<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:taxo="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/taxonomy/" version="2.0">
  <channel>
    <title>dtsmith62 Tracker</title>
    <link>https://communities.vmware.com/wbsdv95928/tracker</link>
    <description>dtsmith62 Tracker</description>
    <pubDate>Tue, 21 Nov 2023 10:39:04 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:date>2023-11-21T10:39:04Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>Re: What exact version of 6.5 and 6.7 does the upgrade/migration tool get you to?</title>
      <link>https://communities.vmware.com/t5/vSphere-Upgrade-Install/What-exact-version-of-6-5-and-6-7-does-the-upgrade-migration/m-p/1870446#M21759</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;That's the chronology and build number mapping.... &lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;So the take away for me is, the upgrade tool is bundled with the upgrade ISO, so of course the version you get upgrade/migrated to is the version from the ISO bundle.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Thanks again.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 03 Sep 2019 21:10:36 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://communities.vmware.com/t5/vSphere-Upgrade-Install/What-exact-version-of-6-5-and-6-7-does-the-upgrade-migration/m-p/1870446#M21759</guid>
      <dc:creator>dtsmith62</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2019-09-03T21:10:36Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: What exact version of 6.5 and 6.7 does the upgrade/migration tool get you to?</title>
      <link>https://communities.vmware.com/t5/vSphere-Upgrade-Install/What-exact-version-of-6-5-and-6-7-does-the-upgrade-migration/m-p/1870445#M21758</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;Thanks!&amp;nbsp; Thought I'd looked everywhere&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 03 Sep 2019 17:35:44 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://communities.vmware.com/t5/vSphere-Upgrade-Install/What-exact-version-of-6-5-and-6-7-does-the-upgrade-migration/m-p/1870445#M21758</guid>
      <dc:creator>dtsmith62</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2019-09-03T17:35:44Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>What exact version of 6.5 and 6.7 does the upgrade/migration tool get you to?</title>
      <link>https://communities.vmware.com/t5/vSphere-Upgrade-Install/What-exact-version-of-6-5-and-6-7-does-the-upgrade-migration/m-p/1870443#M21756</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;We have to plan four vCenter upgrades for September.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Two of them will be 6.0U2 (Build 3634793) Windows based (external PSC), to 6.5U2h VCSA (external PSC).&amp;nbsp; Followed almost immediately by VCSA 6.5U2h Upgrade to VCSA 6.7U2 with embedded PSC.&amp;nbsp; There are 2 SRM upgrades required also, one during each upgrade.&amp;nbsp; Thoughts on going directly to 6.7 U2 in one activity are welcome.&amp;nbsp; The downside on that is we end up at external PSC.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;The other two vCenter upgrades are straight from VCSA 6.5U2 (Build 9451637, external PSC) to VCSA 6.7 U2 embedded PSC.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;What I am wondering is;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Using 6.0 to 6.5 Upgrade/Migration tool, what version of 6.5 do you get to?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Using 6.5 to 6.7 Upgrade/Migration tool, what version of 6.7 do you get to?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I think it matters because if the tool gets you to 6.7 GA for example, then wouldn't a 6.5 U2 to 6.7 (GA) upgrade be considered "back-in-time" and not supported?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 03 Sep 2019 14:39:03 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://communities.vmware.com/t5/vSphere-Upgrade-Install/What-exact-version-of-6-5-and-6-7-does-the-upgrade-migration/m-p/1870443#M21756</guid>
      <dc:creator>dtsmith62</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2019-09-03T14:39:03Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>vMotion without shared storage - undocumented limitations</title>
      <link>https://communities.vmware.com/t5/vMotion-Resource-Management/vMotion-without-shared-storage-undocumented-limitations/m-p/485732#M703</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;Like a lot of people we have successfully used Enhanced vMotion or vMotion without shared storage in multiple vBlock and VSPEX hardware refreshes.&amp;nbsp; Our customer has come to expect the ability to move workloads around with no shared storage requirement and we have done many hundreds.&amp;nbsp; It's the greatest.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Just realized a limitation though that I cannot find in the documentation.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;A href="https://pubs.vmware.com/vsphere-60/topic/com.vmware.vsphere.vcenterhost.doc/GUID-9F1D4A3B-3392-46A3-8720-73CBFA000A3C.html" title="https://pubs.vmware.com/vsphere-60/topic/com.vmware.vsphere.vcenterhost.doc/GUID-9F1D4A3B-3392-46A3-8720-73CBFA000A3C.html"&gt;Requirements and Limitations for vMotion Without Shared Storage&lt;/A&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;One cannot select a datastore cluster for the destination, you have to choose a datastore.&amp;nbsp; If you go through the wizard choosing "Select compute resource first" then when you get to the storage selection you are presented with datastores only, no datastore clusters.&amp;nbsp; This is even with SDRS enabled in fully automated mode.&amp;nbsp; If you go through the wizard choosing "Select storage resource first", you are immediately presented with a message "Datastore clusters cannot be selected when migrating storage and compute resources for powered-on virtual machines. Select a datastore."&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;We've just never questioned this but I'm curious as to why this limitation would exist.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Anyway if you know any more about this or have any comments feel free.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;ESXi 6.0 Update 2&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 14 Dec 2016 20:47:23 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://communities.vmware.com/t5/vMotion-Resource-Management/vMotion-without-shared-storage-undocumented-limitations/m-p/485732#M703</guid>
      <dc:creator>dtsmith62</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2016-12-14T20:47:23Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: The remote virtual machine "vm" on host "Host:443" cannot be opened:</title>
      <link>https://communities.vmware.com/t5/VMware-Remote-Console/The-remote-virtual-machine-quot-vm-quot-on-host-quot-Host-443/m-p/2237731#M507</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;Did you ever get an answer?&amp;nbsp; I have a user having this problem from a Mac. He has "console interaction" permission on his folder and all the VMs in his folder.&amp;nbsp; Can't give him access at host level.&amp;nbsp; I must be missing something in my understanding.&amp;nbsp; That solution does have unwanted side effects&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 26 Apr 2016 18:02:25 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://communities.vmware.com/t5/VMware-Remote-Console/The-remote-virtual-machine-quot-vm-quot-on-host-quot-Host-443/m-p/2237731#M507</guid>
      <dc:creator>dtsmith62</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2016-04-26T18:02:25Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Are long distance vmotion, and cross-vcenter vmotion incompatible, with SRM?</title>
      <link>https://communities.vmware.com/t5/Site-Recovery-Manager/Are-long-distance-vmotion-and-cross-vcenter-vmotion-incompatible/m-p/2726959#M13376</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;Well, the flaw in my logic is that the vCenters in enhanced linked mode need to point to the *same* PSC.&amp;nbsp; At least in SRM 6.1 there is some good news here.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Thanks VMware Federal support;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;A href="http://pubs.vmware.com/srm-61/index.jsp?topic=%2Fcom.vmware.srm.install_config.doc%2FGUID-5263D308-CA6E-480C-A787-598CD8445156.html" title="http://pubs.vmware.com/srm-61/index.jsp?topic=%2Fcom.vmware.srm.install_config.doc%2FGUID-5263D308-CA6E-480C-A787-598CD8445156.html"&gt;Site Recovery Manager 6.1 Documentation Center&lt;/A&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 18 Apr 2016 18:34:22 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://communities.vmware.com/t5/Site-Recovery-Manager/Are-long-distance-vmotion-and-cross-vcenter-vmotion-incompatible/m-p/2726959#M13376</guid>
      <dc:creator>dtsmith62</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2016-04-18T18:34:22Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Are long distance vmotion, and cross-vcenter vmotion incompatible, with SRM?</title>
      <link>https://communities.vmware.com/t5/Site-Recovery-Manager/Are-long-distance-vmotion-and-cross-vcenter-vmotion-incompatible/m-p/2726958#M13375</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;We are planning our 5.5 to 6.0 upgrades. Two sites have SRM involved. We would like to be able to deploy in such a way as to make long distance and cross-vCenter vMotion possible in the future. However it seems these may be incompatible with SRM.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt; Cross-vCenter vMotion requires enhanced link mode. Enhanced link mode requires the vCenters to use the same PSC. A dependency between the protected site and the recovery site as would be created by putting the two SRM vCenters in linked mode is a non-starter. You need to be able to log in to your recovery site vCenter if the protected site is blown away by a tornado. &lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Maybe the answer is; cross-vCenter vMotion is incompatible with SRM unless you create the deployment model with redundant load balanced PSC servers. Locating one PSC geographically separated from the protected site. Even in that scenario, it is unclear to me if you would have to re-point the recovery site vCenter in a disaster. Again, I think enhanced vMotion literally requires the 2 vCenters to be pointed to the *same* PSC, not just PSCs in the same SSO domain.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I have a case open with VMware and I will share the results if it's helpful. Both protected site and recovery site use our corporate Active Directory as the identity source but I don't think that will help us if we are in linked mode and lose a PSC.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 18 Apr 2016 17:10:35 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://communities.vmware.com/t5/Site-Recovery-Manager/Are-long-distance-vmotion-and-cross-vcenter-vmotion-incompatible/m-p/2726958#M13375</guid>
      <dc:creator>dtsmith62</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2016-04-18T17:10:35Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Design questions for vCenter 5.1, SSO and SRM</title>
      <link>https://communities.vmware.com/t5/Site-Recovery-Manager/Design-questions-for-vCenter-5-1-SSO-and-SRM/m-p/419744#M1665</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;Currently running vcenter 5.0 U1 at primary and recovery sites.&amp;nbsp; These vcenter servers are currently in linked mode. In researching the upgrade to 5.1, I see a requirement that all vcenter servers in a linked mode group must be registered to the same SSO server. This seems like a requirement for a single point of failure if you want to use linked mode, if there is only one SSO server. I realize this applies to an environment without SRM as well. I bring this up in the SRM forum because I think it applies to most SRM environments.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;My question is, how can I design for the recovery site to be independant of the primary site? Of course we want the recovery site to be available in a total loss of primary site scenario. In SRM 5.0 I believe linked mode is not required, but it is still recommended.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Maybe the answer is in SSO/vCenter design and I have not read enough about that yet. Just wondering if anyone has any thoughts...&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 29 Jan 2013 21:34:52 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://communities.vmware.com/t5/Site-Recovery-Manager/Design-questions-for-vCenter-5-1-SSO-and-SRM/m-p/419744#M1665</guid>
      <dc:creator>dtsmith62</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2013-01-29T21:34:52Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Thoughts on recover plan sizes</title>
      <link>https://communities.vmware.com/t5/Site-Recovery-Manager/Thoughts-on-recover-plan-sizes/m-p/1738752#M8322</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;This is probably one of those questions without a single answer. Just wondering how people are breaking out their recovery plans and protection groups. We have about 150 VMs on about 50 400GB datastores.&amp;nbsp; This is a newly completed installation with EMC recoverpoint. The sorage team just got all the consistency groups created and we are ready to go to the next step with SRM.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I am thinking about making at least one seperate recovery plan for the production SQL server VM. It is about 8 TB with about 30 databases. The question I have is; Put all the rest of the VMs in one big recovery plan?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;If there is anyone out there who has lived through a real DR, or a realistic test I would especially like to hear what they think but all comments are welcome. Can a recovery plan be too big? Seems like a lot of eggs in one basket.&amp;nbsp; I know in some caess there would be considerations from an applications standpoint.&amp;nbsp; I am engaing the application engineers to get their input but just curious what others experiences are....&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Thanks in advance for any comments.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 28 Jun 2011 16:10:49 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://communities.vmware.com/t5/Site-Recovery-Manager/Thoughts-on-recover-plan-sizes/m-p/1738752#M8322</guid>
      <dc:creator>dtsmith62</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2011-06-28T16:10:49Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>SRM with RecoverPoint - Automatic reverse, and point-in-time recovery</title>
      <link>https://communities.vmware.com/t5/Site-Recovery-Manager/SRM-with-RecoverPoint-Automatic-reverse-and-point-in-time/m-p/2549527#M11944</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;RecoverPoint 3.1 sp1&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;SRM 4.1.0&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;This is a great solution and we have had good success in our testing.&amp;nbsp; We have done several tests of actual failover with a few test LUNs and a handful of VMs. I highly recommend that by the way. I hear of way too many people depending on the Test feature alone. &lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;When you execute a recovery plan, SRM instructs the SRA to automatically reverse replication. This is the default, out-of-the-box configuration.&amp;nbsp; The recovery site datastore devices are then in direct access mode, and the ones at the protected site are then being updated with any writes occuring at the recovery site.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;SPAN style="text-decoration: underline;"&gt;Just curious of anyone knows if this is a configurable option or knows of a way to disable it&lt;/SPAN&gt;. There are test scenarios we would like to run in which we do not want this to occur.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Unrelated:&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;A nod to a previous poster on this issue: Not being able to choose a point in time with this solution is a shame.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I can say we have never done anything special to cause write flush, or make manual bookmarks and in every test we have run all the VMs come up with no issues.&amp;nbsp; We have not yet tested with a replication pause, or with an unplanned stopage of replication.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 17 Jun 2011 21:56:31 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://communities.vmware.com/t5/Site-Recovery-Manager/SRM-with-RecoverPoint-Automatic-reverse-and-point-in-time/m-p/2549527#M11944</guid>
      <dc:creator>dtsmith62</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2011-06-17T21:56:31Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

