Comments on: Should Virtual Center run as a Virtual Machine? http://vmetc.com/2007/12/28/should-virtual-center-run-as-a-virtual-machine/ Go Green with Virtualization. Go UGLY Green with vmetc.com. Wed, 25 Jan 2012 13:41:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Design Challenges Of Virtualized vCenter With A vNetwork Distributed Switch | VM /ETC http://vmetc.com/2007/12/28/should-virtual-center-run-as-a-virtual-machine/comment-page-2/#comment-4167 Design Challenges Of Virtualized vCenter With A vNetwork Distributed Switch | VM /ETC Mon, 08 Mar 2010 02:42:40 +0000 http://vmetc.com/?p=178#comment-4167 [...] brought up the logistical argument about the brains of the virtual infrastructure running in the environment it is managing before. [...] [...] brought up the logistical argument about the brains of the virtual infrastructure running in the environment it is managing before. [...]

]]> By: VMware PEX2010: Night of Nines and Saturday Random Thoughts | VM /ETC http://vmetc.com/2007/12/28/should-virtual-center-run-as-a-virtual-machine/comment-page-2/#comment-4052 VMware PEX2010: Night of Nines and Saturday Random Thoughts | VM /ETC Sun, 07 Feb 2010 14:26:24 +0000 http://vmetc.com/?p=178#comment-4052 [...] database be separated from the virtualized vCenter Server, however. Although VMware supported but never seemed to take definitive sides on a virtual versus a physical VirtualCenter 2.x in the past, it is [...] [...] database be separated from the virtualized vCenter Server, however. Although VMware supported but never seemed to take definitive sides on a virtual versus a physical VirtualCenter 2.x in the past, it is [...]

]]> By: Why not VirtualCenter with SQL 2005 Express? | VM /ETC http://vmetc.com/2007/12/28/should-virtual-center-run-as-a-virtual-machine/comment-page-2/#comment-2853 Why not VirtualCenter with SQL 2005 Express? | VM /ETC Sun, 09 Aug 2009 13:07:57 +0000 http://vmetc.com/?p=178#comment-2853 [...] as a VM – A lot of SMBs choose to run VC as a VM. If you follow best practices then you should separate the SQL instance from the VC server. However, I’m willing to bet the [...] [...] as a VM – A lot of SMBs choose to run VC as a VM. If you follow best practices then you should separate the SQL instance from the VC server. However, I’m willing to bet the [...]

]]> By: VMware vCenter & SQL server best practices | Virtualfuture.info http://vmetc.com/2007/12/28/should-virtual-center-run-as-a-virtual-machine/comment-page-2/#comment-1932 VMware vCenter & SQL server best practices | Virtualfuture.info Mon, 26 Jan 2009 19:56:22 +0000 http://vmetc.com/?p=178#comment-1932 [...] VC Virtual ? @ Rich Brambly (VMETC) : http://vmetc.com/2007/12/28/should-virtual-center-run-as-a-virtual-machine/ Physical/Virtual discussion @ VIOps : http://viops.vmware.com/home/message/1359 Again, I’m [...] [...] VC Virtual ? @ Rich Brambly (VMETC) : http://vmetc.com/2007/12/28/should-virtual-center-run-as-a-virtual-machine/ Physical/Virtual discussion @ VIOps : http://viops.vmware.com/home/message/1359 Again, I’m [...]

]]> By: adias http://vmetc.com/2007/12/28/should-virtual-center-run-as-a-virtual-machine/comment-page-2/#comment-1743 adias Wed, 31 Dec 2008 12:18:46 +0000 http://vmetc.com/?p=178#comment-1743 Yes, you can run it there but you should have a backup, physical or virtual. We run the main one in the esx cluster but also keep a nightly clone on a seperate esx server that is not part of the cluster. Yes, you can run it there but you should have a backup, physical or virtual. We run the main one in the esx cluster but also keep a nightly clone on a seperate esx server that is not part of the cluster.

]]> By: adias http://vmetc.com/2007/12/28/should-virtual-center-run-as-a-virtual-machine/comment-page-2/#comment-5023 adias Wed, 31 Dec 2008 12:18:00 +0000 http://vmetc.com/?p=178#comment-5023 Yes, you can run it there but you should have a backup, physical or virtual. We run the main one in the esx cluster but also keep a nightly clone on a seperate esx server that is not part of the cluster. Yes, you can run it there but you should have a backup, physical or virtual. We run the main one in the esx cluster but also keep a nightly clone on a seperate esx server that is not part of the cluster.

]]> By: Fabio Arnò http://vmetc.com/2007/12/28/should-virtual-center-run-as-a-virtual-machine/comment-page-2/#comment-1741 Fabio Arnò Wed, 31 Dec 2008 11:42:10 +0000 http://vmetc.com/?p=178#comment-1741 IMHO pushing too far consolidataion isn't that big deal: we're talking about benefits coming from the virtualization of a single host (VC) ? I'm rather more concerned about performance and possible issues. But some benefits could be gained running VC on a VM too (HA benefits). What about having VC on a physical host (with its DB on external storage, in SAN for instance) and a standby VM (off) ready to take its place for failover ? Of course, should the physical host on which our VC is running go down, to failover on the ready-VM we should first configure it to see LUNs owned by the VC. IMHO pushing too far consolidataion isn’t that big deal: we’re talking about benefits coming from the virtualization of a single host (VC) ?
I’m rather more concerned about performance and possible issues.
But some benefits could be gained running VC on a VM too (HA benefits).

What about having VC on a physical host (with its DB on external storage, in SAN for instance) and a standby VM (off) ready to take its place for failover ?
Of course, should the physical host on which our VC is running go down, to failover on the ready-VM we should first configure it to see LUNs owned by the VC.

]]> By: Fabio Arnò http://vmetc.com/2007/12/28/should-virtual-center-run-as-a-virtual-machine/comment-page-1/#comment-5022 Fabio Arnò Wed, 31 Dec 2008 11:42:00 +0000 http://vmetc.com/?p=178#comment-5022 IMHO pushing too far consolidataion isn't that big deal: we're talking about benefits coming from the virtualization of a single host (VC) ? I'm rather more concerned about performance and possible issues. But some benefits could be gained running VC on a VM too (HA benefits). What about having VC on a physical host (with its DB on external storage, in SAN for instance) and a standby VM (off) ready to take its place for failover ? Of course, should the physical host on which our VC is running go down, to failover on the ready-VM we should first configure it to see LUNs owned by the VC. IMHO pushing too far consolidataion isn’t that big deal: we’re talking about benefits coming from the virtualization of a single host (VC) ?
I’m rather more concerned about performance and possible issues.
But some benefits could be gained running VC on a VM too (HA benefits).

What about having VC on a physical host (with its DB on external storage, in SAN for instance) and a standby VM (off) ready to take its place for failover ?
Of course, should the physical host on which our VC is running go down, to failover on the ready-VM we should first configure it to see LUNs owned by the VC.

]]>