[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[no subject]
- <!--x-content-type: text/plain -->
- <!--x-date: Tue Feb 22 14:50:04 2005 -->
- <!--x-from-r13: yvorevr ng tznvy.pbz (Zvorevr Qhaun-@rgb) -->
- <!--x-message-id: [email protected] -->
- <!--x-reference: [email protected] -->
- <!--x-reference: [email protected] --> "http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/loose.dtd">
- <!--x-subject: [ale] VMware ESX Server Alternative -->
- <li><em>date</em>: Tue Feb 22 14:50:04 2005</li>
- <li><em>from</em>: liberie at gmail.com (Liberie Cunha-Neto)</li>
- <li><em>in-reply-to</em>: <<a href="msg00856.html">[email protected]</a>></li>
- <li><em>references</em>: <<a href="msg00847.html">[email protected]</a>> <<a href="msg00856.html">[email protected]</a>></li>
- <li><em>subject</em>: [ale] VMware ESX Server Alternative</li>
On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 14:18:12 -0500, Jonathan Rickman <jrickman at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 11:43:59 -0500, Nick Travis <wormfishin at gmail.com> wrote:
> > I'm looking to implement a VMware ESX server, but I wanted to know if
> > anyone had any other suggestions, what I need to do is run about 6-8
> > windows desktops(2000 and XP) on one server. I'm not worried about
> > the horsepower on the server. It's got quad 3ghz processors and 12gb
> > of ram. Each of the virtual machines will have a good amount of
> > network traffic, but will have very little interaction with the hard
> > drives. If the test works out it will be rolled out to 10 machines or
> > so at which point the licensing become pretty expensive. Anyone have
> > any experience with something like this?
>
> The only real alternative is GSX server, but having run it in
> production for a while now I would not recommend it due to occasional
> stability issues. I'm moving everything to ESX. With that kind of
> hardware, you should be able to run a dozen servers easily. The only
> thing I would suggest is adding a few NICs to the box to ensure that a
> shared NIC doesn't become a bottleneck. I have found that 3-4 virtual
> machines per Gb NIC is a good target. I wouldn't put more than 2 on a
> 100Mb NIC. If you do end up choosing GSX, turn off hyperthreading and
> use RH9 straight out of the box with no updates and the default
> kernel. That seems to be the most stable config for me. I've also
> experienced good stability with Windows 2003 as a host for GSX 2.5.2,
> but I haven't tried 3.1 on it yet and probably will not.
>
> --
> Jonathan
> _______________________________________________
> Ale mailing list
> Ale at ale.org
> <a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.ale.org/mailman/listinfo/ale">http://www.ale.org/mailman/listinfo/ale</a>
>
</pre>
<!--X-Body-of-Message-End-->
<!--X-MsgBody-End-->
<!--X-Follow-Ups-->
<hr>
<!--X-Follow-Ups-End-->
<!--X-References-->
<ul><li><strong>References</strong>:
<ul>
<li><strong><a name="00847" href="msg00847.html">[ale] VMware ESX Server Alternative</a></strong>
<ul><li><em>From:</em> wormfishin at gmail.com (Nick Travis)</li></ul></li>
<li><strong><a name="00856" href="msg00856.html">[ale] VMware ESX Server Alternative</a></strong>
<ul><li><em>From:</em> jrickman at gmail.com (Jonathan Rickman)</li></ul></li>
</ul></li></ul>
<!--X-References-End-->
<!--X-BotPNI-->
<ul>
<li>Prev by Date:
<strong><a href="msg00856.html">[ale] VMware ESX Server Alternative</a></strong>
</li>
<li>Next by Date:
<strong><a href="msg00858.html">[ale] Westell DSL Router</a></strong>
</li>
<li>Previous by thread:
<strong><a href="msg00856.html">[ale] VMware ESX Server Alternative</a></strong>
</li>
<li>Next by thread:
<strong><a href="msg00867.html">[ale] VMware ESX Server Alternative</a></strong>
</li>
<li>Index(es):
<ul>
<li><a href="maillist.html#00857"><strong>Date</strong></a></li>
<li><a href="threads.html#00857"><strong>Thread</strong></a></li>
</ul>
</li>
</ul>
<!--X-BotPNI-End-->
<!--X-User-Footer-->
<!--X-User-Footer-End-->
</body>
</html>