Anybody using VMWare ESX Server?

Post #199,236 by mmoffitt 3/17/05 2:59:59 PM Reply	Anybody using VMWare ESX Server? For production servers, not test/dev/qa stuff. I mean honest-to-God production servers? If so, what are you running? File/Print, Database, Web, Portal, App Servers, all of the above? And most imporantly, if you are using that for production servers, how well are you sleeping at night? bcnu, Mikem Eine Leute. Eine Welt. Ein F\ufffdhrer. God Bless America.
Post #199,241 by folkert 3/17/05 3:50:23 PM Reply	danreck/screamer does at... De Notre Dame. He sleeps really well. Maintenance is really easy. IBM sells a package deal that works VERY EXCEPTIONALLY WELL! The place I used to work GRCC uses it for its student knock around server machines both many Windows Variants, Linux and BSD, for the Crystal Reports farm and W2K3 Servers Weblogic Webserver. They have found that Images are easier to deploy on ESX because it sort of an instant thing. (instant compared to re-format-reload). I an envious, mainly because I started the Whole Virtual thing there... Dam. I wanted to do it. And Yes, I'll have some gorgonzola with that thine. -- [link\|mailto:greg@gregfolkert.net\|greg], [link\|http://www.iwethey.org/ed_curry\|REMEMBER ED CURRY!] @ i_wethey* [link\|http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=134485&cid=11233230\|"Microsoft Security" is an even better oxymoron than "Military Intelligence"] No matter how much Microsoft supporters whine about how Linux and other operating systems have just as many bugs as their operating systems do, the bottom line is that the serious, gut-wrenching problems happen on Windows, not on Linux, not on Mac OS. -- [link\|http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1622086,00.asp\|source]
Post #199,380 by mmoffitt 3/18/05 9:37:47 AM Reply	The IBM package was what I had just demo'd to me. bcnu, Mikem Eine Leute. Eine Welt. Ein F\ufffdhrer. God Bless America.
Post #199,312 by broomberg 3/17/05 8:26:03 PM Reply	No, but I considered it. Cost KILLED me. Ended up being $15K per box by the time we added the multi-processor option and support. My boss asked me to defend adding $15K to a $20K box, and having things run 30% slower (at best). And then another $7K per year per box for support. I couldn't. I wanted it, I techno-lusted after it, but I could not justify it.
Post #199,379 by mmoffitt 3/18/05 9:37:29 AM Reply	30% slower? Is that a WAG or do you have benchmarks indicating that? I know this is a function of processor/memroy/disk/etc. utilization (IOW, if the standalone servers are being utilized at 10%, then virtualizing 4 of them I wouldn't expect to see a big decrease in performance). Just curious where you came up with "30% or lower at best." bcnu, Mikem Eine Leute. Eine Welt. Ein F\ufffdhrer. God Bless America.
Post #199,464 by broomberg 3/18/05 7:30:45 PM Reply	Tested My stuff is VERY CPU intensive, while also pounding the hell out of the Gbit network. The specs said 5-10%, which I was willing to live with. My tests showed 30%, which I was not.
Post #199,523 by mmoffitt 3/19/05 12:51:43 PM Reply	Okay. Thanks. bcnu, Mikem Eine Leute. Eine Welt. Ein F\ufffdhrer. God Bless America.

Welcome to IWETHEY!