On 24/12/10 06:35, Rajagopal Swaminathan wrote:
> Greetings,
>
> On Thu, Dec 23, 2010 at 4:27 PM, Les Mikesell wrote:
>> On 12/23/2010 10:02 AM, Alexander Dalloz wrote:
>> The licensed vCenter stuff refers to a single app that is
>> simultaneously aware of all of your ESXi servers and their guest
Greetings,
On Thu, Dec 23, 2010 at 4:27 PM, Les Mikesell wrote:
> On 12/23/2010 10:02 AM, Alexander Dalloz wrote:
> The licensed vCenter stuff refers to a single app that is
> simultaneously aware of all of your ESXi servers and their guests and
> can move/fail resources across servers - concepts
On 12/23/2010 10:02 AM, Alexander Dalloz wrote:
>
>> The ESX/ESXi host is limited to a maximum of 32 logical (sockets x
>> cores x hyperthreading) CPUs. The free license only allows access
>> through the vSphere client and all other features such as
>> vMotion/vStorage/HA are disabled. Otherwise th
>>> I can confirm the socket/cpu limitation is at least 8, at least on
>>> ESXi 3.x. I have an 8 core IBM x445 running on a free license. :-)
>>
>> The free and essentials licensing is restricted to max 2 sockets, max 6
>> cores a socket.
>
> The vSphere Essentials license is limited to 3 servers o
>> I can confirm the socket/cpu limitation is at least 8, at least on
>> ESXi 3.x. I have an 8 core IBM x445 running on a free license. :-)
>
> The free and essentials licensing is restricted to max 2 sockets, max 6 cores
> a socket.
The vSphere Essentials license is limited to 3 servers of 2 soc
On Dec 21, 2010, at 9:41 AM, Drew wrote:
>
>
> On 12/19/2010, John R Pierce wrote:
>> On 12/19/10 8:40 AM, Les Mikesell wrote:
>>>
>>> But the ESXi version isn't exactly fair to someone who would deploy on the
>>> hardware intended. Also, the restriction to 1 CPU isn't built-in -
>>> there's
I can confirm the socket/cpu limitation is at least 8, at least on
ESXi 3.x. I have an 8 core IBM x445 running on a free license. :-)
--
Drew
On 12/19/2010, John R Pierce wrote:
> On 12/19/10 8:40 AM, Les Mikesell wrote:
>>
>> But the ESXi version isn't exactly fair to someone who would deploy
On 12/19/10 8:40 AM, Les Mikesell wrote:
>
> But the ESXi version isn't exactly fair to someone who would deploy on the
> hardware intended. Also, the restriction to 1 CPU isn't built-in - there's a
> place where you select the number of CPUs you will use when you are
> registering
> for the free
On 12/19/10 9:33 AM, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 19, 2010 at 9:51 AM, Stephen Harris wrote:
>> On Sat, Dec 18, 2010 at 10:12:09PM -0500, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
>>> On Sat, Dec 18, 2010 at 5:44 PM, Ross Walker wrote:
>>>
There is XenServer from Citrix and I think there is a commu
On Sun, Dec 19, 2010 at 9:51 AM, Stephen Harris wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 18, 2010 at 10:12:09PM -0500, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
>> On Sat, Dec 18, 2010 at 5:44 PM, Ross Walker wrote:
>>
>> > There is XenServer from Citrix and I think there is a community version
>> > too.
>> >
>> > -Ross
>>
>> I'd w
On Sat, Dec 18, 2010 at 10:12:09PM -0500, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 18, 2010 at 5:44 PM, Ross Walker wrote:
>
> > There is XenServer from Citrix and I think there is a community version too.
> >
> > -Ross
>
> I'd welcome your opinion. I did a bunch of integration with
> CentOS/RHEL
On Sat, Dec 18, 2010 at 5:44 PM, Ross Walker wrote:
> There is XenServer from Citrix and I think there is a community version too.
>
> -Ross
I'd welcome your opinion. I did a bunch of integration with
CentOS/RHEL 4 with the older, open source Xen utilities.
__
On Sat, Dec 18, 2010 at 2:56 PM, Peter Larsen
wrote:
> Have you considered looking into redhat enterprise virtualization? If you are
> interested I can put you in touch with a redhat rhev representative?
I've looked at it, though not extensively. Given the difficulties I
encountered with KVM, it
On Dec 18, 2010, at 10:43 AM, Lamar Owen wrote:
> On Saturday, December 18, 2010 04:19:25 am Gerhard Schneider wrote:
>> The problem with VMWare Server is that it is a discontinued product for
>> longer time and they don't provide us with a suitable replacement.
>
> VMware wants more people to g
On Saturday, December 18, 2010 02:56:12 pm Peter Larsen wrote:
> Have you considered looking into redhat enterprise virtualization? If you are
> interested I can put you in touch with a redhat rhev representative?
Yes, I have. It's not in the budget right now using the current Red Hat
pricing m
Have you considered looking into redhat enterprise virtualization? If you are
interested I can put you in touch with a redhat rhev representative?
Lamar Owen wrote:
>On Saturday, December 18, 2010 04:19:25 am Gerhard Schneider wrote:
>> The problem with VMWare Server is that it is a discontinue
Greetings,
On Sat, Dec 18, 2010 at 9:13 PM, Lamar Owen wrote:
> On Saturday, December 18, 2010 04:19:25 am Gerhard Schneider wrote:
> So I'm very seriously considering transitioning from VI3 to CentOS 6 KVM; for
> my situation it might be doable, but I have a lot to learn about KVM
> before I ca
On 12/18/10 3:19 AM, Gerhard Schneider wrote:
>
> The problem with VMWare Server is that it is a discontinued product for
> longer time and they don't provide us with a suitable replacement.
Do you need something that the 1.x series won't do? If something works and
serves your purpose it doesn't
On Saturday, December 18, 2010 04:19:25 am Gerhard Schneider wrote:
> The problem with VMWare Server is that it is a discontinued product for
> longer time and they don't provide us with a suitable replacement.
VMware wants more people to get hooked on vSphere, so their 'suggested' VMware
GSX^H^H
The problem with VMWare Server is that it is a discontinued product for
longer time and they don't provide us with a suitable replacement.
So our institute had to switch to VMWare workstation that can be run as
a server, too. I'm running CentOS 5.5 as the Host OS and 5.5 and
RHEL6beta as guests.
On Fri, 2010-12-17 at 13:23 -0600, Les Mikesell wrote:
> On 12/17/10 12:36 PM, JohnS wrote:
> >
> > Mine is not broken. The web Admin works like it should.
>
> Just to be clear - do you mean you are running vmware 2.x server under post
> 5.2
> Centos without the library issues that everyone el
On 12/17/10 12:36 PM, JohnS wrote:
>
> On Fri, 2010-12-17 at 11:11 -0600, Les Mikesell wrote:
>> On 12/17/10 10:21 AM, Helmut Drodofsky wrote:
>> The 2.x series of vmware server are badly broken with respect to RHEL/Centos
>> -
>> plus the change to the web based console is horrible.
>
> Mine is n
On Fri, 2010-12-17 at 11:11 -0600, Les Mikesell wrote:
> On 12/17/10 10:21 AM, Helmut Drodofsky wrote:
> The 2.x series of vmware server are badly broken with respect to RHEL/Centos
> -
> plus the change to the web based console is horrible.
Mine is not broken. The web Admin works like it sh
On 12/17/10 10:21 AM, Helmut Drodofsky wrote:
> - I'm using 5.2 or 5.3 as a host.
> - my expierince: 5.4 is not stable with vmware as a host.
>
> The hosts are completely behind firewall.
>
> Vmware server 2.0.2-203138
>
> With 5.3 my problem was solved.
The 2.x series of vmware server are badly b
On Friday, December 17, 2010 11:21:29 am Helmut Drodofsky wrote:
> Vmware server 2.0.2-203138
And that would be the most recent build.
> With 5.3 my problem was solved.
Have you tried 5.5 yet?
For grins and giggles I'm going to play with it on a box I have, but it will be
a little while before
-boun...@centos.org] Im Auftrag
von Lamar Owen
Gesendet: Freitag, 17. Dezember 2010 15:31
An: CentOS mailing list
Betreff: Re: [CentOS] Intel NIC
On Friday, December 17, 2010 02:44:46 am Helmut Drodofsky wrote:
> Hallo,
>
> actual Intel Ethernet cards PCI-E
> - Are normal recogni
On Friday, December 17, 2010 02:44:46 am Helmut Drodofsky wrote:
> Hallo,
>
> actual Intel Ethernet cards PCI-E
> - Are normal recognized by Centos 5.5 Live CD
> - Not recognized by 5.2
> Because of vmware, I will use 5.2
Why? Are you wanting it as a VMware host or guest? As
On Friday, December 17, 2010 08:44:46 am Helmut Drodofsky wrote:
> Hallo,
>
> actual Intel Ethernet cards PCI-E
> - Are normal recognized by Centos 5.5 Live CD
> - Not recognized by 5.2
> Because of vmware, I will use 5.2
It's not recommended to run CentOS-5.2 (many serious secu
On Fri, 17 Dec 2010 08:44:46 +0100
"Helmut Drodofsky" wrote:
> Hallo,
Hi,
>
> actual Intel Ethernet cards PCI-E
> - Are normal recognized by Centos 5.5 Live CD
> - Not recognized by 5.2
> Because of vmware, I will use 5.2
Can't you use Xen or KVM ? That way, you,ll have an up
>
> Maybe an IRQ conflict or something? I don't recall ever
> seeing a situation where lspci wouldn't show a device that
> was actually present and working. Try a different PCI
> slot?
>
>
yes its rather odd - i will ask the DC guys to check but i am working on
second hand info regarding this
Tom Brown wrote:
> so the OS cant see the card at all
Maybe an IRQ conflict or something? I don't recall ever
seeing a situation where lspci wouldn't show a device that
was actually present and working. Try a different PCI
slot?
nate
___
CentOS mail
On Thu, 18 Jun 2009 18:11:13 +0100
Tom Brown wrote:
> so the OS cant see the card at all
Are you sure it's still there?Try re-seating it, or move it to a different
slot and see if anything changes.
--
MELVILLE THEATRE ~ Melville Sask ~ http://www.melvilletheatre.com
>
> try modprobe e1000 and see if it comes back? (there's also the
> e1000e driver as well I think that is for the latest cards mostly
> PCIe)
>
>
Intel(R) PRO/1000 Network Driver - version 7.3.20-k2-NAPI
Copyright (c) 1999-2006 Intel Corporation.
> Check lspci to verify it's still there?
>
Tom Brown wrote:
> Hi
>
> I have boxes with a quad card that shows up with
>
> e1000 e1000_probe: Intel(R) PRO/1000 Network Connection
>
> However since rebuilding a box from 4.7 to 5.3 this card has vanished -
> I would have thought this card is pretty generic so i dont believe there
> are not dri
34 matches
Mail list logo
