|
Written by Scott Herold
|
|
Monday, 04 February 2008 16:25 |
|
IÂ’ve managed to scrap together enough money from website advertising, Google AdSense, and book sales from the first version of our book to build myself a nice little computer lab for my basement. With this lab I will be able to test some advanced configurations of multiple virtualization platforms. |
|
|
Written by Scott Herold
|
|
Friday, 08 February 2008 17:39 |
|
Tonight was round 1 of setting up the new virtualization lab and it was entirely dedicated to the network infrastructure. I had completely forgotten how much of a pain in the ass it is to configure even a simple layer 3 network from scratch...especially when you haven't touched the stuff directly in 3 years.
Needless to say, I was able to power through with minimal cursing and no thrown or kicked components. What ended up being the most challenging aspect of the entire process was digging through my boxes of old computer junk that I refuse to throw away to find my null modem cable. I'm glad I was able to find it because I truly question the ability to walk into a retail store and buy one now-a-days. |
|
Written by Scott Herold
|
|
Monday, 28 July 2008 00:00 |
|
I was recently asked a question by a reader that made me realize some further explanation was required. The question as posted to me was the following:
Why should a zoned lun not be shared between clusters? I tried to find an official stance from VMWare on the communities section and the only information I could find was that you could share a lun between clusters or more accurately between all ESX host in multiple clusters. I would rather not share the luns between clusters, but a team member seems to be bent on doing it. What reasons personal, political, or technical led to the statement in the book about not having luns cross environmets? |
|
|
Written by Administrator
|
|
Saturday, 19 April 2008 04:40 |
|
Since I am a part of the phone calls that determine whether or not product gets released, I can announce before anyone else that Vizioncore's vCharter Pro 3.0 is now available for download. |
|
Written by Scott Herold
|
|
Monday, 27 April 2009 11:23 |
|
There was a big buzz going around on Twitter this morning about memory management mechanisms implemented by the VMkernel in the event that a Guest OS has a limit set that is under its total assigned value. The conversation was kicked off from Arnim Van Lieshout's blog post on memory management. This is NOT a good scenario to have in your ESX environment, and I have seen it many times due to lack of education on what setting a limit means, or simply having a bad template deployed throughout the environment. I want to start by saying that I am not 100% sure this is exactly what the VMkernel does, but having seen it, troubleshot it, and written rules in enterprise virtualization monitoring products around the behavior, I have a pretty solid base of understanding.  |
|
|
|
|
<< Start < Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next > End >>
|
|
Page 1 of 14 |
