2. Reinstall vCenter on a physical machine

After that I was planning to add vCenter HeartBeat, so it might be a good idea to have one physical, and then make one virtual with HeartBeat.

I would appreciate any opinion about this.

-Francisco

Reply
0 Kudos
mpverr
Enthusiast
Enthusiast
Jump to solution

One thing to keep in mind if you virtualize is to setup an afinity rule for your vCenter; Update Manger and SQL server to always remain on the same host.  The, you need to script to monitor which host your vCenter is one.  This way, if (when?) your vCenter ever has an issue, you know which host to remote directly into usin gthe VIC to restart those VM.  Otherwise, you could be hunting for those VM across all your hosts.

Aside from that what everyone else said was perfect.

Reply
0 Kudos
mansof
Enthusiast
Enthusiast
Jump to solution

I thought abut that posibility, to add an afinity rule, but does that defeat the purpose of DRS and HA?

That is why I decide to use a cluster with 2 ESX servers and dump vCenter in there with other helpfull vApps like vMA SolutionsEnabler vAPP, AppSpeed, Data Recovery mchines...

So I just have 2 host to look for vCenter if needed.

Reply
0 Kudos
admin
Immortal
Immortal
Jump to solution

The official line is virtual and that is from the VMware Plan & Design Course as being good practice..

Reply
0 Kudos
mansof
Enthusiast
Enthusiast
Jump to solution

I know tha tis the best recomended practice..

but what we have now virtual is completelly unaceptable on production environments, we cannot have a vCenter 4.1 that dies for no reason twice a week, while with vCenter 4.0 we had it in a Physical machine and we just reboot it once a year.

My question is: Has anybody notice any diference running vCenter in a Physical machine and in a virtual machine?

And with all respect to the best practices, if vCenter is stable in a physical machine ( have to reboot once a year) , and it dies twice a week on a virtual machine.. the best practices are wrong in that case.

Reply
0 Kudos
mcowger
Immortal
Immortal
Jump to solution

But you've changed 2 variables, 4.0 to 4.1.

I will say I know MANY MANY people that have vCenters with 6+ month uptimes in VM, so its more likely related to bugs in vCenter itself or your hardware/config/OS load thats causing your issues than physical vs. virtual.

--Matt VCDX #52 blog.cowger.us
Reply
0 Kudos
lowteck
Enthusiast
Enthusiast
Jump to solution

We switched our phys vcenter 2.5 to a virtual vShere center 4.0 when we upgraded our environment and licensing.

highly recommend, we had multiple issues running on phys server.

like everyone has stated, dont bother going virtual unless you have license for HA.

our new virtual vcenter boots up in fraction of time our old phys server used to.

and is backed up by vmware data recovery.

believe the hype...

low

Reply
0 Kudos
mansof
Enthusiast
Enthusiast
Jump to solution

yep, that is what I am saying, I had physical vCenter on 4.0, Windows 2003 32 bits -external ORACLE database. NO problems.

Now I upgraded to virtual vCenter on 4.1 Windows 2008 R2 64 bits, with the same external ORACLE database.  Unstable.

I try 1, 2 and 4 CPU's and I increased memory to 6GB

The 6GB RAM is mainly because tomcat is taking 3 GB for itself, regardless best practices says  for my small configuration I should use 2GB of memory for tomcat. Well it did not work with 2GB.

That is my question, and you have answerd it somehow telling me that some vCenter 4.1 on VM have more than 6 months uptime.

Thanks.

Reply
0 Kudos
kdon
Contributor
Contributor
Jump to solution

mansof: is this issue resolved for you?  I would hope so seeing that it is a month later.  I have no experience with the oracle side of things, but the majority of this crowd around here use SQL, have you tried that yet?

I would try that, with a fresh install on the vm.

As far as the basic question of physical vs virtual it basically just depends on your environment.  If you can architect and get away with vcenter being on a vm, fantastic, in some cases you can't though.

I would like to know how you made out either way though..

Reply
0 Kudos