vCenter Appliance 5 vs 5.1?

[dborgill]

One of the biggest challenges I find in supporting customers is the constant changes, updates and lack of clear summarized documentation, especially on vCenter appliance.

I am working with a vCenter Appliance 5.0 that is using the local database option. We are at 5 hosts and 42 VMs including desktops and servers. Now, a few questions:

1 - Is there a hard stop at 50 VMs and 5 hosts or is that just the recommended max?

2 - Will going to vCenter Appliance 5.1 gain us anything?

3 - On vCenter 5.0 and 5.1, can you use SQL 2005 or is SQL 2008/2012 required?

Thanks so much in advance!

[aravinds3107]

Is there a hard stop at 50 VMs and 5 hosts or is that just the recommended max?

Embedded database sized to support onlu 5 host and 50 VM's. In case if you wish to have more host and VM's then you have to choose an external database and as of now

From vSphere Document

Important

The  embedded database is not configured to manage an inventory that  contains more than 5 hosts and 50 virtual machines. Exceeding these  limits can cause numerous problems, including causing vCenter Server to  stop responding.

Will going to vCenter Appliance 5.1 gain us anything?

benefits with new features of vSphere 5.1

On vCenter 5.0 and 5.1, can you use SQL 2005 or is SQL 2008/2012 required?

Assuming you are asking for Windows based vCenter , below or the DB supported

• IBM DB2 9.5
• IBM DB2 9.7
• SQL Server 2005 64-bit Standard, Enterprise SP4
• SQL Server 2005 32-bit Standard, Enterprise SP4
• SQL Server 2008 64-bit Express R2
• SQL Server 2008 32-bit Standard, Enterprise R2
• SQL Server 2008 64-bit Standard, Enterprise R2
• SQL Server 2008 32-bit Standard, Enterprise SP2
• SQL Server 2008 64-bit Standard, Enterprise SP2
• Oracle 10g 32-bit Standard, Enterprise, One R2 (supported with version 10.2.0.3.0 or higher)
• Oracle 10g 64-bit Standard, Enterprise, One R2 (requires version 10.2.0.4)
• Oracle 11g 32-bit Standard, Enterprise, One R1
• Oracle 11g 64-bit Standard, Enterprise, One R1
• Oracle 11g 32-bit Standard, Enterprise, One R2
• Oracle 11g 64-bit Standard, Enterprise, One R2

[dborgill]

Thanks for your reply. What I meant by going to from the 5.0 to the 5.1 appliance is can I run more hosts or VMs?

Has anyone actually tried going over 50 VMs? I'd love to try it and find out without crashing the system.

[RParker]

dborgill wrote:

Thanks for your reply. What I meant by going to from the 5.0 to the 5.1 appliance is can I run more hosts or VMs?

Has anyone actually tried going over 50 VMs? I'd love to try it and find out without crashing the system.

There is no HARD MAX, you misread the notes.. that's if you use the BUILT-IN Database..  50 VM's is what they TESTED, it can do more than that.. but it's not supported...

The pre-built environment is designed for small VM centers like 50, but you can do more, you just may have issues, because the appliance is pre-configured at like 10GB or something really small, file system.. that's the main problem. 

Which is IBM DB2, and its terrible.. use SQL server or Oracle you can run much more efficiently.  DB2 is fine to get you started, not for long term regardless of how big your vCenter is.

[dborgill]

Thanks for the replies --

The big thing is this business started small and now doesn't want to purchase a full SQL license (Since Microsoft's SQL prices have gone through the roof) -- They need 100 desktops running and I was curious if it would even work with the appliance or if we were forced to pay M$'s insane licensing costs just for a small database.

Oracle isn't really an option because myself or none of my collegues now anything about it..

[RParker]

dborgill wrote:

Thanks for the replies --

The big thing is this business started small and now doesn't want to purchase a full SQL license (Since Microsoft's SQL prices have gone through the roof) -- They need 100 desktops running and I was curious if it would even work with the appliance or if we were forced to pay M$'s insane licensing costs just for a small database.

Oracle isn't really an option because myself or none of my collegues now anything about it..

Yes, don't blame you at all.. my personal opinion about the whole SQL vs Oracle.. I am certain someone will find a problem with this, but ask ANYONE at Microsoft.. SQL server is much improved.  SQL can go toe to toe with Oracle across the board, performance, ease of use, and scalability.. MS is a really big company, they manage to survive on their own products, so that must mean they work pretty well... I think Oracle is a bloated, overpriced, complicated mess.  You will be fine with SQL.. and you should be fine with 100 desktops on internal DB for now..

However since you don't know anything about Oracle, and you plan on doing SQL later.. skip the appliance.. install vCenter in a Windows VM, and use the SQL version that comes pre-installed.. that will make your migration to the FULL SQL MUCH easier..later.  Trust me.

[dborgill]

Rparker,

Does the embedded DB2 database and the SQL Express database have the same "soft" 5 host/50 VM limit or would you say that SQL express would work better?

Just want to save this company a few thousand bills..

THANKS AGAIN!

[aravinds3107 · Accepted solution]

Does the embedded DB2 database and the SQL Express database have the  same "soft" 5 host/50 VM limit or would you say that SQL express would  work better?

The limit applies to both database and note that maximum SQL Express database size is only 4 GB. So if you want to use more host and VM's you need install other SQL version

[cmacmillan]

Correction: SQL Server 2008 R2 Express upped the maximum SINGLE database size to 10GB (from 4GB) - i.e. several 10GB databases within the user access limit are possible. This significantly increases the viability of the "small platform" deployment. However, SQL Express "expressly forbids" the use of the SQL Agent (grooming, maintenance plans, etc.) so "very large" environments (including VDI/View) will benefit from SQL STD+.

[cmacmillan]

Something overlooked in the previous responses is the change in the default database from DB2 to ProsgreSQL (which VMware has contributed to SIGNIFICANTLY in the recent years, i.e. vFabric https://www.vmware.com/products/application-platform/vfabric-postgres/overview.html). This changes the whole scope of the "small systems" deployment since "arbitrary" and "feature restricted" licensing is no longer an issue.

OPINION: As VMware pushes vFabric "goodness" expect to see more robustness in PostgreSQL-based appliances.

[Ohpe]

1 - Is there a hard stop at 50 VMs and 5 hosts or is that just the recommended max?

2 - Will going to vCenter Appliance 5.1 gain us anything?

No there isn't, in fact I didn't considered this limitation for a while and now I have something like 2 hosts and 750 virtual machines on a vCSA 5.1 with ProsgreSQL.

It's still everything ok, if you don't consider the long delays using the vmware api (~5 mins to start or suspend a vapp of 4 vms).