nonphixion
Contributor
Contributor

View VM naming pattern

Jump to solution

Hello all,

I have configred a View trial for a client of mine and had a question regarding the naming pattern for VMs in an automated pool. I was testing some changes with the template I was using and subsequently deleted these 'test' machines. The problem was they were in the pool with the production machines and now I have a gap in my numbering from the deleted machines. So I have View machines from 1-12, then the next one that wants to provision is 16. Is there a way to have the pool start back at the most recent number, 13?

Thanks in advance for any help.

James

0 Kudos
1 Solution

Accepted Solutions
aj205
VMware Employee
VMware Employee

James,

I am afraid with this release you are out of luck. Also, be aware there is a 15 character limitation including the auto-numbering sequence. So if you go into the thousands, tens of thousands be sure to leave enough characters open so you don't hit the 15 character limitation.

View solution in original post

0 Kudos
9 Replies
aj205
VMware Employee
VMware Employee

James,

I am afraid with this release you are out of luck. Also, be aware there is a 15 character limitation including the auto-numbering sequence. So if you go into the thousands, tens of thousands be sure to leave enough characters open so you don't hit the 15 character limitation.

View solution in original post

0 Kudos
mittim12
Immortal
Immortal

What numbers were the test machines? I thought VDM would create the next VM based on the last member of the pool that VDM was aware of. So with that in theory if you had VM's 1-10 and then 14 the next one that was created would be 15. Is that not what your seeing?

If you found this or any other post helpful please consider the use of the Helpful/Correct buttons to award points

0 Kudos
nonphixion
Contributor
Contributor

Yes, that is how my pool is working. Using your example, the next one that would be created would be 15, however, I want the next one to be 11. Even if I delete 14, the next machine created would be 15, delete 15 and the next one is 16, etc.

0 Kudos
mittim12
Immortal
Immortal

Yes, that is how my pool is working. Using your example, the next one that would be created would be 15, however, I want the next one to be 11. Even if I delete 14, the next machine created would be 15, delete 15 and the next one is 16, etc.If you want the next one to be 11 why don't you delete everything above 10? It may take some planning since these are production desktops but at least you would be back in order.

If you found this or any other post helpful please consider the use of the Helpful/Correct buttons to award points

0 Kudos
nonphixion
Contributor
Contributor

If I delete everything above 10 now, the next machine provisioned wouldn't be 11, it would be 16.

0 Kudos
mittim12
Immortal
Immortal

I just tested this and my environment doesn't behave in this fashion. I created a pool with desktops 1, 2, 3, in it. I deleted desktop 2 and VDM auto provisioned a new desktop named 4. Now I have desktops 1, 3, 4 in my inventory. I deleted desktops 3 and 4 and VDM auto provisioned two new desktops named 2, 3 so I am back to my starting place of desktops 1, 2, 3.

I used the VDM admin to delete the machines from both connection broker and disk.

If you found this or any other post helpful please consider the use of the Helpful/Correct buttons to award points

0 Kudos
nonphixion
Contributor
Contributor

I tried this as well and unfortunately do not get the same behavior. Are you using VDM as opposed to View? Maybe that is where the difference is?

0 Kudos
mittim12
Immortal
Immortal

I am using View but I remember testing it in VDM 2.X as well and received the same behavior.

If you found this or any other post helpful please consider the use of the Helpful/Correct buttons to award points

0 Kudos
SaPu
Contributor
Contributor

Hello guys

I know this is a really old post but I have exact the same problem. I have tested this issue with View 4.5 and View 4.6 and the problem still persists. Do you know if there is a way to get back to the normal naming sequence?

Regards.

SaPu

0 Kudos