I miss the MUI

[packetboy]

Is it just me or do other people agree that I think it was a mistake to get rid of the MUI... We are testing ESX 3.01 now and I keep finding myself really missing the MUI... I dont like the fact I need a fat installed client on a workstation in order to quickly jump on an esx server and see what its doing if its not behaving correctly. A few times ive been on another server without the VIclient installed and I quickly need to check an esx host without HTTP access this is now not possible! Plus the VIclient is annoying how if it loses connection to the esx server it just boots you straight out of the program whats with that? In esx 2.5 you had a number of different avenues to troubleshoot problems on a host.. either through VC, the MUI or finally the COS. But now with ESX 3 im faced with a fat VI client or the Cos and Vmware has even mention they are trying to get away from people managing their esx servers with the COS i think the sentence was something like "COS interaction would normally be reserved while on the phone with VMware support."

Does anyone feel the same way? Or am I missing something?

Im not trying to sledge VI3.0 It seems to be a worthy upgrade in the weeks we have been testing but I just dont understand why VMWare removed something that I thought was useful.

Packetboy.

I removed the emocon from your header - which is against the rules.

Message was edited by:

BrianG

[stvkpln]

I think it boils down to unifying the platform. I, for one, was never much of a fan of the MUI, and I \*live* in Virtual Center. Having the capability within VC to configure most things (I still go to COS for some stuff, as well) that used to require me to need a browser is phenomenal. I always felt that the functionality to fully manage your host within VC was lacking with ESX 2.5.x / VC 1.x, and am looking forward to our upcoming VI3 rollout for that reason (amongst others).

Taking advantage of using the VI Client for both the management of a single host, all hosts in a site, or the entire enterprise is a key step in making VI3 an "enterprise-ready" application. By providing a common interface, VMware has taken a huge leap in answering (at the very least) my organizations need for a single interface for managing our virtual infrastructure.

Message was edited by:

diztorted

I will say this, though.. the datastore browser definitely needs some work... the only thing I will miss in the MUI is the file manager...

[acr]

me too..?

[JBraes]

Throwing the mui out was a big mistake.

Not everybody wants/needs a virtualcenter.

The right thing todo would be to reintegrate the mui or at least some functuionality back into esx 3.x.

Not only the mui but how about "vmkusage" !!

[biekee]

See it as a challenge

I am working with the vi client for some time now and am feeling quite comfortable with it. I am also managing 2.5 servers with it and it feels strange to press the button "goto MUI":)

I never used the MUI browser, am a vmkfstools fan.

I think overall the new approach is best for a good enterprise overview of your vmware envirnonment and for mangement it's best to use as few different tools as possible, even more, when there are more esx administrators.

The only thing I miss personally is the esxtop from 2.5 and a complete grip on the performance of esx servers and vm's.

I Hope that will come along the way

bk

[kharbin]

For anyone that has the luxury of their own desk and PC all day, VC is fine. But if like me you have to support multiple locations, VC only sucks. MUI was great low bandwidth app for working across dial-up, slow WAN or my air-card. VC like all windows apps absolutely tanks over slow links making it useless.

Also, if you are not at your desk and need to access your system, you have to install VI client, maybe on a machine you dont really want to.

No, the MUI was great way to access the system. Its a shame some very short sighted engineers removed it. Obviously they do not ever work in the field. So if any VM engineers are reading, please make an low bandwidth or out of band solution like the MUI. Going from 2 ways to manage your system to only one way is not enterprise, its crippling.

my 2 cents

RIP MUI

[acr]

For anyone that has the luxury of their own desk and

PC all day, VC is fine. But if like me you have to

support multiple locations, VC only sucks. MUI was

great low bandwidth app for working across dial-up,

slow WAN or my air-card. VC like all windows apps

absolutely tanks over slow links making it useless.

Totally Agree...\!!!

[Anders]

So if

any VM engineers are reading, please make an low

bandwidth or out of band solution like the MUI. Going

from 2 ways to manage your system to only one way is

not enterprise, its crippling.

The engineers are actually clearvoyant and have already made that solution:

It's called ssh deamon...

Removing the MUI has been pretty hard for the linux community,

perhaps we should have kept the MUI for them.

That being said, the desition to remove the MUI wasn't a random engineers sudden idea.

Maintaining the MUI was getting to be a real headache as more and more functionality was added.

When they were reengineering the API I think it was dropped to focus all effort on the VI client rather than retooling the MUI.

What I miss the most is the old memory stats page...

It is (was) there in 2.x, the old direct link worked.

It was so much easier to immediatly understand.

RIP MUI

Indeed, I think it newer will come back...

\- Anders

[packetboy]

Sorry about the emocon i didnt realize it was against the rules..

100% agree with Kharbin thats exactly what I was getting at im jumping from server to server all day without the VI client installed I need quick access from http.... plus i liked the memory savings due to sharing stats.. (my boss liked it too)

Thanks for the reply Anders I can also understand how the MUI would have increased in complexity...

I guess I will have to get intimate with the VI Client..

RIP MUI

[acr]

Ive just gone through some simple admin processes on a VM and this post has reminded me how easier it was with the MUI.... Hey Ho...??

[BartV77]

Hi,

we are planning to upgrade to ESX3 with VC2. Today, we only use the MUI, and it works fine.

Does anyone know how the authentication between the VC server and the ESX servers occurs ? I am afraid that our security guys will not allow us to use 1 VC server for all our ESX servers, since some of them will be in a DMZ... And if we would have to start using 1 VC server per segment in our DMZ, it would be too expensive... and one loses the advantage of centralised management.

Regards,

Bart

[JBraes]

Bart,

an agent will be installed on the esx server.

You need to open a few ports and the authentication between vc and esx is done in the background, in fact you log in to the vc not the esx.It is the VC that defines what access you get on the esx.

[conyards]

I miss the MUI a little, but not as much as I'd miss the COS... Please leave access as it is

[wila]

Yes, the MUI was a very convenient tool and it served its purpose pretty good.

Loosing the COS is not an option.. if that goes away... so will the use of vmware esx down here.

--

Wil

[juchestyle]

hey guys,

The only thing I miss is the "Manage Files" and the ability in VC to see performance on the 4 metrics easily (cpu, memory, nic, disk.) which is more VC than mui.

I could solve problems like no bodies business looking at those metrics in 2.5x. I solved one today looking at cpu over the last month, found the day the problem started, very easily!

BRING BACK THE PERFORMANCE CHARTS FROM 2.5X VC, PLEASE, I'LL BUY YOU A BEER!

Respectfully,

[biekee]

I agree on this one, make it two!

bk

[The_Amigo]

Like most people (I'd imagine) my ESX servers are behind a firewall... but my desktop PC isn't behind that same firewall.

With ESX 2.5, it wasn't a big deal... I could just SSH through the firewall and port forward 902 to esx1:902 and forward 903 to esx2:902. Then I could get virtual consoles by using localhost:902 (for esx1) or localhost:903 (for esx2).

But with ESX 3, viclient won't connect to localhost:903... it always tries on port 902, so it fails to connect to my second ESX server.

What's worse is that the virtual consoles ask the server what it's IP is (instead of using the same connection) so when I try to open a virtual console, I see packets going to esx1's IP (172.16.0.6.... I'm sure my ISP drops those) instead of using my local ssh tunnel.

Having just "upgraded" to ESX3, I'm not unable to manage my VMs until I setup a VPN... not something I'd allocated time to do today.