Comments for CTI Strategy Blog

Comment on Block alignment is critical by Tweets that mention Block alignment is critical | CTI Strategy Blog -- Topsy.com

Fri, 26 Mar 2010 22:05:17 +0000

[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Aneel, Aneel and sfoskett, Phil. Phil said: RT @SFoskett: [Shared] Block alignment is critical http://bit.ly/b9EGbl <– take it from a coder, ALIGN YOUR DAMN OPS PEOPLE! ALIGN!! [...]

Comment on VMware boot storm on NetApp – Part 2 by Jesse St. Laurent

Jesse St. Laurent — Fri, 12 Feb 2010 17:35:31 +0000

Vaughn,

Thanks for the comment. This started out as an exercise to measure the impact of PAM cards and dedup on the VMware environment. I am just about to wrap up my PAM II testing. Now that we have built the test harness, it would be interesting to test out iSCSI and FC as well. Let me see if I can pull that off.

– Jesse

Comment on VMware boot storm on NetApp – Part 2 by Vaughn Stewart

Vaughn Stewart — Thu, 11 Feb 2010 21:46:03 +0000

This is great data, what would be very interesting is if you could repeat this test with another storage vendors array and / or storage protocol.

Comment on Building a ZFS Deduplication System by Rick Otten

Rick Otten — Tue, 29 Dec 2009 00:57:49 +0000

Cool stuff! Thanks!

Comment on Building a ZFS Deduplication System by Peter Galvin

Peter Galvin — Mon, 28 Dec 2009 17:08:32 +0000

Hi Joe,

Yes, build 129 seems to work fine. No issues so far in playing with deduplication.

–Peter

Comment on Building a ZFS Deduplication System by jkotran

jkotran — Thu, 24 Dec 2009 20:55:41 +0000

Peter,

Thank you for this post. I was planning to experiment with deduplication over the Christmas break. You have helped me to prepare. Do you have experience with build 129? Is it stable enough for experimentation by sys admins?

Regards,

Joe

Comment on VMware vSphere 4 vs. Microsoft Hyper-V R2 – A CTI Strategy Whitepaper by Peter Galvin

Peter Galvin — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 20:19:33 +0000

Hi Marc, thanks for the comments. The examples I picked were designed for easy comparison and costing, not necessarily real-life accuracy. However I do think the points made are valid and that the costing shown is usable for other scenarios.

As to your statement that VMware vSphere is capable of running more VMs per host than Hyper-V, what is that based on? Certainly the vendors specifications are covered in the tables in the whitepaper, and in fact according to the specifications Hyper-V can have 512 guests while vSphere can only have 256 per host. But practically, it is likely that because vSphere has more advanced memory management, it can run more guests than Hyper-V could on a given server. I know of no proof of that assertion however. If you have data, please send it along. Because that is an important and seemingly open issue, we are planning on testing memory utilization of the two virtualization platforms in our labs and posting our results here. Feel free to subscribe to our RSS feed or check back for updates.

–Peter

Comment on VMware vSphere 4 vs. Microsoft Hyper-V R2 – A CTI Strategy Whitepaper by Hyper-V R2 Vs. VMware vSphere 4.0 « isthewebsitedown

Hyper-V R2 Vs. VMware vSphere 4.0 « isthewebsitedown — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 19:27:12 +0000

[...] paper that discusses the differences. You hit the side by side comparison on about page 17 of the paper (no reg required). Bottom line: here are the top 6 differentiators as far as I am [...]

Comment on VMware boot storm on NetApp by Tweets that mention VMware boot storm performance on NetApp | CTI Strategy Blog -- Topsy.com

Fri, 06 Nov 2009 19:09:13 +0000

[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by valb00 and bgracely, bgracely. bgracely said: Real-world (production) testing of NetApp DeDup + PAM + VMware, http://bit.ly/2TZ5fH << PAM II makes this even better [...]

Comment on VMware vSphere 4 vs. Microsoft Hyper-V R2 – A CTI Strategy Whitepaper by Marc

Marc — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 06:03:42 +0000

Can I just say that some of the examples given in the document are not based on real world experience. For example, you are talking about an implementation of 10 hosts, with 4 CPU sockets each, that will be running 30 virtual machines: that is an average of 3 VMs per host. Another point which is not taken into consideration is that VMware vSphere is capable of running more VMs per host than Hyper-V is.

Marc.