Comments on: VMFS Isn’t the Problem Here http://blog.scottlowe.org/2009/09/22/vmfs-isnt-the-problem-here/ The weblog of an IT pro specializing in virtualization, storage, and servers Wed, 08 Feb 2012 17:13:47 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v= By: pat http://blog.scottlowe.org/2009/09/22/vmfs-isnt-the-problem-here/comment-page-1/#comment-46104 pat Fri, 02 Oct 2009 04:22:20 +0000 http://blog.scottlowe.org/?p=1660#comment-46104 one question i have is if V-Sphere is so great, how can i sell this to database management? a conservative group that wants all DB (MS-SQL/Oracle 10.2/11g) on physical hardware? I personally think every x86 box should have a hypervisor, even if it only runs one VM. With DRS/HA with ESX 3.5uX is this why Oracle doesn't support VMware? Because RAC/OCFS/ASM now obsolete? one question i have is if V-Sphere is so great, how can i sell this to database management? a conservative group that wants all DB (MS-SQL/Oracle 10.2/11g) on physical hardware?

I personally think every x86 box should have a hypervisor, even if it only runs one VM.

With DRS/HA with ESX 3.5uX is this why Oracle doesn’t support VMware? Because RAC/OCFS/ASM now obsolete?

]]> By: slowe http://blog.scottlowe.org/2009/09/22/vmfs-isnt-the-problem-here/comment-page-1/#comment-46002 slowe Thu, 24 Sep 2009 23:08:10 +0000 http://blog.scottlowe.org/?p=1660#comment-46002 Thanks, Nate, but that reminder wasn't just for you---it was for all current and future commenters. I want this site to continue to be an area where all viewpoints are welcome. We may not agree, but we can respect each others' positions and avoid personal attacks. I appreciate everyone's help in this area. Thanks, Nate, but that reminder wasn’t just for you—it was for all current and future commenters.

I want this site to continue to be an area where all viewpoints are welcome. We may not agree, but we can respect each others’ positions and avoid personal attacks. I appreciate everyone’s help in this area.

]]> By: Nate http://blog.scottlowe.org/2009/09/22/vmfs-isnt-the-problem-here/comment-page-1/#comment-46001 Nate Thu, 24 Sep 2009 22:57:11 +0000 http://blog.scottlowe.org/?p=1660#comment-46001 My apologies for getting wriled Scott. As just your average Joe techy I like your blog as an independent source of virtualization info. I don't always agree with your opinions, but respect them. I respect when individuals are A) Actually independent or B) Admit that by blogging/posting on topics directly related to the product their company produces or the competing product they are in fact posting on behalf of their company not 'personally'. I got a little tweaked about some false accusations slipping in here and being told I didn't know what I was talking about simply for pointing out such accusations. I let my frustration get the better of me, so I apologize. My apologies for getting wriled Scott. As just your average Joe techy I like your blog as an independent source of virtualization info. I don’t always agree with your opinions, but respect them. I respect when individuals are A) Actually independent or B) Admit that by blogging/posting on topics directly related to the product their company produces or the competing product they are in fact posting on behalf of their company not ‘personally’. I got a little tweaked about some false accusations slipping in here and being told I didn’t know what I was talking about simply for pointing out such accusations. I let my frustration get the better of me, so I apologize.

]]> By: slowe http://blog.scottlowe.org/2009/09/22/vmfs-isnt-the-problem-here/comment-page-1/#comment-46000 slowe Thu, 24 Sep 2009 19:58:52 +0000 http://blog.scottlowe.org/?p=1660#comment-46000 I'll remind everyone here to refrain from personal attacks. I will delete comments that personally attack another author, reader, or commenter---you've been warned. I’ll remind everyone here to refrain from personal attacks. I will delete comments that personally attack another author, reader, or commenter—you’ve been warned.

]]> By: Nate http://blog.scottlowe.org/2009/09/22/vmfs-isnt-the-problem-here/comment-page-1/#comment-45998 Nate Thu, 24 Sep 2009 19:16:32 +0000 http://blog.scottlowe.org/?p=1660#comment-45998 Eric, I'm not sure respect is a word you actually understand. Sorry if you are using RTM not RC, either way it is not GA. GA is not simply a "marketing" thing. Please tell me you understand product ecosystems and lifecycles. Sorry I don't think anyone is trying to "stall the adoption of VMware". I never said GA would make DPM automatically able to backup CSV. Stop playing the straw man game. I said the API is availbale. The product isn't GA. Stop expecting all partners to have products ready before GA. Eventually you VMware guys are going to have to realize the I had it first argument is lame. You are running out of time for that argument to have any validity. You have an issue with Microsoft "stalling" I have an issue with you "rushing" people into VMware. You know you are running out of time of being the only ones to have feature X and you are scared. Hyper-V is certainly ready to be put into production. If you want a specific combination of requirements (live migration plus full VM backup) then yes wait a few months. VMware obviously believes that not every customer needs this as you have SKUs that provide less. Once all the partners are ready you aren't going to have the same SKU issues with MS. I beleieve others very professioanlly responded on your blog. You dismissed them. You posted a lie here about Mr. Perlow being "in the tank" for Microsoft. That is what prompted my response here. Take a more honest approach and you might find yourself called out less. Eric, I’m not sure respect is a word you actually understand.

Sorry if you are using RTM not RC, either way it is not GA. GA is not simply a “marketing” thing. Please tell me you understand product ecosystems and lifecycles.

Sorry I don’t think anyone is trying to “stall the adoption of VMware”. I never said GA would make DPM automatically able to backup CSV. Stop playing the straw man game. I said the API is availbale. The product isn’t GA. Stop expecting all partners to have products ready before GA. Eventually you VMware guys are going to have to realize the I had it first argument is lame. You are running out of time for that argument to have any validity. You have an issue with Microsoft “stalling” I have an issue with you “rushing” people into VMware. You know you are running out of time of being the only ones to have feature X and you are scared.

Hyper-V is certainly ready to be put into production. If you want a specific combination of requirements (live migration plus full VM backup) then yes wait a few months. VMware obviously believes that not every customer needs this as you have SKUs that provide less. Once all the partners are ready you aren’t going to have the same SKU issues with MS.

I beleieve others very professioanlly responded on your blog. You dismissed them. You posted a lie here about Mr. Perlow being “in the tank” for Microsoft. That is what prompted my response here. Take a more honest approach and you might find yourself called out less.

]]> By: Eric Gray http://blog.scottlowe.org/2009/09/22/vmfs-isnt-the-problem-here/comment-page-1/#comment-45996 Eric Gray Thu, 24 Sep 2009 17:58:18 +0000 http://blog.scottlowe.org/?p=1660#comment-45996 Nate, with all due respect -- you don't know what you're talking about. I am using the RTM version of Windows 2008 R2, not the RC as you have falsely accused me of. Have you completely overlooked the Microsoft Virtualization messaging coming from Woolsey/Greshler/Yuen? They claim Hyper-V R2 is available with free live migration -- today. They imply that everything is ready to deploy now, in order to stall adoption of VMware. The fact is, their hypervisor has been released but it's not ready to be put into production. The GA date in October is a mostly a marketing launch, DPM will not suddenly be able to back up VMs on CSV LUNs. Perhaps you are fine with them bloviating about what they intend to provide at some point in the future. I'm not, and I'll write about it on VCritical. Please consider attacking me on my own blog and not Scott's. Eric Nate, with all due respect — you don’t know what you’re talking about.

I am using the RTM version of Windows 2008 R2, not the RC as you have falsely accused me of.

Have you completely overlooked the Microsoft Virtualization messaging coming from Woolsey/Greshler/Yuen? They claim Hyper-V R2 is available with free live migration — today. They imply that everything is ready to deploy now, in order to stall adoption of VMware.

The fact is, their hypervisor has been released but it’s not ready to be put into production. The GA date in October is a mostly a marketing launch, DPM will not suddenly be able to back up VMs on CSV LUNs.

Perhaps you are fine with them bloviating about what they intend to provide at some point in the future. I’m not, and I’ll write about it on VCritical. Please consider attacking me on my own blog and not Scott’s.

Eric

]]> By: Marcel http://blog.scottlowe.org/2009/09/22/vmfs-isnt-the-problem-here/comment-page-1/#comment-45991 Marcel Thu, 24 Sep 2009 14:50:46 +0000 http://blog.scottlowe.org/?p=1660#comment-45991 I recently had to import a number of VMs into a vSphere environment (training setup) and instead of Converter I used the OVFTool. You can convert Workstation or ESX formats to and from the OVF format using this tool. If you have OVF files, which are relatively small, you can easily upload them again to an ESX host. I created some batch files and this worked pretty fast, even using commodity hard drives in the upload machine. And this doesn't just upload the VMs but does registration as well. I recently had to import a number of VMs into a vSphere environment (training setup) and instead of Converter I used the OVFTool. You can convert Workstation or ESX formats to and from the OVF format using this tool. If you have OVF files, which are relatively small, you can easily upload them again to an ESX host.

I created some batch files and this worked pretty fast, even using commodity hard drives in the upload machine. And this doesn’t just upload the VMs but does registration as well.

]]> By: Nate http://blog.scottlowe.org/2009/09/22/vmfs-isnt-the-problem-here/comment-page-1/#comment-45989 Nate Thu, 24 Sep 2009 13:31:21 +0000 http://blog.scottlowe.org/?p=1660#comment-45989 Scott, If you take a look at the comments section on Eric's post you will see the calrifications of Eric's assumptions from much more knowledgable people than myself that do a much better job of explaining the issues. However, some gernal gists of issues. Eric declares CSV a "delicate" feature, inserting the classic FUD that "oh no, can I rely on this to keep working?". Eric's sole basis for this claim is that there is a warning pop up that says that CSV is only currently supported for Hyper-V. I'm sorry but that is beyond a leap of logic. Microsoft is simply saying this is what it has been tested and certified for at this point. They'll probably leverage CSV for other technologies in the future, but it would be irresponsible of them not to give the warning that they haven't tested such yet. To declare CSV delicate based upon that is FUD. Next Eric claims you can't backup a VM on a CSV. This is my point about attacking an RC version of a product. The API is currently available for backing up VMs on a CSV, so it is NOT a limitation of CSV as Eric is hoping to imply. R2 isn't genraly available until the end of October. It's not fair to expect all of the partners (I consider DPM a partner too because we are talking seperate units of a very large organization) to have backup software ready for the RC. This isn't the first time I've seen Eric attack Hyper-V on something based on using the beta or RC product either. If I attacked VMware based on some partner product not being ready yet for a beta of theirs, I think Eric would call fowl. There are also issues raised in the initial post and in the comments section about a single coordinator node and how IO works in the cluster. Again look to the comments, there is some good clarity from a Microsoft person about how IO is direct, the balancing of coordination, and the redirecting of IO only in the case where all connections to the storage are lost (which I personally think is actually a very cool double safety feature). Scott, If you take a look at the comments section on Eric’s post you will see the calrifications of Eric’s assumptions from much more knowledgable people than myself that do a much better job of explaining the issues. However, some gernal gists of issues. Eric declares CSV a “delicate” feature, inserting the classic FUD that “oh no, can I rely on this to keep working?”. Eric’s sole basis for this claim is that there is a warning pop up that says that CSV is only currently supported for Hyper-V. I’m sorry but that is beyond a leap of logic. Microsoft is simply saying this is what it has been tested and certified for at this point. They’ll probably leverage CSV for other technologies in the future, but it would be irresponsible of them not to give the warning that they haven’t tested such yet. To declare CSV delicate based upon that is FUD. Next Eric claims you can’t backup a VM on a CSV. This is my point about attacking an RC version of a product. The API is currently available for backing up VMs on a CSV, so it is NOT a limitation of CSV as Eric is hoping to imply. R2 isn’t genraly available until the end of October. It’s not fair to expect all of the partners (I consider DPM a partner too because we are talking seperate units of a very large organization) to have backup software ready for the RC. This isn’t the first time I’ve seen Eric attack Hyper-V on something based on using the beta or RC product either. If I attacked VMware based on some partner product not being ready yet for a beta of theirs, I think Eric would call fowl. There are also issues raised in the initial post and in the comments section about a single coordinator node and how IO works in the cluster. Again look to the comments, there is some good clarity from a Microsoft person about how IO is direct, the balancing of coordination, and the redirecting of IO only in the case where all connections to the storage are lost (which I personally think is actually a very cool double safety feature).

]]> By: Paul Shannon http://blog.scottlowe.org/2009/09/22/vmfs-isnt-the-problem-here/comment-page-1/#comment-45981 Paul Shannon Wed, 23 Sep 2009 21:26:54 +0000 http://blog.scottlowe.org/?p=1660#comment-45981 I have no words, I really, really don't. I don't think I have seen such an ill-conceived piece for a very long time. Talk about making hard work for yourself. I have no words, I really, really don’t.

I don’t think I have seen such an ill-conceived piece for a very long time.

Talk about making hard work for yourself.

]]> By: slowe http://blog.scottlowe.org/2009/09/22/vmfs-isnt-the-problem-here/comment-page-1/#comment-45979 slowe Wed, 23 Sep 2009 18:54:39 +0000 http://blog.scottlowe.org/?p=1660#comment-45979 Nate, Can you provide factual back-up of where Eric's information is incorrect? I want to get to the bottom of the matter, so if Eric's assumptions or conclusions are incorrect, please point them out---and provide backing information. Thanks! Nate,

Can you provide factual back-up of where Eric’s information is incorrect? I want to get to the bottom of the matter, so if Eric’s assumptions or conclusions are incorrect, please point them out—and provide backing information.

Thanks!

]]>