[ngw] ESXI 3.5 vs ESXi 4.0 (multi posted)

[Joseph Marton]

Probably would work ok using Xen & paravirtualization, but yet I
wouldn't be surprised to see fully virtualized NetWare have terrible
performance.

Joe

On Sat, Apr 24, 2010 at 9:12 AM, Keith Larson <KLarson at k12group.net> wrote:
> I would caution anyone against Virtualize NetWare.  It can be done and I
> have a few small utility type servers virtualized, but I tried virtualizing
> a full server with shared folder and users home directories and nearly had a
> mutiny because of performance.  I also tried virtualizing a server that was
> nothing more than the Symantec parent server for several hundred
> workstations.  All that they would do is get signature updates from it,
> nothing else.  That didn't go well either.  It had been moved back to a
> physical server and it working well.  We haven't gone to EPP yet we are
> still at Corporate Edition for SAV.
>
> OES2SP1/SLES10SP2 has been fine virtualized with several hundred users
> hitting an NSS volume.
>
>
>
> Keith Larson
> Franklin Computer Services - K12 Group
> (614) 561-4887
> klarson at k12group.net
>
>
>
>
>
>
>>>> "zzz" <zzz at minneapolis.edu> 4/23/2010 10:53 PM >>>
> Greetings,
> If you are worried about VMWARE perfomance on older hardware, possibly
> do some testing and monitor memory, CPU and NIC utiiliztion.  Should be
> present in the local VM client install.
>
> Not sure on the novell end, (I do have a couple of OES2 in virtual,
> including GW8 1000 user server) but  I have plenty of production WINDOZE
> W2K8 64 bit guest VMs running on HP DL380 G5 ESX 3.5 cluster on SAN with
> no major performance problems.
> NIC utilization has not been an issue at my site with the onboard HP
> NICs.
>
> However, if you do have the chance, "VMWARE 4"  would be the preferred
> option to move to.
>
>
> Hope this helps.
> Thank you
>
> Dana
>
>
>>>> Danita Zanre <dzanre.ngwlist at gmail.com> 4/23/2010 4:42:06 PM >>>
> I of course can use whatever I want because I'm not a big company, so I
> use
> ESXi 3.5 on a my 32 bit server, and it works very well.  On my 64bit
> server,
> I'm worried that ESXi 4.0 will not work, but I need 64 bit VMs (thanks
> Novell <heehee>), so I'm running Server 2.0 on that for the 64 bit VMs.
> So,
> my take is that unless you need to actually have 64 bit VMs for
> something,
> 3.5 has been perfectly fine for my needs, which aren't as great as
> many
> large companies, but greater than most of my small company clients.
>
> Danita
>
>
> On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 11:14 AM, Joe Acquisto
> <joe.acquisto at gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> Certainly there is enough experience and options on these lists to
> comment.
>>
>> Wondering if the "real world" performance difference, if any,
> between
>> ESXi 3.5 (32 bit) and 4.0 (64 bit) is worth having to go hunt up an
>> "approved" 64 bit machine?
>>
>> Guest performance, of primary interest.
>>
>> I have several older servers that accept (and seem to run) 3.5, but,
>> sigh, none that accept an install of 4.0.
>>
>> joea
>> _______________________________________________
>> ngw mailing list
>> ngw at ngwlist.com
>> http://ngwlist.com/mailman/listinfo/ngw
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Danita Zanrè
> Keep in touch!
> http://www.twitter.com/GWGoddess
> http://www.facebook.com/Caledonia.net
> http://www.linkedin.com/in/danitazanre
> _______________________________________________
> ngw mailing list
> ngw at ngwlist.com
> http://ngwlist.com/mailman/listinfo/ngw
>
> _______________________________________________
> ngw mailing list
> ngw at ngwlist.com
> http://ngwlist.com/mailman/listinfo/ngw
>
>