devzero
Expert
Expert

ESX is too picky about hardware.....

.....even if a system is listed in HCL it`s not guaranteed that ESX runs on that, you first need to dig trough all lists to find your raid-controller unsupported......

ton`s of postings about "can i run ESX on...." or "ESX doesn`t boot on....."

anyway, this is meant as some general statement - if others (like M$) will release some enterprise virtualization product which is not that picky, vmware gonna loose.

that`s my opinion.

what`s your opinion ?

0 Kudos
19 Replies
constant
Enthusiast
Enthusiast

.

The only reason the evil empire gave the tacit support to Linux they have, was to help substantiate their outrageous patent claims.

To suggest that they would provide a means by which one could foster the use of multiple non Microswift operating systems, is the sort of talk that only occurs while playing with the pixies.

.

0 Kudos
meistermn
Expert
Expert

Microsoft will not get big market shares, till there is hypervisor at sits in the bios or in a chip.

So if mircosoft starts with a copy of esx(viridian), vmware has it's embedded esx (esx lite in a usb). In the next step I think the hypervisor is placed in chip on the motherboard. So who cares what microsoft will bing.

0 Kudos
admin
Immortal
Immortal

At this point, Microsoft would do better to build a better "VirtualCenter".

Chris

0 Kudos
oreeh
Immortal
Immortal

I agree that it would be useful to combine the different HCLs into one document with a detailed compatibility matrix.

Why don't you post a request in the Support and Documentation Suggestions forum?

0 Kudos
devzero
Expert
Expert

this could be an option.....but let´s wait and see what happens to the black-screen-bug, first :smileygrin:

0 Kudos
RDPetruska
Leadership
Leadership

At this point, Microsoft would do better to build a better "VirtualCenter".

Chris

Well, it appears they are trying. http://www.virtualization.info/2007/09/release-microsoft-system-center-virtual.html

0 Kudos
meistermn
Expert
Expert

With the new ESX 3i the hardware vendor should provide a compatibility matrix

0 Kudos
epping
Expert
Expert

keep the hardware support small and keep the product stable, hardware is very cheap these days IMHO, i dont know why people dont run it on HP,DELL or IBM why build a white box??

0 Kudos
devzero
Expert
Expert

>why build a white box??

because not everbody is workin in pharma industry and swimming in a pool of money Smiley Wink

0 Kudos
msmenne17
Enthusiast
Enthusiast

Dell, HP, IBM come with hardware support and official support for things like VMware. VMware has limited hardware support in order to keep it stable.

How many times have you heard people complaining of Microsoft products crashing or not working (ie VISTA) because the hardware wasn't completely supported?

White box servers aren't all that much cheaper than a low-end Dell, HP or IBM. If I'm running VMware (ESX or Server) and putting that many eggs in one basket, I'm definitely going to put some money into the infrastructure.

VMware and brand-name servers are about Total Cost of Ownership. If I buy an HP server, I call 800-HP whatever and I get support for the entire server. They can't blame the hardware issues on anyone but themselves. One stop shopping and lower TCO.

Not everything is about price. When it comes to servers and businesses, it should be about lower TCO.

0 Kudos
devzero
Expert
Expert

>VMware has limited hardware support in order to keep it stable.

i don´t think this is the reason.

that would mean linux would be unstable then, but it isn`t.

0 Kudos
RDPetruska
Leadership
Leadership

>that would mean linux would be unstable then, but it isn`t.

Umm... what about all of the

\- "I upgraded my kernel yesterday and now nothing works!"

and

\- The issue with using uncommon filesystems like ReiserFS in a VM running on a ReiserFS formatted drive? (I think you've pointed this one out yourself, Roland)

type of posts? I'd say ANY modern OS is as stable or unstable as the behavior of the operator/users and administrators of the system.

0 Kudos
constant
Enthusiast
Enthusiast

.

I'd say, using only a stable release of Linux, is more stable than a "stable" release of windwoes.

.

0 Kudos
osde_info
Enthusiast
Enthusiast

we don't have stacks of dosh either ! ... but now that even Fujitsu & IBM are selling 1U servers for < £500 there's no excuse for not using mainstream hardware for your virtualisation infrastructure ... and we spent < £10,000 on our CentOS + vmbk.pl LAN backup solution for our farm of ESX servers !

regards

clive

regards clive http://vizz.info
0 Kudos
mreferre
Champion
Champion

>we don't have stacks of dosh either ! ... but now that even Fujitsu & IBM are selling 1U servers for < £500 there's no excuse for not using mainstream hardware for your virtualisation infrastructure ... and we spent < >£10,000 on our CentOS + vmbk.pl LAN backup solution for our farm of ESX servers !

If I can, I have to agree with this and the other posts on the same line. Quite frankly with tier 1 vendors (all on the current HCL with far more systems that one would actually require) shipping system that could cost as low as 1000$ I don't really see the reason to go "white". Perhaps you can buy a similarly spec'ed white box for how much?... 600? 800? Well it's not that 200/400 $ that is going to save you tons of money especially if you think the amount of $$$$ you have to pay in sw licenses (i.e. vmware / windows / applications) on top of those + consultants + management + etc etc

To me it's like trying to save money buying low quality nuts (Vs high quality) for a wedding party ...... it's the salmon and filet that are going to be your problem in terms of overall expenses.... not the nuts

Massimo.

Massimo Re Ferre' VMware vCloud Architect twitter.com/mreferre www.it20.info
0 Kudos
TomHowarth
Leadership
Leadership

For production it is teir 1 all the way.

However for my home office, I personally do not want to have three screaming teir 1 servers in there spuing out heat and noise. That is why I will be putting my next ESX boxes on white hardware, using PC hardware and silent fans/PSUs.

Kind Regards

Tom,

Tom Howarth VCP / VCAP / vExpert
VMware Communities User Moderator
Blog: http://www.planetvm.net
Contributing author on VMware vSphere and Virtual Infrastructure Security: Securing ESX and the Virtual Environment
Contributing author on VCP VMware Certified Professional on VSphere 4 Study Guide: Exam VCP-410
0 Kudos
osde_info
Enthusiast
Enthusiast

for home use i'd recommend vmwsvr instead of vmwesx since vmwsvr runs on almost ANYTHING ! well it runs on all my PIII's 500MHz & Celeron's 1.4G (with between 320M and 2G of RAM)

just use CentOS 4 or Ed/X/Ubuntu 6.06.01 as your host OS and if you turn off GUI and X-Windows and you'll get close to ESX like performance !

someone has even been saying you can even perform live backups if you use LVM snapshots

PLUS you don't need to pay for any extra ESX licences however cheap they are now getting !

regards

clive

regards clive http://vizz.info
0 Kudos
TomHowarth
Leadership
Leadership

Maybe so but I have to make a living out of this and VMserver does not cut the mustard here. I need a ESX environment to set scenarios etc, for clients and to do walk through testing proir to attending site to make sure that everything goes sweet Smiley Happy

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

Kind Regards

Tom,

Tom Howarth VCP / VCAP / vExpert
VMware Communities User Moderator
Blog: http://www.planetvm.net
Contributing author on VMware vSphere and Virtual Infrastructure Security: Securing ESX and the Virtual Environment
Contributing author on VCP VMware Certified Professional on VSphere 4 Study Guide: Exam VCP-410
0 Kudos
dpomeroy
Champion
Champion

Personally I vote for higher stability with less "officially" supported hardware vs. run it on anything with many more bugs/problems. The HCL has been expanding quit a bit, there are now all kinds of white boxes on there.

Don Pomeroy

VMTN Communities User Moderator

0 Kudos