Larger VMDKs in use.

[GlenMarquis2]

OK so on a 1MB blocksize formated VMFS you can have 256Gb max VMDKs

with 8MB you can have 2TB VMDKs (not that I'm recomending it)

What is the actual largest VMDK you guys have?

Does it work ok?

[oreeh]

What is the actual largest VMDK you guys have?

1.5 TB (on a separate LUN)

>Does it work ok?

No problems

[GlenMarquis2]

What is the server doing....

I am planning on a SQL server, 650Gb VM one vmdk on one LUN.

[oreeh]

It's a file server.

I don't have big SQL servers running (not even on physical systems).

[dkfbp]

We have 3 x 500GB vmdks on a 1.7TB LUN. They are three fileservers.

[RParker]

Now I know oreeh is a VERY intelligent VI configurator, and I am by no means challenging his knowledge or technical ability...

But from a PURELY logical standpoint, making a VM a File Server to me, is a COMPLETE waste of resources.

I would just as easily setup a machine, with a bunch of hard drives, put freenas on it, and let it go... rather than take up SAN space with file serving...

But, to each their own. I have studied using VM's for file servers, and I think Eric does the same thing.. however, this is perplexing.. Maybe it's easier to manage EVERYTHING under one roof.

For US, we wouldn't do this. I feel like the SAN is high performance, and allocating 1.5 TB for a VM is madness, of course you can simply create a share off the SAN and do the same thing, could you not?

[oreeh]

Maybe it's easier to manage EVERYTHING under one roof.

That's one big reason to do this

Another reason for doing this is: If you have enough SAN and ESX resources I see now absolutely no reason why the file server should be the only non-virtualized system.

Message was edited by:

oreeh

Forgot to mention another big reason to virtualize file servers too: the ability to take snapshots (for example before installing the latest OS patches)

[bertdb]

RParker, while resource utilization is a very important reason to virtualize, guaranteed disaster recovery on different hardware, HA failover within minutes when a physical server fails, and physical maintenance avoidance by VMotion, are also very important. If those reasons are important enough, then why not virtualize your fileserver as well ?

[lholling]

Or to setup OS clustering of the VMs that are located on different ESX hosts with the DATA volume being a RDM.

This gives you the best of all worlds in my opinion!

Leonard...

[RParker]

OK, I see.. that makes sense..

[RParker]

True.. All these are valid. I guess I can't seem to shake that a file server is a dumb server, I see now that VM ware can take advantage of those types of systems..