jbsengineer's Posts

VMware KB: After upgrading from ESXi 5.0/5.1 to ESXi 5.5 Update 3 or later, vMotion fails with: failed to add memory… Here is the KB.  We downgraded to 5.1 and will wait the fix out.  Bad timi... See more...
VMware KB: After upgrading from ESXi 5.0/5.1 to ESXi 5.5 Update 3 or later, vMotion fails with: failed to add memory… Here is the KB.  We downgraded to 5.1 and will wait the fix out.  Bad timing, we had 2500 VMs to move...
I have heard back.  According to my support person, the issue we are having is related to the default disabling of SSLv3 on 5.5 U3b.  Engineering is aware of the issue.  We downgraded to 5.5 U3a ... See more...
I have heard back.  According to my support person, the issue we are having is related to the default disabling of SSLv3 on 5.5 U3b.  Engineering is aware of the issue.  We downgraded to 5.5 U3a build 3316895 and all is well. Josh
I opened a case Friday night also. We didn't upgrade to the 5.5 hosts.  They are fresh installs.  We are trying to vMotion VMs from a 5.1 2583090 host -> 5.5 3248547.  Some will migrate fine, ... See more...
I opened a case Friday night also. We didn't upgrade to the 5.5 hosts.  They are fresh installs.  We are trying to vMotion VMs from a 5.1 2583090 host -> 5.5 3248547.  Some will migrate fine, most will not.  Very odd: 2016-01-25T15:52:45.591Z cpu7:15398651)VMotionUtil: 3380: 1453737159973591 S: Stream connection 2 added. 2016-01-25T15:52:45.592Z cpu6:15292154)WARNING: VMotionUtil: 681: 1453737159973591 S: failed to read stream keepalive: Connection closed by remote host, possibly due to timeout 2016-01-25T15:52:45.592Z cpu6:15292154)WARNING: Migrate: 269: 1453737159973591 S: Failed: Connection closed by remote host, possibly due to timeout (0xbad003f) @0x0 2016-01-25T15:52:45.592Z cpu10:15283961)WARNING: VMotionUtil: 4723: 1453737159973591 S: socket connected returned: Already disconnected 2016-01-25T15:52:45.592Z cpu10:15283961)WARNING: VMotionUtil: 7187: 1453737159973591 S: failed to flush stream buffer: Already disconnected 2016-01-25T15:52:45.592Z cpu10:15283961)WARNING: VMotionUtil: 1618: 1453737159973591 S: failed writing stream completion: Already disconnected
Thanks for testing in your environment.  Agreed, I will probably reach out to VMware just to get confirmation.  Thanks again!
Correct, that is an assumption.  The sources I had read talked about making sure your VMFS block sizes from your source and destination LUNs are the same otherwise they would perform less due to ... See more...
Correct, that is an assumption.  The sources I had read talked about making sure your VMFS block sizes from your source and destination LUNs are the same otherwise they would perform less due to the block size.  Usually this was referring to upgrading VMFS3 -> VMFS5, etc, etc: Storage vMotion performance difference? - Yellow Bricks Blocksize impact? - Yellow Bricks My thoughts exactly with the large IO size of 1MB, and how the mirroring and new writes are affected during the storage vmotion. 64KB is a little small for what should be a streaming read/write and would prefer to increase it to 128, maybe even 512KB. Either way, if this is by design, that is fine.  I'm just trying to verify something isn't mis-configured in my stack before I adjust our procedures for migrations, and or find a way to work around the 64KB size.
Storage also reflects what I am seeing.  Same throughput, same front-end IO.
VAAI was disabled for other reasons a couple years ago. But, yes I understand no VAAI across arrays.  I was just pointing out that the results are similar when svmotioning between arrays or adjac... See more...
VAAI was disabled for other reasons a couple years ago. But, yes I understand no VAAI across arrays.  I was just pointing out that the results are similar when svmotioning between arrays or adjacent arrays. Yes, all LUNs.  I have looked for anything out of the ordinary with bus resets, outstanding commands, etc and found nothing.  Also combed the vmkernel logs and they are normal.
Can someone tell me what size blocks a storage vmotion should be moving data at?  I need to make sure what I am seeing is working by design.  From what I have read it should be the block size of ... See more...
Can someone tell me what size blocks a storage vmotion should be moving data at?  I need to make sure what I am seeing is working by design.  From what I have read it should be the block size of the VMFS volume and not a sub-level block size.   However, I am seeing 64KB moves. We probably average 1000 storage vmotions a year and just recently a few performance issues popped up on our radars.  So I'm doing a little digging and found we were taxing some RAID sets with 2000-3000 IOPs at 64kb blocks. All of our VMFS 5.54 datastores were created fresh and are 1MB block size.  No upgrades. This happens on migrations within an array, and to adjacent arrays.  We have intentially disabled the VAAI data mover (FYI).  So it should still utilizing the FS3DM datamover. Any insight is appreciated.  I attached a graph which highlight a write rate of 241648KB @ 3775 write requests equaling 64KB. ESXi 5.1 Update 2. Thanks.
This is because Window Sysprep will disable the Administrator account by default on a SID change with desktop OS's. I'm wondering how to get around this as well...
Hot extend was available in 2003. We have tried small increments or large. If the machine has been running for awhile it will have issues. Reboot and it extends perfectly fine, everytime.
Microsoft released a "semi" fix for the issue you described. We've had to use it several times: With Windows 2003 they released the above hotfix. Which just included a new functio... See more...
Microsoft released a "semi" fix for the issue you described. We've had to use it several times: With Windows 2003 they released the above hotfix. Which just included a new function in diskpart called "extend filesystem". This was to overcome the problem with the NTFS driver exhausting its resources when it tries to hot extend. It appears the same utility "extend filesystem" is in 2008 and we have used it from time to time. However if the FS corrupts on the extend you have no choice but to reboot.
Right, but I'm curious to as why in my test lab the U3 client isn't forced to upgrade to U5. My users are used to going through the upgrade process when forced to. If the clients aren't forced ... See more...
Right, but I'm curious to as why in my test lab the U3 client isn't forced to upgrade to U5. My users are used to going through the upgrade process when forced to. If the clients aren't forced to I'll need to guide them all through going to the web interface and downloading the new client etc. However is the U3 client works perfectly fine with the U5 server then I won't worry. But I can't find any doc's relating to the U5 and compatibility with clients. Thanks for the help btw!
Is there a compatibility matrix that contains U5 on it? Its weird that I can successfully use a U3 client to login to a U5 server when according to the latest matrix the U4 server isn't even com... See more...
Is there a compatibility matrix that contains U5 on it? Its weird that I can successfully use a U3 client to login to a U5 server when according to the latest matrix the U4 server isn't even compatible with a U3 client.
Has anyone seen issues with Windows 2008 and hot extends? The VMware Disk Extend is always successful. However it seems inside the 2008 VM the filesystem on the disk I try to extend corrupts if... See more...
Has anyone seen issues with Windows 2008 and hot extends? The VMware Disk Extend is always successful. However it seems inside the 2008 VM the filesystem on the disk I try to extend corrupts if the 2008 server has been up and running for a week or so with activity. I can fix it by running chkdsk /f and letting the machine reboot and chkdsk will delete a "corrupt attribute record 128". We are seeing this across our entire 2008 File Server environment (26 file servers). If we reboot the server before the hot extend inside windows everything is happy. I can replicate the issue with IOMETER. If I run a 2008 machine with 1 worker process for 5 days the hot extend will be unsuccessful, if I reboot right before the extend successful. Just want to see if anyone else is seeing this, I'm not finding much out on the net. Before I start a long dreadful process with Microsoft maybe there is a hidden hotfix somewhere?
I haven't been able to find a VMware upgrade matrix with U5 on it. We are currently running U3 and need to upgrade to U5 for the HA benefits. Should I upgrade to U4 then U5? In my test en... See more...
I haven't been able to find a VMware upgrade matrix with U5 on it. We are currently running U3 and need to upgrade to U5 for the HA benefits. Should I upgrade to U4 then U5? In my test environment the upgrade was successful and I tried dialing into vCenter with a U3 client and it did not ask for an upgrade which I though was strange.
We need the VDR backups for offsite recovery. Not usual file restores so I will actually be trying to utilize VCB to backup the VDR machine to tape. I know i can do it. Just not sure how the rest... See more...
We need the VDR backups for offsite recovery. Not usual file restores so I will actually be trying to utilize VCB to backup the VDR machine to tape. I know i can do it. Just not sure how the restore will react. I'll find out! Also, this is temporary for us. We are really looking forward to taking advantage of the vStorage API hooks with backup vendors.
Tried adding a couple GB of memory to the VDR and it does not run backups now. Bumped it back down to 2GB and it runs backups again. Why is this? Also tried adding some processors. Rai... See more...
Tried adding a couple GB of memory to the VDR and it does not run backups now. Bumped it back down to 2GB and it runs backups again. Why is this? Also tried adding some processors. Raising it to a 4vcpu machine was successful.
I am having the same problem with a fresh install on 2008 (32-bit). Not sure how to resolve.
Have any backup vendors (i.e. Backup Exec) mentioned VADP support yet? I'd like to get an idea of a time frame for utilizing the API's.
I've seen linux based appliances that only run the guest daemon instead of the full suite of VMware Tools. I'd like to be able to install the daemon only. This would allow it to report an OK ... See more...
I've seen linux based appliances that only run the guest daemon instead of the full suite of VMware Tools. I'd like to be able to install the daemon only. This would allow it to report an OK status. I've also seen that those appliances are report an OK status even after a later version of Tools is available. Where or how can I install Tools in such a way that it simply reports back that the Tools are OK and not "out of date". I am building a Linux appliance and do not require any other pieces of the Tools package but dont want to see "out of date" constantly. Thanks!