I have a 3 VM load balanced Terminal Server cluster. Works great. Only problem, when I create a single DRS rule that configures these 3 VM's to be on seperate nodes, the check box on the DRS rule always unchecks itself and DRS never works. If I create 3 separate DRS rules, TS1 != TS2 , TS1 != TS3, and TS2 != TS3 is works great. Seems that DRS has a bug. Anybody else experience this situation?
I have this same problem. I wrote a DRS "Separate Virtual Machines" rule with these three servers, but when I come back to see this rule, the check box is always unchecked.
Any suggestion?
You have to create 3 seperate rules.
Server1 is not with Server2
Server1 is not with Server3
Server2 is not with Server3
I would hate to have a 4 or 5 node cluster
But I think this must be a DRS bug, didn't you?
I have seen this bug as well.
I view it as a bug, because.... if DRS rules were design to only allow 2 VMs at a time, then why do they allow you to add more than 2 to the rule (and then the rule just disables itself)?
Seems incredibly inefficient to have to create separate rules for pairs of two servers, when I should be able to create 1 rule with several servers.
I will submit this as a bug in the features request forum.
One thing to keep in mind when this is fixed is that for the number of VMs you are going to have in a single 'separate' rule, you must have that many ESX hosts in the licensed DRS cluster.
Jas
Any update on this? I am having the same problem. The funny thing is - this used to work! When I first setup the rules, I was able to create a 3-node rule. However, recently, we had to do some work on our ESX servers and disabled a bunch of rules so that we could put the ESX hosts into maintenance mode and allow the VMs to move whereever needed. Now I cannot re-enable the rules! They keep becoming unchecked.
I would love to know if anyone has solved this.
Thanks
SlickBag
Oh yeah - on a side note...
The way they sort (or lack there of) the VM list when creating the rules is really quite annoying. I mean really - to not sort this list alpabetically is simply idiotic. It's like trying to find a needle in a haystack when trying to add 2 VMs to DRS rule.
OK - that's my rant for the day
Oh yeah - on a side note...
The way they sort (or lack there of) the VM list when
creating the rules is really quite annoying. I mean
really - to not sort this list alpabetically is
simply idiotic. It's like trying to find a needle in
a haystack when trying to add 2 VMs to DRS rule.
OK - that's my rant for the day
Perfectly acceptable rant. However, the PC phrase for idiotic is "opportunities for improvement" and that is what this particular forum is designed for.
Maybe this will be among the list of VC 2.1 and ESX 3.1 enhancements which nobody is willing to discuss right now...
I will PayPal someone $15 to provide me with the poup on the upcoming release notes. Come on, someone needs beer money right?
Good point. I will try to be more PC in the future - they did just send me a Board Warrior shirt, so I guess I could be more "nice". ...LOL
Slick Bag
Has anyone gotten an answer on this? We are about to implement DRS for several Exchange servers and I'm not looking forward to creating multiple rules.
Bill S.