*Because they could virtualize pretty much any OS using this method without modifying the OS. *
*When VMware started out x86 virtualization was unheard of and their were no OS <---> Hypervisor communication methods built into the OS's. Nowadays windows is aware it is virtualized and is developed to be run in a virtual environment.* On Fri, Oct 9, 2015 at 7:57 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: > VMware's cpu scheduling is "special" > > > > I honestly don't know who thought it would be a good idea to go with the > method they have implemented. > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > *From:* [email protected] [[email protected]] > on behalf of Gailfus, Nick [[email protected]] > *Sent:* Friday, October 09, 2015 2:09 PM > *To:* [email protected] > *Subject:* Re: [mssms] New SCCM 2012 R2 Primary Site Hardware Specs > > Jason, > > So you would suggest Hyper-V over VMWare to host the SCCM? > > Nick Gailfus > Computer Technician > p. 602.953.2933 f. 602.953.0831 > [email protected] <[email protected]>| www.leonagroup.com > > > > On Fri, Oct 9, 2015 at 11:05 AM, Jason Sandys <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Actually, replace the word hypervisor with VMWare ESX here – Hyper-V does >> not have this limitation. This is a result of the gang scheduling >> methodology that VMWare uses. >> >> >> >> J >> >> >> >> *From:* [email protected] [mailto: >> [email protected]] *On Behalf Of *Marcum, John >> *Sent:* Friday, October 9, 2015 8:43 AM >> *To:* [email protected] >> *Subject:* RE: [mssms] New SCCM 2012 R2 Primary Site Hardware Specs >> >> >> >> Exactly ;-) >> >> >> * ------------------------------ * >> >> * John Marcum* >> >> MCITP, MCTS, MCSA >> * Desktop Architect* >> >> * Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP* >> * ------------------------------ * >> >> >> >> [image: H_Logo] >> >> >> >> *From:* [email protected] [ >> mailto:[email protected] <[email protected]>] *On >> Behalf Of *Conrad Jones >> *Sent:* Friday, October 9, 2015 7:32 AM >> *To:* [email protected] >> *Subject:* RE: [mssms] New SCCM 2012 R2 Primary Site Hardware Specs >> >> >> >> The hypervisor has to wait until that number of cores are available to >> schedule the vm to actually work so, the higher the number of vcpus the >> longer it is likely to have to wait to actually do work. >> >> On 9 Oct 2015 1:26 p.m., "Marcum, John" <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> In all seriousness, I’ve found that adding more CPU’s to VM’s can >> actually slow the machine down in some cases. >> >> >> * ------------------------------ * >> >> * John Marcum* >> >> MCITP, MCTS, MCSA >> * Desktop Architect* >> >> * Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP* >> * ------------------------------ * >> >> >> >> [image: H_Logo] >> >> >> >> *From:* [email protected] [mailto: >> [email protected]] *On Behalf Of *John Aubrey >> *Sent:* Friday, October 9, 2015 7:13 AM >> *To:* [email protected] >> *Subject:* RE: [mssms] New SCCM 2012 R2 Primary Site Hardware Specs >> >> >> >> No one will ever suspect the SCCM box is bitminning…… >> >> >> >> *From:* [email protected] [ >> mailto:[email protected] <[email protected]>] *On >> Behalf Of *Marcum, John >> *Sent:* Friday, October 9, 2015 8:05 AM >> *To:* [email protected] >> *Subject:* RE: [mssms] New SCCM 2012 R2 Primary Site Hardware Specs >> >> >> >> I hope this is a typo, “box has 24 vCPU” >> >> >> * ------------------------------ * >> >> * John Marcum* >> >> MCITP, MCTS, MCSA >> * Desktop Architect* >> >> * Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP* >> * ------------------------------ * >> >> >> >> [image: H_Logo] >> >> >> >> *From:* [email protected] [ >> mailto:[email protected] <[email protected]>] *On >> Behalf Of *Heaton, Joseph@Wildlife >> *Sent:* Thursday, October 8, 2015 3:23 PM >> *To:* '[email protected]' <[email protected]> >> *Subject:* RE: [mssms] New SCCM 2012 R2 Primary Site Hardware Specs >> >> >> >> We have around 3100 users, around 3600 or so client computers and around >> 400 servers. All on one SCCM box, including SQL. At the moment, I’m on >> 2012 SP1, box has 24 vCPU, and 32GB RAM. >> >> >> >> *From:* [email protected] [ >> mailto:[email protected] <[email protected]>] *On >> Behalf Of *Gailfus, Nick >> *Sent:* Thursday, October 08, 2015 9:49 AM >> *To:* [email protected] >> *Subject:* Re: [mssms] New SCCM 2012 R2 Primary Site Hardware Specs >> >> >> >> I was mainly basing the 500 GB on that drives don't come much smaller >> these days. If I am not mistaken, a RAID 10 array of four 250 GB drives >> gives me about 500 GB of usable space. I would end up housing the content >> either on a separate server or on a separate drive on the same server. >> >> >> >> Those of you who have virtualized SCCM, do you have a separate VM running >> SQL on the same host hardware or run it on the same VM? Should I split >> some of the SCCM server roles into separate VMs? I do plan on having >> Software Update Point on a separate server. >> >> >> Nick Gailfus >> Computer Technician >> p. 602.953.2933 f. 602.953.0831 >> [email protected] <[email protected]>| www.leonagroup.com >> >> [image: Image removed by sender.] >> >> >> >> On Thu, Oct 8, 2015 at 6:08 AM, Sherry Kissinger < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> >> "At least 500 GB for database on a RAID 10 array" >> >> >> >> I *think* what you mean is something like using that 500gb sort of like >> this (note I'm not saying this is exactly what you'd do... just something >> sort of like this -ish): >> >> >> >> 200GB on Partition 1 for D: drive for the <installed location> of CM, >> where the inboxes will be. >> >> 200GB on Partition 2 for the E: drive for the Database (mdf file) >> >> 100gb on Partition 3 for the F: drive for tempdb and tx files. >> >> >> >> (and you'll still have a separate partition of 500gb or 1 TB or whatever, >> depending upon how much you have in content that will be devoted to the >> contentlib). This is ASSUMING that the actual source files for your >> content are over on <ThisOtherServer>\WhereWeKeepContentSourceFiles. If >> the source files for your content (images, packages, apps) will be on the >> same server, then you might need another partition to house the source >> files. >> >> >> >> fyi, on a primary w/ just about 100k clients, the actual db size here is >> 377gb (our disks that hold mdf/ndf/log files are configured to grow to >> about double that, jic). And I have a lot of custom inventory things >> turned on. but we ARE truncating all the history tables daily, to keep db >> size down, too. So the _HIST tables are cleared every night. >> http://www.mnscug.org/blogs/sherry-kissinger/357-configmgr-2012-truncate-history-tables >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Thursday, October 8, 2015 7:32 AM, Jimmy Martin < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> >> I have ~20k clients and db size around 60gb and I have a LOT turned on in >> inventory, primary=8 cores, 32gb ram, sql local, tuned to have 5 procs and >> half the mem, all virtualized on hyperv. >> >> >> >> >> >> Jimmy Martin >> (901) 227-8209 >> >> >> >> *From:* [email protected] [mailto: >> [email protected]] *On Behalf Of *Marcum, John >> *Sent:* Thursday, October 08, 2015 7:15 AM >> *To:* [email protected] >> *Subject:* RE: [mssms] New SCCM 2012 R2 Primary Site Hardware Specs >> >> >> >> 500 GB for the database is a bit much. J >> >> >> * ------------------------------ * >> >> * John Marcum* >> >> MCITP, MCTS, MCSA >> * Desktop Architect* >> >> * Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP* >> * ------------------------------ * >> >> >> >> [image: H_Logo] >> >> >> >> *From:* [email protected] [ >> mailto:[email protected] <[email protected]>] *On >> Behalf Of *Jason Sandys >> *Sent:* Wednesday, October 7, 2015 2:34 PM >> *To:* [email protected] >> *Subject:* RE: [mssms] New SCCM 2012 R2 Primary Site Hardware Specs >> >> >> >> Physical vs. Virtual = IO, IO, IO. Over-subscription of hardware is very >> common in virtualization. If “they” can guarantee high IO levels (storage >> and network primarily) and dedicated RAM, then it’s somewhat moot and >> virtual will work fine and has the advantage of being hardware independent. >> Using virtual though is sometimes more expensive for ConfigMgr because many >> orgs only have high-speed disks available for their VMs. This is great for >> many things, but the large amounts of space ConfigMgr uses for the content >> library do not need to be on high-speed disks and thus it’s a waste of >> money to use high-speed disks for this. >> >> >> >> J >> >> >> >> *From:* [email protected] [ >> mailto:[email protected] <[email protected]>] *On >> Behalf Of *Gailfus, Nick >> *Sent:* Wednesday, October 7, 2015 2:24 PM >> *To:* [email protected] >> *Subject:* [mssms] New SCCM 2012 R2 Primary Site Hardware Specs >> >> >> >> I have been tasked with migrating our two stand alone primary SCCM 2012 >> sites into one site to manage the whole company. Right now our two IT >> teams in different parts of the country built and operate our own SCCM. I >> have pushed to merge into one primary for the whole company. What I am >> inquiring on is the hardware. While looking at this page here >> https://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/hh846235.aspx I have >> considered a physical server, much like what we are currently running with >> each addtional RAM. At our last count for our volume licensing we have >> about 7500 clients and servers. I would like to build this site to handle >> at least 10,000 for growth. The specs I proposed was >> >> - 8 cores >> - 32 GB of RAM >> - At least 500 GB for database on a RAID 10 array >> - Addition RAID array for content. >> >> I planned on having SQL run on the server as well. My boss chimed back >> asking why am I considering physical over virtual. We would have about 80 >> distribution points as well under this primary. I did propose that the >> software update point run on a separate server and that server can be a >> VM. So my questions are. >> >> - Are these specs enough or too much? >> - Would virtualizing work with 10,000 clients? >> - Are there any good methods of calculating hardware needs? >> >> >> >> Nick >> >> >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> >> Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail is from a law firm and may be >> protected by the attorney-client or work product privileges. If you have >> received this message in error, please notify the sender by replying to >> this e-mail and then delete it from your computer. >> >> >> >> This message and any files transmitted with it may contain legally >> privileged, confidential, or proprietary information. If you are not the >> intended recipient of this message, you are not permitted to use, copy, or >> forward it, in whole or in part without the express consent of the sender. >> Please notify the sender of the error by reply email, disregard the >> foregoing messages, and delete it immediately. >> >> >> >> P *Please consider the environment before printing this email...* >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > >
