<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: VMware HA Clarification?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blog.scottlowe.org/2008/01/07/vmware-ha-clarification/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://blog.scottlowe.org/2008/01/07/vmware-ha-clarification/</link>
	<description>The weblog of an IT pro specializing in virtualization, storage, and servers</description>
	<pubDate>Mon, 01 Dec 2008 22:29:19 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: Tristan</title>
		<link>http://blog.scottlowe.org/2008/01/07/vmware-ha-clarification/#comment-34987</link>
		<dc:creator>Tristan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 08 Jan 2008 00:01:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.scottlowe.org/2008/01/07/vmware-ha-clarification/#comment-34987</guid>
		<description>Thanks Scott - this issue reared it's head in our shop last week just as we completed our upgrade to VI 3.50.  

The "change" kind of blows our perception of cluster capacity in that we had anticipated a much higher cluster load and still maintain N-1 failover.  Of course, we don't do much with different failover policies for guests that aren't important. 

I think we'll probably start tweaking our HA rules based on server importance, that should sort things out a bit.

Thanks for publicizing this issue - it's a bit of a nasty realization...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thanks Scott - this issue reared it&#8217;s head in our shop last week just as we completed our upgrade to VI 3.50.  </p>
<p>The &#8220;change&#8221; kind of blows our perception of cluster capacity in that we had anticipated a much higher cluster load and still maintain N-1 failover.  Of course, we don&#8217;t do much with different failover policies for guests that aren&#8217;t important. </p>
<p>I think we&#8217;ll probably start tweaking our HA rules based on server importance, that should sort things out a bit.</p>
<p>Thanks for publicizing this issue - it&#8217;s a bit of a nasty realization&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
