I'd probably go USB boot in that case. PXE is just another subsystem to break and fail other things.
Incidentally, if you've got a Dell system, you can install the OpenManage VIB in ESXi to gain access to the underlying RAID system - http://support.dell.com/support/downloads/download.aspx?c=us&l=en&s=gen&releaseid=R227503&SystemID=PWE_R905&servicetag=&os=ESXi&osl=en&deviceid=21859&devlib=0&typecnt=0&vercnt=1&catid=-1&impid=-1&formatcnt=1&libid=36&fileid=326356 (sorry for the long URL) --Matt On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 10:47 PM, Jonathan Nicol <jni...@bluegecko.net> wrote: > Completely agree, with the addition that we found NFS to perform > better than iSCSI (YMMV). In fact if you have SAN/NAS and > VirtualCenter, you don't even need local disks in the ESXi servers, > you can PXEboot or use a USB key! > > > Jonathan > > > On Jan 21, 2010, at 7:21 PM, Edward Ned Harvey wrote: > >> There is just one problem with ESXi. How do you make your disks >> redundant? >> >> If you have something like a RAID controller card, you can configure >> the >> disk redundancy in BIOS. But then if a disk goes bad and you need to >> reassign the global hotspare ... there is no built-in or 3rd party >> utility >> you can use to do that. You have to shutdown into BIOS briefly to >> configure >> your disks... >> >> The best way to run ESXi is to have manageable redundant storage >> available >> as iSCSI target. Then ESXi can simply be the iSCSI initiator, and >> let some >> other machine manage the RAID. This of course comes with some >> performance >> and cost concerns. >> >> >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: discuss-boun...@lopsa.org [mailto:discuss-boun...@lopsa.org] On >>> Behalf Of Ryan Pugatch >>> Sent: Thursday, January 21, 2010 6:19 PM >>> To: Dustin Puryear >>> Cc: discuss@lopsa.org >>> Subject: Re: [lopsa-discuss] virtualizing XP under Linux and remote >>> IEtesting >>> >>> Yeah, I think my plan will be to throw ESXi on a nice shiny new >>> PowerEdge R710 :) >>> >>> >>> Dustin Puryear wrote: >>>> Assuming you have recent and non-homebrew Intel hardware, you can >>>> probably run ESXi, although VMware Server will work. (Although I >>> heavily >>>> suggest using ESXi over VMware Server where possible.) >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ESXi is a snap, quite fast, and I've never had an issue running XP >>>> or >>>> any Windows boxen under it. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> It's also free as in beer. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> --- >>>> Puryear IT, LLC - Baton Rouge, LA - http://www.puryear-it.com/ >>>> Active Directory Integration : Web & Enterprise Single Sign-On >>>> Identity and Access Management : Linux/UNIX technologies >>>> >>>> Download our free ebook "Best Practices for Linux and UNIX Servers" >>>> http://www.puryear-it.com/pubs/linux-unix-best-practices/ >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> *From:* discuss-boun...@lopsa.org [mailto:discuss-boun...@lopsa.org] >>> *On >>>> Behalf Of *Dan Parsons >>>> *Sent:* Thursday, January 21, 2010 3:17 PM >>>> *To:* r...@linux.com >>>> *Cc:* discuss@lopsa.org >>>> *Subject:* Re: [lopsa-discuss] virtualizing XP under Linux and >>>> remote >>>> IEtesting >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> If your hardware doesn't support ESXi, I suggest trying "VMware >>> Server", >>>> also free. It doesn't run on the "bare metal", but it does run very >>> well >>>> and works with almost any Linux distribution: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> http://www.vmware.com/products/server/ >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> I've successfully used it to virtualize WinXP systems in the past, >>>> specifically for Mac web developers to test on, actually. It has a >>>> pretty nifty web management interface. >>>> >>>> Dan >>>> >>>> On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 6:45 AM, Ryan Pugatch <r...@linux.com >>>> <mailto:r...@linux.com>> wrote: >>>> >>>> Edward Ned Harvey wrote: >>>>> >>>>> I find that Xen is great for virtualization of linux inside of >>> linux >>>> ... And >>>>> for nothing else. In fact, whenever I have a non-linux guest >>> inside >>>> of Xen, >>>>> I find Xen is unstable. I have a server with windows & linux >>> guests >>>> inside >>>>> of xen on RHEL5 host ... and about once per month, xen will lose >>> its >>>> mind, >>>>> and the memory of one machine becomes the memory of another. >>>> Solution is to >>>>> reboot all the guests and host. And yes, performance is terrible, >>> except >>>>> for linux in linux. >>>>> >>>>> For either linux or mac hosts ... Sun Virtualbox is a pretty good >>> choice. >>>>> It has some bugs here and there ... but it does in fact have >>> "guest >>>>> extensions" or whatever they call it ... So the guest stability >>> and >>>>> performance is very good. >>>>> >>>>> If you only use your virtual machine casually, you can't beat the >>>> price of >>>>> virtualbox. But if you use it all day every day, such as I do ... >>> I run >>>>> windows inside of mac every day, and I also run windows inside of >>> ubuntu >>>>> every day ... Then I find virtualbox is just simply too buggy and >>> kloogy. >>>>> >>>>> On the mac, either parallels or vmware fusion is the professional >>> way >>>> to go. >>>>> In fusion, you must remember to install VMWare Tools, and in >>>> parallels, you >>>>> must remember to install Parallels Extensions. If you do this, >>>> performance >>>>> is near 100%. I personally prefer fusion for performance and >>> reliability >>>>> reasons, but parallels is slightly more featureful. Both are good >>>> choices, >>>>> with neither having a large edge over the other in any way. >>>>> >>>>> On linux, VMWare Workstation is the professional way to go. >>> Beware >>>> versions >>>>> though. Check the vmware compatibility guide. I find VMWare >>>> Workstation is >>>>> typically only compatible with hosts a rev behind ... For example >>> ... >>>>> Workstation works fine on ubuntu 904, but not 910. But by the >>> time 1004 >>>>> comes out, I think 910 will be supported. >>>>> >>>> >>>> I agree that Linux inside Linux with Xen is good. I definitely need >>> a >>>> solution to virtualize Windows on a server rather than having the >>> devs >>>> virtualize on their local machines. I regularly use Virtualbox >>> locally >>>> and like it and have thought about setting up a server with a group >>> of >>>> headless VMs under it, but I am unsure of how Virtualbox performs in >>>> that setup. Definitely looking for a server rather than workstation >>>> solution so perhaps VMWare Server may be the way to go. >>>> >>>> Thanks for your thoughts. >>>> >>>> Ryan >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Discuss mailing list >>>> Discuss@lopsa.org <mailto:Discuss@lopsa.org> >>>> http://lopsa.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss >>>> This list provided by the League of Professional System >>> Administrators >>>> http://lopsa.org/ >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Discuss mailing list >>> Discuss@lopsa.org >>> http://lopsa.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss >>> This list provided by the League of Professional System >>> Administrators >>> http://lopsa.org/ >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Discuss mailing list >> Discuss@lopsa.org >> http://lopsa.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss >> This list provided by the League of Professional System Administrators >> http://lopsa.org/ > > _______________________________________________ > Discuss mailing list > Discuss@lopsa.org > http://lopsa.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss > This list provided by the League of Professional System Administrators > http://lopsa.org/ > -- LITTLE GIRL: But which cookie will you eat FIRST? COOKIE MONSTER: Me think you have misconception of cookie-eating process. _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lopsa.org http://lopsa.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss This list provided by the League of Professional System Administrators http://lopsa.org/
