2 VCServers for 2 Clusters or 1 VCServer for 2 Clusters

[Integr8]

Hi and thanks for looking at my question.

When we first looked at VMware about 6 months ago, we were advised to run 2 VirtualCenter Servers, 1 on site A and 1 on site B. There is a 100mb LES between the 2 sites with a 2mb fixed line for resilience.

On site A we have 16 ESX Servers and local iSCSI storage and on site B we have 2 ESX Servers and local iSCSI storage. The VM's are site specific so won't be moved from site to site.

My question is, should I keep the 2 VirtualCenter Servers or use just 1. To me, I would think 1 would easier to manage but I'm unsure about network traffic across the LES as this is also used for corporate traffic.

Thanks for you time...

"I'll never turn to the Dark Side..."

[ChrisDearden]

I've not seen a huge level of traffic caused by having hosts remote to my VC - we have less than a 100Meg between sites as well. Might be a nice idea to have a standby p2v'd copy of your VC available shoudl you loose connectivity and want to manage stuff from site B?

[TomHowarth]

Thread moved to the Virtual Center forum

Tom Howarth

VMware Communities User Moderator

[Integr8]

Thanks Tom. I'll be a bit more careful next time.

[Integr8]

Thanks Chris. I was concidering leaving VC2 in place but powered off at site B just in case.

[mitchellm3]

I like you would prefer having 1 virtual center with two clusters. However, the only benefit for having two virtual centers is if you are planning on implementing SRM. Then, you'll need two and you'll be ready.

[Integr8]

Good point.

[WillemB · Accepted solution]

These questions should give you an idea

What do the system administrators want?

What is the load on the VC database, network and server?

Are the clusters really different or did you pass the cluster limit?

I would stick to one VC until I hit the max performance of the VC server.

[jguidroz]

We currently have one VC server at one site managing the local site plus 6 remote sites. Each site consists of 4 ESX hosts.