Printable View
Requirements
we have 1 server with 64gb ram
the server has 2 CPU's
we want to run between 4-6 Vm's
The free version of vmware limits the ram to 32gb
we have been looking at this
VMware Europe Online Store - Product Information
I see they state they limit the number of hosts , am i right to assume this means the number of servers ? and not the number of individual virtual machines running on each server .
Has any one else bought this ?
Many thanks
2097
It is limited by number of physical hosts. fine if you only have a few machines and don't intend to grow much. When you do the price jump is enormous.Quote:
Originally Posted by 2097
We did and it is good but also expensive. They do an Edu deal which is £2.4 K for 3 physical hosts and you have to buy a yrs support with it ( support is awesome BTW)
We chose VM ware after running free xen and free VM esxi for a year .
Baiscally it goves you high availability ( if you have more than one server) If you only have one server then maybe HyperV makes more sense?
If you don't need the HA then you could just use the free versions and manually move the VMs - what I was describing to the Head as medium availability (hours rather than days of downtime for major server failure)
if you want free then dont use vmware use KVM in Redhat / CentOS / Fedora... as many hosts as you want and on as many servers as you like.. KVM all the way here completely ditched VMWare now!
http://www.linux-kvm.org/page/Main_Page
KVM is brilliant but you need the skills to be able to support it.Quote:
Originally Posted by cpjitservices
From what you have written above yes that is correct re vmware.
I'm in the process of ditching vmware for KVM, but I'm going with support from redhat.
Not because I lack the skills to set it up (I have a nice test setup) but because I don't mind paying for support, and it is a lot cheaper than the competition.
But you are somebody who usees linux a lot - if you have never used Linux KVM could be very daunting.Quote:
Originally Posted by CyberNerd
kvm is a joke compared to VMware's full feature set.
its not if you use the full management set from Redhat or software like Cloudstack (citrix sponsored product)Quote:
Originally Posted by oxide54
have they release a new version of RHEV? was an absoloute joke last time i looked at it,
I've not looked at it under REHV but CyberNerd will know more on that site - but from the internet looking at it - seems to be fairly robustQuote:
Originally Posted by oxide54
I'm working with VMware and View at the moment - just about to do a VCP
there was all kinds of weird restrictions on it, and I though it was quite ironic it required a windows 2003 box to run its management server, and its management server was fecked it that box died for whatever reason, I think you even had to have that management server as physical
But then isn't the recommendation for VCenter to have that running on a physical host in large environments.... therefore exactly the sameQuote:
Originally Posted by oxide54
not really no and you can have more than one vcenter server linked where as RHEV you couldn't, but they may have changed with the version that came out this year, I reckon they made it run on windows so they didn't have to release source code.
VCP is easy apparently just expensive because you have to do 1500-2000 training course.
I'm not paying for it! Just looks good being a VMware house to say we have the quals.Quote:
Originally Posted by oxide54
You can have more then one VCenter server but each host doesn't allow two VCenter servers to manage it - it takes over from the other when you add it to a new vcenter server.