ESXi is pretty painless. HyperV is good stuff, but we have been far more familiar with Vmware than HyperV at this point and I have to feel very confident that my guys can support a new method before we put it in production.
From: Brian Desmond [mailto:br...@briandesmond.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2009 11:41 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: Vmware Disk Ideas 6 drives is a lot of IOPS. I'd be inclined to say you'll be just fine given the workload of a typical SBS instance. Just a thought but why not go with HyperV? It's a lot more painless to manage especially when discussing the skillset of a typical SBS shop. Thanks, Brian Desmond br...@briandesmond.com c - 312.731.3132 From: gswe...@actsconsulting.net [mailto:gswe...@actsconsulting.net] Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2009 10:30 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: Vmware Disk Ideas Thanks Ben and Don, Just wanted to make sure that the performance would be acceptable with 6 drives for Raid6. I was trying to get 8 drives but they wouldn't go for it. Thanks again Greg From: Don Ely [mailto:don....@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2009 11:21 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: Re: Vmware Disk Ideas +1 On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 5:12 AM, Benjamin Zachary - Lists <li...@levelfive.us> wrote: Hi Greg, I think running that high performance with that limited users probably won't make any real difference as far as the client would be able to see. Maybe if there is heavy SQL or something on there you could look at RAID10 for the i/o increase. However, in your description below I would look at RAID5/6. ESXi runs about 90% through ram so you don't really see a lot of disk i/o from that per se. From: gswe...@actsconsulting.net [mailto:gswe...@actsconsulting.net] Sent: Monday, February 02, 2009 10:47 PM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: Vmware Disk Ideas Just wondering what everyone's idea would be on a VMWARE ESXi that will run 2 VM's, SBS 2003 and SBS 2008 for some time to migrate. 6 x 146 GIG SAS 15K drives running either Raid 6 or Raid 10. Assuming the storage loss was fine to Raid 10, how much performance are we going to see with Raid 10 vs going with Raid 6 and getting the two drive failure protection and the write hit. Small office about 20 users, Peachtree, SMB size email. Nothing insane (Larger mailboxes 1.5GB to 2.5GB) and then just the normal SBS Exchange and SQL servers for Sharepoint services, about 100+ gig in files now going to grow at least another 75 to 100 gig over 2 years. I think either way will work well, but I just don't have that much experience with Raid 6 other than Netapp and was curious? Thanks Greg ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/> ~
