http://www.2vcps.com/2010/02/18/vmware-view-and-xsigo/ Sun, 05 Sep 2010 07:04:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1 http://www.2vcps.com/2010/02/18/vmware-view-and-xsigo/comment-page-1/#comment-225 Jon Owings Fri, 30 Apr 2010 04:03:21 +0000 http://www.2vcps.com/?p=288#comment-225 It would be nice to "slipstream" the drivers into the ISO, but the "gotcha" is a good thing to keep in mind. It would be nice to “slipstream” the drivers into the ISO, but the “gotcha” is a good thing to keep in mind.

]]> http://www.2vcps.com/2010/02/18/vmware-view-and-xsigo/comment-page-1/#comment-555 Anonymous Fri, 30 Apr 2010 04:03:00 +0000 http://www.2vcps.com/?p=288#comment-555 It would be nice to "slipstream" the drivers into the ISO, but the "gotcha" is a good thing to keep in mind. It would be nice to “slipstream” the drivers into the ISO, but the “gotcha” is a good thing to keep in mind.

]]> http://www.2vcps.com/2010/02/18/vmware-view-and-xsigo/comment-page-1/#comment-220 Eric Tue, 27 Apr 2010 15:59:45 +0000 http://www.2vcps.com/?p=288#comment-220 Rumor has it that NetApp is working on a Filer with InfiniBand connections right in the back of the array. Also, last I read, FCoE is not a fully ratified standard. InfiniBand has been around for years and 40GB Xsigo fabric is not far away, probably Q4 2010. The only "gotcha" to keep in mind when virtualizing adaptors is the catch 22 that comes into play. You can't create a server profile and carve out vNICs until you have an OS installed and the drivers loaded. If you use an automated build process for your ESX hosts, you might need to get creative until VMware puts the drivers into the ESX media. Building an ISO and booting from your baseboard management controller could suffice. Just something to keep in mind. Rumor has it that NetApp is working on a Filer with InfiniBand connections right in the back of the array. Also, last I read, FCoE is not a fully ratified standard. InfiniBand has been around for years and 40GB Xsigo fabric is not far away, probably Q4 2010. The only “gotcha” to keep in mind when virtualizing adaptors is the catch 22 that comes into play. You can’t create a server profile and carve out vNICs until you have an OS installed and the drivers loaded. If you use an automated build process for your ESX hosts, you might need to get creative until VMware puts the drivers into the ESX media. Building an ISO and booting from your baseboard management controller could suffice. Just something to keep in mind.

]]> http://www.2vcps.com/2010/02/18/vmware-view-and-xsigo/comment-page-1/#comment-554 Eric Tue, 27 Apr 2010 15:59:00 +0000 http://www.2vcps.com/?p=288#comment-554 Rumor has it that NetApp is working on a Filer with InfiniBand connections right in the back of the array. Also, last I read, FCoE is not a fully ratified standard. InfiniBand has been around for years and 40GB Xsigo fabric is not far away, probably Q4 2010. The only "gotcha" to keep in mind when virtualizing adaptors is the catch 22 that comes into play. You can't create a server profile and carve out vNICs until you have an OS installed and the drivers loaded. If you use an automated build process for your ESX hosts, you might need to get creative until VMware puts the drivers into the ESX media. Building an ISO and booting from your baseboard management controller could suffice. Just something to keep in mind. Rumor has it that NetApp is working on a Filer with InfiniBand connections right in the back of the array. Also, last I read, FCoE is not a fully ratified standard. InfiniBand has been around for years and 40GB Xsigo fabric is not far away, probably Q4 2010. The only “gotcha” to keep in mind when virtualizing adaptors is the catch 22 that comes into play. You can’t create a server profile and carve out vNICs until you have an OS installed and the drivers loaded. If you use an automated build process for your ESX hosts, you might need to get creative until VMware puts the drivers into the ESX media. Building an ISO and booting from your baseboard management controller could suffice. Just something to keep in mind.

]]> http://www.2vcps.com/2010/02/18/vmware-view-and-xsigo/comment-page-1/#comment-137 craig Wed, 24 Feb 2010 04:32:39 +0000 http://www.2vcps.com/?p=288#comment-137 just my 2 cents, as the marketing push about FCoE are not from EMC, in fact Netapp are the 1st storage vendor who adopted to it. Qlogic and Emulex are the earlier adopter to the technology as well. Both technology does deliver the requirement and I will say depend on the infrastructure and requirement you need. Both has it pros & Cons and they are great products to the market :) just my 2 cents, as the marketing push about FCoE are not from EMC, in fact Netapp are the 1st storage vendor who adopted to it. Qlogic and Emulex are the earlier adopter to the technology as well. Both technology does deliver the requirement and I will say depend on the infrastructure and requirement you need. Both has it pros & Cons and they are great products to the market

]]> http://www.2vcps.com/2010/02/18/vmware-view-and-xsigo/comment-page-1/#comment-553 craig Wed, 24 Feb 2010 04:32:00 +0000 http://www.2vcps.com/?p=288#comment-553 just my 2 cents, as the marketing push about FCoE are not from EMC, in fact Netapp are the 1st storage vendor who adopted to it. Qlogic and Emulex are the earlier adopter to the technology as well. Both technology does deliver the requirement and I will say depend on the infrastructure and requirement you need. Both has it pros & Cons and they are great products to the market :) just my 2 cents, as the marketing push about FCoE are not from EMC, in fact Netapp are the 1st storage vendor who adopted to it. Qlogic and Emulex are the earlier adopter to the technology as well. Both technology does deliver the requirement and I will say depend on the infrastructure and requirement you need. Both has it pros & Cons and they are great products to the market

]]> http://www.2vcps.com/2010/02/18/vmware-view-and-xsigo/comment-page-1/#comment-134 Jon Owings Mon, 22 Feb 2010 19:55:37 +0000 http://www.2vcps.com/?p=288#comment-134 FCoE requires a significant investment in your network infrastructure, but yes is the same concept of reducing complexity. Xsigo is a great alternative that will support your storage, and often in my opinion gets lost in the mix under the Cisco/EMC marketing machine pushing FCoE, but Xsigo will have FCoE cards for their directors, so everyone can come play. FCoE requires a significant investment in your network infrastructure, but yes is the same concept of reducing complexity.
Xsigo is a great alternative that will support your storage, and often in my opinion gets lost in the mix under the Cisco/EMC marketing machine pushing FCoE, but Xsigo will have FCoE cards for their directors, so everyone can come play.

]]> http://www.2vcps.com/2010/02/18/vmware-view-and-xsigo/comment-page-1/#comment-552 Anonymous Mon, 22 Feb 2010 19:55:00 +0000 http://www.2vcps.com/?p=288#comment-552 FCoE requires a significant investment in your network infrastructure, but yes is the same concept of reducing complexity. Xsigo is a great alternative that will support your storage, and often in my opinion gets lost in the mix under the Cisco/EMC marketing machine pushing FCoE, but Xsigo will have FCoE cards for their directors, so everyone can come play. FCoE requires a significant investment in your network infrastructure, but yes is the same concept of reducing complexity.
Xsigo is a great alternative that will support your storage, and often in my opinion gets lost in the mix under the Cisco/EMC marketing machine pushing FCoE, but Xsigo will have FCoE cards for their directors, so everyone can come play.

]]> http://www.2vcps.com/2010/02/18/vmware-view-and-xsigo/comment-page-1/#comment-133 craig Mon, 22 Feb 2010 18:15:26 +0000 http://www.2vcps.com/?p=288#comment-133 beside Xsigo, FCoE could also does the similar thing today. But of course, Infiniband provide bigger bandwidth in this case. If you looking for simplify storage management and move forward with unified storage, FCoE may provide better integration which EMC and Netapp both supported FCoE end to end today and avoid FC switches to be in place to reduce capex nd opex requirement. beside Xsigo, FCoE could also does the similar thing today. But of course, Infiniband provide bigger bandwidth in this case. If you looking for simplify storage management and move forward with unified storage, FCoE may provide better integration which EMC and Netapp both supported FCoE end to end today and avoid FC switches to be in place to reduce capex nd opex requirement.

]]> http://www.2vcps.com/2010/02/18/vmware-view-and-xsigo/comment-page-1/#comment-551 craig Mon, 22 Feb 2010 18:15:00 +0000 http://www.2vcps.com/?p=288#comment-551 beside Xsigo, FCoE could also does the similar thing today. But of course, Infiniband provide bigger bandwidth in this case. If you looking for simplify storage management and move forward with unified storage, FCoE may provide better integration which EMC and Netapp both supported FCoE end to end today and avoid FC switches to be in place to reduce capex nd opex requirement. beside Xsigo, FCoE could also does the similar thing today. But of course, Infiniband provide bigger bandwidth in this case. If you looking for simplify storage management and move forward with unified storage, FCoE may provide better integration which EMC and Netapp both supported FCoE end to end today and avoid FC switches to be in place to reduce capex nd opex requirement.

]]>