asked on
Ram usage in vmware ESX
Currently speccing some servers for use in a vmware esx4i environment. The servers have dual quad core processors with memory expandable 192gb ram. 8gb and 16gb memory sticks are disproportionately more expensive than 4gb sticks. With 4gb sticks and 12 slots i can make the servers 48gb ram each. Generally speaking and i appreciate that the virtual servers usage will obviously come into play, but is there a point where it is better to install another server than load up with more ram? e.g other bottlenecks come into play such as disk access, bus speed, processor speed. I want to procure now with future expansion in mind but do not want to waste money on 8-16gb sticks if introducing new hardware is the better option
ComponentsVMware
Last Comment
Paul Solovyovsky
ASKER CERTIFIED SOLUTION
THIS SOLUTION ONLY AVAILABLE TO MEMBERS.
View this solution by signing up for a free trial.
Members can start a 7-Day free trial and enjoy unlimited access to the platform.
SOLUTION
THIS SOLUTION ONLY AVAILABLE TO MEMBERS.
View this solution by signing up for a free trial.
Members can start a 7-Day free trial and enjoy unlimited access to the platform.
ASKER
thanks Paul. Will spec now with 4gb sticks for 48gb total. Can then swap out to total 64gb if needed when memory price drops
you can upgrade memory (usually in pairs) as you wish, when the memory get cheaper you'll have more options.
ASKER
hi nappy_d,
just discussing the raid on another thread....raid 5 vs raid 10. Have a hp san with 12 x 450gb sas 15k drives. Just in the process of building the environment now...will be two servers to start with. Will be running 12 vm's to start for initial customer allocating about 32gb ram
just discussing the raid on another thread....raid 5 vs raid 10. Have a hp san with 12 x 450gb sas 15k drives. Just in the process of building the environment now...will be two servers to start with. Will be running 12 vm's to start for initial customer allocating about 32gb ram
A few questions
How many of these servers are you buying?
What CPU are you buying.?
What Storage are you going to use.?
How many network segments are you addressing?
How many guest sessions are you implementing and what are their expected CPU, RAM and IO requirements.?
Are these a branded server.? HP do a duel socket which has 8 DIMM slots per Socket so 16 DIMM Slots. I don't recall the max memory but it's likely 256GB. These are the DL380g6 and the DL385G6.
Local Storage will become a bottle neck if you truely do need to expand your farm.
How many of these servers are you buying?
What CPU are you buying.?
What Storage are you going to use.?
How many network segments are you addressing?
How many guest sessions are you implementing and what are their expected CPU, RAM and IO requirements.?
Are these a branded server.? HP do a duel socket which has 8 DIMM slots per Socket so 16 DIMM Slots. I don't recall the max memory but it's likely 256GB. These are the DL380g6 and the DL385G6.
Local Storage will become a bottle neck if you truely do need to expand your farm.
Which san do u have? Hp eva or other?
ASKER
Its an iscsi HP msa2000 with msa2012i dual controller. Two hosts are dl380g6 with dual e5504 processors. Likely to have 8 vlans controlled by a virtual checkpoint FW. 12 virtual servers to start with but will expand as new customers come on board. Each server will run 48gb ram
I think you plan sounds fine.
48GB is a good price point currently
The MSA2000 are reasonably capable, have you considered using NFS rather than ISCSI. I can't give any truely compelling reason to do so but I expect there are marginal performance gains and better compatibility moving forward as potentially you will outgrow the IO capability of a MSA2000. If you were to move to a NetApp for instance there are very significant advantages when utilising NFS over the other LUN based methods.
One of the immediate benifits of NFS would be no SCSI resevation issues, (which we are all experiencing).
48GB is a good price point currently
The MSA2000 are reasonably capable, have you considered using NFS rather than ISCSI. I can't give any truely compelling reason to do so but I expect there are marginal performance gains and better compatibility moving forward as potentially you will outgrow the IO capability of a MSA2000. If you were to move to a NetApp for instance there are very significant advantages when utilising NFS over the other LUN based methods.
One of the immediate benifits of NFS would be no SCSI resevation issues, (which we are all experiencing).
ASKER
what are the cost implications of NFS compared to iscsi? The iscsi san with dual controller without drives is costing approx $3200
The Netapp will cost a bit more but will give you more options such as SnapManager for VI (backup VMs) Exchange, and SQL. It may also act as a filler and reduce the need for file servers. The MSA2012 is a decent unit with SAS drives just makes sure to put your esx hosts in lowercase, ohterwise it may have issues with the IQN, talking from experience.