All,

Well, after a bit more troubleshooting over the weekend, we did one last test.

We nuked the VMXNET 3 adapters on the VMs and replaced them with E1000
adapters, and now all is working.

What I was told by cow-orkers is that the VMs on this host were copies
of a template from an ESXi 5.1 host, and this host, as noted below, is
running ESXi 5.5.

Arguing against this being root cause is the fact that I did a clean
install of two Win7 VMs with VMXNET adapters, and they showed the same
problem communicating between themselves.

I'm more suspicious of the fact that the 5.1 host is part of a vSphere
Standard cluster, vs. the 5.5 host being the standalone free version
(we'll be getting it up to Standard soonish, once the budgeting cycle
is completed - I hope).

At any rate, we're now proceeding with the migration of the mailboxes,
etc., in that office.

Kurt

On Thu, Apr 3, 2014 at 1:39 PM, Kurt Buff <[email protected]> wrote:
> All,
>
> My search-fu is failing, so I turn to you for help...
>
> I have a small ESXi 5.5 host, about to go into production.
>
> The three VMs (2008R2 for all of them, a DC, Exchange 2010 and a PRTG
> box) on it can communicate with machines not on the ESXi host - ping,
> RDP, etc. - and vice versa. No problems.
>
> However, the three VMs on this host cannot talk with each other. No
> ping, no RDP. When pinging from one of the VMs to another, I get a mix
> of unreachables from the VMs own address and straight timeouts.
>
> There is only one vSwitch, which has two NICs bound to it, and the
> vswitch is set up to route based on IP hash. The physical switch to
> which they are connect (and this shouldn't matter, but...) is an HP
> 2510G-48, and the ports for the host are in a simple trunk - no LACP.
>
> I've turned off the Domain profile of the firewall on one of the
> machine, which seems to make no difference.
>
> I've examined the VMware host security settings to no avail. I've
> turned off the Windows firewall.
>
> I've got 3 ESXi hosts in a vSphere Standard cluster that doesn't have
> this problem.
>
> Kurt
>
>


Reply via email to