5 Replies Latest reply on Oct 4, 2010 9:47 AM by Troy Clavell

    Migration to ESX 4.1 and VC options

    khughes Virtuoso

      I'm getting ready to start our migration to ESX 4.1 and I was wondering what might be the best way about doing it.  I was looking at the compatibility matrix and I see that vCenter 4.0 U2 can support ESX 4.1 boxes but vCetner 4.1 can only support ESX 4.1 boxes not any 4.0. 

       

      Current config is a hardware box running vCenter 4.0 U1, but the hardware doesn't support 64bit OS, so I'll be building a VM to run our new VC that can handle a 64bit OS.  I can bring them up side by side, obviously different name and pointing to a new Database.

       

      Its more of an opinion question, should I just make my vCenter 4.0 U2 and do the migration and then once all my 4.0 hosts are converted to 4.1 then move the VC up to 4.1 or should I get the new VC built and then just move hosts over as I go?  In my mind I would prefer to have one VC managing all my hosts and not split them up between a couple vCenter servers.

       

      Thoughts?

       

      -- Kyle

       

      "RParker wrote:  I guess I was wrong, everything CAN be virtualized "

        • 1. Re: Migration to ESX 4.1 and VC options
          Troy Clavell Guru
          vExpert

          if you want to manage ESX(i) 4.1 boxes with vCenter, it HAS to be vCenter 4.1.

          1 person found this helpful
          • 2. Re: Migration to ESX 4.1 and VC options
            Troy Clavell Guru
            vExpert

            ...and if you bring up a new instance, you can simply disconnect and remove the hosts from the old, and add into the new.  But, starting fresh you lose performance and historical data.

             

             

             

            Don't forget the 64bit DSN for vCenter.  And if you run VUM on the same box it' requires a 32bit DSN.

            1 person found this helpful
            • 3. Re: Migration to ESX 4.1 and VC options
              khughes Virtuoso

              Disclaimer -- Sorry loaded on DayQuil so sorry if my question was worded wrong or things don't make sense.  --

               

              Sorry was reading the compatibility matrix the wrong way.  Makes things easy and no our hardware can not support 64bit OS (currently running 4.0u1 on 32bit).  I don't really care about history / performance data and I have heard of issues upgrading the DB from 4.0 to 41.  I'll just build out a VM running 2003 x64 and use that to run vCenter 4.1 and then migrate our 4.0 hosts onto that.

               

              Thanks Troy

               

              -- Kyle

               

              "RParker wrote:  I guess I was wrong, everything CAN be virtualized "

              • 4. Re: Migration to ESX 4.1 and VC options
                Troy Clavell Guru
                vExpert
                khughes wrote:

                Disclaimer -- Sorry loaded on DayQuil so sorry if my question was worded wrong or things don't make sense.  --

                Hey... been there done that!

                Sorry was reading the compatibility matrix the wrong way.  Makes things easy and no our hardware can not support 64bit OS (currently running 4.0u1 on 32bit).  I don't really care about history / performance data and I have heard of issues upgrading the DB from 4.0 to 41.  I'll just build out a VM running 2003 x64 and use that to run vCenter 4.1 and then migrate our 4.0 hosts onto that.

                If you have to rebuild the host OS for vCenter, and if you have the OS, maybe a better Host OS would be 2008 R2?  Just my personal preference, as 2003 x64 is supported.

                • 5. Re: Migration to ESX 4.1 and VC options
                  khughes Virtuoso

                  I know it would be better in the long run to put it on 2008, but that would require us to buy another lic and I was trying to save some money in the short term as we have a huge project coming up at the start of 2011.

                   

                  -- Kyle

                   

                  "RParker wrote:  I guess I was wrong, everything CAN be virtualized "