Baddos's Posts

NickEvans wrote: Fantastic news! Although it won't please everyone (going by the comments), but you have to applaud VMware for acting so quickly, and not being too proud or arrogant and ac... See more...
NickEvans wrote: Fantastic news! Although it won't please everyone (going by the comments), but you have to applaud VMware for acting so quickly, and not being too proud or arrogant and actually listening to their customers. Nick. Acting quickly? It's been almost a month of nonstop negative PR.
BobEadie wrote: “Maybe tiered virtualization platforms . . . “ I like that idea – VMWare for Tier 1 production, and ‘other’ cheaper products for our ‘other’ servers. But I would prefer ... See more...
BobEadie wrote: “Maybe tiered virtualization platforms . . . “ I like that idea – VMWare for Tier 1 production, and ‘other’ cheaper products for our ‘other’ servers. But I would prefer to keep it all VMWare. Except that tier 1 applications are usually the ones causing the trouble with vRAM in the first place.
RogerThomas wrote: At the end of the day even if the vRAM allowance is increased it just causes the problem to re-appear in 12-18 months time as the average amount of RAM used by systems (and... See more...
RogerThomas wrote: At the end of the day even if the vRAM allowance is increased it just causes the problem to re-appear in 12-18 months time as the average amount of RAM used by systems (and can be installed into a system) increases. At the same time the number of physical CPUs required to run the workload will continue to fall as they gain more and more cores. The result will be the same - having to purchase CPU licences that are not required to be assigned to CPUs within the environment. It seems that all VMWARE plan to do is remove this year's pain point and kick it down the road so that each VMWARE customer suffers at different times of the year rather than all at once. If anyone does a 3 year plan for their future VMWARE requirements it's still a rather costly product. If history repeats itself, vmware will have a totally different model before 3 years time anyways.
Paying SnS for vRAM doesn't make sense at all. You should still have your support covered via the socket licenses and vcenter licenses anyways.
If it was on the 4.1 HCL but not 4.1 U1 I would think it should still work. Maybe open a ticket with VMware to get more info as there could be a driver issue or such.
If your nics are 1gb I would probably add another for vmotion so you don't strain your green network if moving a bunch of guests over.
I don't see how people think VMware needs to charge more money going forward. They aren't losing money in the slightest if you look at their recent forward looking statement. Keeping the existing... See more...
I don't see how people think VMware needs to charge more money going forward. They aren't losing money in the slightest if you look at their recent forward looking statement. Keeping the existing 4.1 model and tweaking the core count limitations would still leave vmware highly profitable.
I would double check your zoning and multipathing configuration. I beleive that SAN array should be set to fixed in multipath config.
vmwareking wrote: How dumb is this cat, hyper pee for the cloud yeah right u monkey. As if aws and rackspace will ever use hype pee.. I do agree ms datacenter clients it might be a option!... See more...
vmwareking wrote: How dumb is this cat, hyper pee for the cloud yeah right u monkey. As if aws and rackspace will ever use hype pee.. I do agree ms datacenter clients it might be a option!! That's it. Xenserver is a great alternative ready to go now. Sent from my iPhone They don't run vmware either so what is your point? Despite your name calling, hyper v is an alternative for the smb market that vmware is ignoring. The next version coming out soon will have a lot of new features and enhancements. VMware only has itself to blame for what will happen over the next 2 years if they stick with this license model.
On our W2k8 IIS7 guests, switching from E1000 to VMXNET3 was night and day difference in performance.
I love the: ITDir wrote: Overprovisioned vRAM VMware’s philosophy of optimization, efficiency and doing more with less saves our customers money.  Overprovisioned VMs do not follow this p... See more...
I love the: ITDir wrote: Overprovisioned vRAM VMware’s philosophy of optimization, efficiency and doing more with less saves our customers money.  Overprovisioned VMs do not follow this philosophy & create drag that keep datacenters from running at their true potential.   Because VMware is so good at Memory Management, many customers allocate a TON of vRAM or use the same amount of RAM they had on their physical box. It’s time to Optimize your environment! Like people are running guest with gig or terabytes of over allocated memory. Even if they were, it's a switch that doesn't cost money. VMware is really going to be the social engineering tax cop?
John Troyer wrote: But we also need verified data by customer and geography so we know what's going on and to judge if our initial estimates of the effect are incorrect, so I hope all those c... See more...
John Troyer wrote: But we also need verified data by customer and geography so we know what's going on and to judge if our initial estimates of the effect are incorrect, so I hope all those conversations have been going on in parallel. Give us some time to assimilate the feedback. Again, we want to do the right thing here with a licensing model that makes sense for you and for VMware. You need to remember also John that current usage is only part of the problem. Datacenters all over are moving the smallers servers over to 64bit which increases memory usage dramatically. A customer that falls in the new license model may go above it and customers that are over the vram limits now, will certainly get even worse. Another strange part is how restrictive the memory quotas are in this new model. VMware has been working hard convincing people to move their Tier1 applications to vSphere. These tier1 applications will not be cost effective to virtualize any more with the new vram model. VMware has really done major harm to itself here, the quicker you accept that the faster changes can be made.
rgard wrote: Not true.  I am sure all the storage vendors as extremely happy that VMware made a clustered VMFS out of local disks on each server.  I am sure they see it as a loss of business.... See more...
rgard wrote: Not true.  I am sure all the storage vendors as extremely happy that VMware made a clustered VMFS out of local disks on each server.  I am sure they see it as a loss of business. Not only did VMware pissed off there long term customers, they also pissed off there storage platform partners too. At $6k a host with all it's limitations, I doubt the storage vendors are worried much.
jmounts wrote: BTW, the above quote is complete Crap. Anyone with 2 braincells can rub them together, make a little smoke and predict EXACTLY what this licening model is going to do with curr... See more...
jmounts wrote: BTW, the above quote is complete Crap. Anyone with 2 braincells can rub them together, make a little smoke and predict EXACTLY what this licening model is going to do with currently deployed vSphere4 environments if/when they upgrade to the new license model. 1. More Hardware is going to be required (Hosts, to get more vRAM) 2. It's going to cost ALOT more in the long run. 3. VMware can no longer use the 'going green' statements in their products page once this license model goes live. More servers = more power requirements. 4. Vars, resellers, and partners are going to get hit the hardest with this. Oh and lets not forget #6 6. Thanks to Vmware, other competitors now have a full fledged chance to get their foot in the door and take over. Xen comes to mind, THEN (Maybe) Hyper-V. Basically, Vmware, your new license model SUCKS, and is serious limiting and needs to be changed before it goes live. You don't need more hardware, you just need the extra licenses. Unassigned licenses in vCenter will add to the vRAM pool.
If you have a lot of db/email servers  virtualized, then yes it would not be out of the ordinary for an enterprise to have their hosts use more than the 48gb/processor that vmware is establishing... See more...
If you have a lot of db/email servers  virtualized, then yes it would not be out of the ordinary for an enterprise to have their hosts use more than the 48gb/processor that vmware is establishing as the base for enterprise plus.
Certainly true, all I'm saying is we should post all the info to highlight what the cost will be. Showing this to VMware will give them more accurate information on how current/future customers c... See more...
Certainly true, all I'm saying is we should post all the info to highlight what the cost will be. Showing this to VMware will give them more accurate information on how current/future customers costs will be affected.
Rickard wrote: Baddos wrote: Are you really going to be having 3TB of allocated and online guests? Not keeping any extra RAM for maintenance on a host or in case of a host failure? ... See more...
Rickard wrote: Baddos wrote: Are you really going to be having 3TB of allocated and online guests? Not keeping any extra RAM for maintenance on a host or in case of a host failure? Does that matter much? If he is having 1 TB per host x 3 and only having 12 licenses x 48 GB = 576, there is still a large difference, even if keeping the capacity of one host back (N+1). Of course it matters, the new license model is based on per socket and allocated online vRAM. I'm not thrilled with the new licensing model either, but we should be outlining the exact facts. The expected vRAM total is left out from his posts so you can't say for sure what the new license cost will be. I think VMware would be much more responsive if people outlined their concerns with ALL the facts and not just throwing hardware specs at them.
Are you really going to be having 3TB of allocated and online guests? Not keeping any extra RAM for maintenance on a host or in case of a host failure? The vRAM calc also doesn't count VMs tha... See more...
Are you really going to be having 3TB of allocated and online guests? Not keeping any extra RAM for maintenance on a host or in case of a host failure? The vRAM calc also doesn't count VMs that are shutdown/suspended from what I can tell reading their license info.
Yes you can upgrade that without doing a reinstall. However because you have the free version, you'll have to run the update using vihostupdate. Check out this KB article for more info: ht... See more...
Yes you can upgrade that without doing a reinstall. However because you have the free version, you'll have to run the update using vihostupdate. Check out this KB article for more info: http://kb.vmware.com/selfservice/microsites/search.do?language=en_US&cmd=displayKC&externalId=1022140
roglar wrote: Please, tell me again why there was a economical "need" for the new license model. The license model needed to change anways as the newer CPUs will all be higher than 6 core... See more...
roglar wrote: Please, tell me again why there was a economical "need" for the new license model. The license model needed to change anways as the newer CPUs will all be higher than 6 cores. I think the new license model is a good idea, but needs some number tweaking for it to make sense. Currently the new numbers are too low.