There is just one problem with ESXi. How do you make your disks redundant?
If you have something like a RAID controller card, you can configure the disk redundancy in BIOS. But then if a disk goes bad and you need to reassign the global hotspare ... there is no built-in or 3rd party utility you can use to do that. You have to shutdown into BIOS briefly to configure your disks... The best way to run ESXi is to have manageable redundant storage available as iSCSI target. Then ESXi can simply be the iSCSI initiator, and let some other machine manage the RAID. This of course comes with some performance and cost concerns. > -----Original Message----- > From: discuss-boun...@lopsa.org [mailto:discuss-boun...@lopsa.org] On > Behalf Of Ryan Pugatch > Sent: Thursday, January 21, 2010 6:19 PM > To: Dustin Puryear > Cc: discuss@lopsa.org > Subject: Re: [lopsa-discuss] virtualizing XP under Linux and remote > IEtesting > > Yeah, I think my plan will be to throw ESXi on a nice shiny new > PowerEdge R710 :) > > > Dustin Puryear wrote: > > Assuming you have recent and non-homebrew Intel hardware, you can > > probably run ESXi, although VMware Server will work. (Although I > heavily > > suggest using ESXi over VMware Server where possible.) > > > > > > > > ESXi is a snap, quite fast, and I've never had an issue running XP or > > any Windows boxen under it. > > > > > > > > It's also free as in beer. > > > > > > > > --- > > Puryear IT, LLC - Baton Rouge, LA - http://www.puryear-it.com/ > > Active Directory Integration : Web & Enterprise Single Sign-On > > Identity and Access Management : Linux/UNIX technologies > > > > Download our free ebook "Best Practices for Linux and UNIX Servers" > > http://www.puryear-it.com/pubs/linux-unix-best-practices/ > > > > > > > > *From:* discuss-boun...@lopsa.org [mailto:discuss-boun...@lopsa.org] > *On > > Behalf Of *Dan Parsons > > *Sent:* Thursday, January 21, 2010 3:17 PM > > *To:* r...@linux.com > > *Cc:* discuss@lopsa.org > > *Subject:* Re: [lopsa-discuss] virtualizing XP under Linux and remote > > IEtesting > > > > > > > > If your hardware doesn't support ESXi, I suggest trying "VMware > Server", > > also free. It doesn't run on the "bare metal", but it does run very > well > > and works with almost any Linux distribution: > > > > > > > > http://www.vmware.com/products/server/ > > > > > > > > I've successfully used it to virtualize WinXP systems in the past, > > specifically for Mac web developers to test on, actually. It has a > > pretty nifty web management interface. > > > > Dan > > > > On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 6:45 AM, Ryan Pugatch <r...@linux.com > > <mailto:r...@linux.com>> wrote: > > > > Edward Ned Harvey wrote: > > > > > > I find that Xen is great for virtualization of linux inside of > linux > > ... And > > > for nothing else. In fact, whenever I have a non-linux guest > inside > > of Xen, > > > I find Xen is unstable. I have a server with windows & linux > guests > > inside > > > of xen on RHEL5 host ... and about once per month, xen will lose > its > > mind, > > > and the memory of one machine becomes the memory of another. > > Solution is to > > > reboot all the guests and host. And yes, performance is terrible, > except > > > for linux in linux. > > > > > > For either linux or mac hosts ... Sun Virtualbox is a pretty good > choice. > > > It has some bugs here and there ... but it does in fact have > "guest > > > extensions" or whatever they call it ... So the guest stability > and > > > performance is very good. > > > > > > If you only use your virtual machine casually, you can't beat the > > price of > > > virtualbox. But if you use it all day every day, such as I do ... > I run > > > windows inside of mac every day, and I also run windows inside of > ubuntu > > > every day ... Then I find virtualbox is just simply too buggy and > kloogy. > > > > > > On the mac, either parallels or vmware fusion is the professional > way > > to go. > > > In fusion, you must remember to install VMWare Tools, and in > > parallels, you > > > must remember to install Parallels Extensions. If you do this, > > performance > > > is near 100%. I personally prefer fusion for performance and > reliability > > > reasons, but parallels is slightly more featureful. Both are good > > choices, > > > with neither having a large edge over the other in any way. > > > > > > On linux, VMWare Workstation is the professional way to go. > Beware > > versions > > > though. Check the vmware compatibility guide. I find VMWare > > Workstation is > > > typically only compatible with hosts a rev behind ... For example > ... > > > Workstation works fine on ubuntu 904, but not 910. But by the > time 1004 > > > comes out, I think 910 will be supported. > > > > > > > I agree that Linux inside Linux with Xen is good. I definitely need > a > > solution to virtualize Windows on a server rather than having the > devs > > virtualize on their local machines. I regularly use Virtualbox > locally > > and like it and have thought about setting up a server with a group > of > > headless VMs under it, but I am unsure of how Virtualbox performs in > > that setup. Definitely looking for a server rather than workstation > > solution so perhaps VMWare Server may be the way to go. > > > > Thanks for your thoughts. > > > > Ryan > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Discuss mailing list > > Discuss@lopsa.org <mailto:Discuss@lopsa.org> > > http://lopsa.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss > > This list provided by the League of Professional System > Administrators > > http://lopsa.org/ > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Discuss mailing list > Discuss@lopsa.org > http://lopsa.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss > This list provided by the League of Professional System Administrators > http://lopsa.org/ _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lopsa.org http://lopsa.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss This list provided by the League of Professional System Administrators http://lopsa.org/
