2011-06-28 17:00:01 <LowValueTarget>	Anyone familiar with the VCDB database?
2011-06-28 17:00:11 <LowValueTarget>	Trying to figure out how VPX_IP_ADDRESSES works
2011-06-28 17:00:14 <LowValueTarget>	doesnt seem to be accurate
2011-06-28 17:02:08 <Veers>	hrmm
2011-06-28 17:02:22 *	tmclaugh (~anonymous@dhcp-132-183-243-190.mgh.harvard.edu) has left #vmware
2011-06-28 17:02:23 *	Guybrush____ (~Guybrush@de-mail.selectaworld.com) has joined #vmware
2011-06-28 17:02:45 *	Axeman has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
2011-06-28 17:03:05 <LowValueTarget>	Veers, for the most part it is accurate, but for one or two VMs (who do have tools running) there is not a single entry
2011-06-28 17:04:37 <LowValueTarget>	Veers, here is my sql query (in python string format) where 'vms' is a list of vms in single quotes comma separated
2011-06-28 17:04:38 <LowValueTarget>	-
2011-06-28 17:04:39 <LowValueTarget>	"SELECT a.IP_ADDRESS,v.NAME FROM VPX_IP_ADDRESS AS a LEFT OUTER JOIN VPXV_VMS AS v ON v.VMID = a.ENTITY_ID WHERE v.NAME IN (%s) ORDER BY v.NAME" % vms
2011-06-28 17:05:42 *	o0oScoRcHo0o is now known as FiresOut
2011-06-28 17:08:59 <genec>	LOJ?  why?
2011-06-28 17:09:34 *	pace_t_zulu_ has quit ()
2011-06-28 17:10:10 <LowValueTarget>	genec: need an easy way to enumerate ip addressess for each VM
2011-06-28 17:10:25 <theacolyte>	Why not use powercli/vcli?
2011-06-28 17:10:49 <synegy34>	<sarcasm> cuz hackin the SQL's is safe ............ </sarcasm>
2011-06-28 17:11:05 *	pace_t_zulu (~pace_t_zu@unaffiliated/pacetzulu/x-585030) has joined #vmware
2011-06-28 17:11:38 <genec>	LowValueTarget: Inner Join should still work
2011-06-28 17:12:01 <LowValueTarget>	genec: query is fine.
2011-06-28 17:12:06 *	jrickman has quit (Quit: Leaving...)
2011-06-28 17:12:10 <LowValueTarget>	just curious as to why some VMs are in there, some arent
2011-06-28 17:12:15 <LowValueTarget>	all have tools running
2011-06-28 17:12:32 *	daunce has quit (Ping timeout: 258 seconds)
2011-06-28 17:12:54 *	pace_t_zulu has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
2011-06-28 17:13:33 *	pace_t_zulu (~pace_t_zu@unaffiliated/pacetzulu/x-585030) has joined #vmware
2011-06-28 17:14:10 <genec>	%s as a parameter?
2011-06-28 17:14:19 *	elgar (~elgar@38.106.144.30) has joined #vmware
2011-06-28 17:14:56 <LowValueTarget>	yeah ... left my python junk in there
2011-06-28 17:15:15 <LowValueTarget>	%s would be replaced by        'VM1', 'VM2', 'VM3' etc
2011-06-28 17:15:33 <genec>	still, suboptimal
2011-06-28 17:15:53 <LowValueTarget>	regardless of what it is and how you view it..... why is the VPX_IP_ADDRESSES table not accurate
2011-06-28 17:16:00 <LowValueTarget>	that's what I'm curious about
2011-06-28 17:16:35 <Veers>	LowValueTarget: not sure; I regularly get angry at VCD
2011-06-28 17:16:42 <Veers>	its possible its out of sync with vcenter
2011-06-28 17:16:45 <Veers>	which happens
2011-06-28 17:17:00 <Veers>	I'm guessing VCD thinks it assigned a VM X when someone else actually gave it Y
2011-06-28 17:17:09 <genec>	it's also possible that that's an old table/field that was used in an old version
2011-06-28 17:17:20 <Veers>	there's only 1 version
2011-06-28 17:17:23 <Veers>	so thats unlikely
2011-06-28 17:17:47 <genec>	VPX_IP_ADDRESSES was only in v4.1?
2011-06-28 17:17:55 <LowValueTarget>	in 4 too
2011-06-28 17:17:58 <Veers>	oh wait
2011-06-28 17:18:03 <Veers>	I read as vCLoud Director
2011-06-28 17:18:04 <Veers>	ignore me
2011-06-28 17:18:07 <Veers>	anf evyerhitn I said
2011-06-28 17:18:16 <genec>	:-P
2011-06-28 17:18:37 *	fr0nk_ has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
2011-06-28 17:19:11 <genec>	LowValueTarget: I've occasionally used the DB for collecting data but I've also noticed subtle changes over time that break queries with old lingering data
2011-06-28 17:19:48 *	fiz- has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
2011-06-28 17:20:57 *	basstscho has quit (Ping timeout: 258 seconds)
2011-06-28 17:21:12 <genec>	LowValueTarget: there's probably a view that doles out the right data but the APIs would be better as previously mentioned.
2011-06-28 17:21:39 *	TigerRage has quit ()
2011-06-28 17:21:58 *	Notify: v-fox is online (1FN-GNX).
2011-06-28 17:27:13 <Veers>	I'd do a powerCLI query myself for it
2011-06-28 17:27:52 <LowValueTarget>	running this remotely in a linux shell
2011-06-28 17:28:15 <theacolyte>	Still not sure why you're querying the DB directly either
2011-06-28 17:28:42 <LowValueTarget>	theacolyte: easier, faster
2011-06-28 17:28:55 <LowValueTarget>	theacolyte: i assume thats what powercli and vcli do anyway
2011-06-28 17:28:58 <theacolyte>	Probably faster, but it's not accurate apparently
2011-06-28 17:29:00 <LowValueTarget>	with more overhead
2011-06-28 17:29:25 <LowValueTarget>	ok then, in the name of science i will run vcli to see if there is a difference
2011-06-28 17:29:38 <kkress>	science!
2011-06-28 17:29:55 <theacolyte>	I haven't had any accuracy issues with powercli
2011-06-28 17:31:25 *	VSecurity (~VirtSecur@70.252.227.68) has joined #vmware
2011-06-28 17:31:25 *	VirtSecurity has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
2011-06-28 17:31:55 <LowValueTarget>	theacolyte: i would rather do it manually then dick with windows
2011-06-28 17:32:02 <LowValueTarget>	:)
2011-06-28 17:32:06 <theacolyte>	SMILES
2011-06-28 17:32:27 <LowValueTarget>	necessary evil, but evil nonetheless #no-flame
2011-06-28 17:32:35 <LowValueTarget>	just preference
2011-06-28 17:32:50 <genec>	LowValueTarget: vCLI is Perl
2011-06-28 17:32:57 <LowValueTarget>	yeah
2011-06-28 17:32:59 <LowValueTarget>	still yuck
2011-06-28 17:33:01 <LowValueTarget>	but much better
2011-06-28 17:33:10 *	steubens_web has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
2011-06-28 17:36:03 *	VSecurity has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
2011-06-28 17:39:17 <LowValueTarget>	i assume i want to use vmware-cmd with getguestinfo and reference a specific var
2011-06-28 17:40:01 <theacolyte>	Couldn't tell you, I use Windows.
2011-06-28 17:41:43 *	pickett has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
2011-06-28 17:41:58 *	elgar has quit (Ping timeout: 250 seconds)
2011-06-28 17:42:22 *	Spec has quit (Quit: drop it)
2011-06-28 17:44:16 *	Spec (~nwheeler@unaffiliated/spec) has joined #vmware
2011-06-28 17:44:39 *	pickett (~pickett@203-206-47-214.dyn.iinet.net.au) has joined #vmware
2011-06-28 17:46:54 <genec>	VirtualMachineGuestSummary.ipaddress perhaps?
2011-06-28 17:48:11 *	minimoose has quit (Quit: minimoose)
2011-06-28 17:55:24 *	suprsonic (~suprsonic@66.170.2.190) has joined #vmware
2011-06-28 17:55:46 <suprsonic>	how many datastores can be registered with vcenter 4.1?
2011-06-28 17:56:41 <theacolyte>	I'd like to say 255
2011-06-28 17:56:48 <theacolyte>	you can check on the config maximumum sheet
2011-06-28 17:56:58 <Alowishus>	well there's a 256 LUN per ESX server limit, plus 64 NFS datastores
2011-06-28 17:57:02 <Veers>	on a vCenter or an individual ESX server?
2011-06-28 17:57:11 <Alowishus>	I don't think vCenter itself imposes anything, but multiple the number of your hosts * those numbers above and you have a pretty good idea
2011-06-28 17:58:13 <Veers>	no specific limit; one could assume no more than 102000 though
2011-06-28 17:58:17 <suprsonic>	Number of datastores registered in vCenter Server 100
2011-06-28 17:58:27 <suprsonic>	but thats under vSphere Storage Management Initiative - Specification (SMI-S)
2011-06-28 17:58:28 <Veers>	since you have 400 hosts max in a VC; and 255 usable datastores (#256 being the boot device)
2011-06-28 17:58:45 <suprsonic>	whatever SMI is
2011-06-28 17:58:53 <Veers>	suprsonic: its unlikely you need to exceed even 100 though
2011-06-28 17:59:15 *	Spec has quit (Quit: Leaving)
2011-06-28 17:59:26 <suprsonic>	well, there's a job I going to go for
2011-06-28 17:59:33 <suprsonic>	and they said they create a LUN for each vm
2011-06-28 17:59:38 <suprsonic>	and I didn't think that was the best idea
2011-06-28 17:59:38 <theacolyte>	hahahadhha
2011-06-28 17:59:49 <theacolyte>	Did they mention why?
2011-06-28 18:00:06 <Veers>	thats cooky
2011-06-28 18:00:06 <suprsonic>	they said thats what compellant recommended
2011-06-28 18:00:13 <Veers>	they misheard
2011-06-28 18:00:14 <Kevin`>	it's a great idea in general, but it doesn't work particularly well with some vmware stuff
2011-06-28 18:00:23 <Veers>	its a terrible idea in general
2011-06-28 18:00:23 <theacolyte>	They definately got that wrong
2011-06-28 18:00:31 <suprsonic>	thats what I said
2011-06-28 18:00:37 <Veers>	I should have 1500 LUNs coming off my storage array; 1 per VM?
2011-06-28 18:00:40 <theacolyte>	I have a compellent and can tell you with absolute certainty that's not what they recommend
2011-06-28 18:00:58 <Kevin`>	Veers: why not? provided you have proper management of it
2011-06-28 18:01:32 <theacolyte>	You aren't being serious are you?
2011-06-28 18:01:35 <Kevin`>	Veers: at least you don't have 1500 files spread across 100 proprietary filesystem images stuck on luns
2011-06-28 18:01:47 <theacolyte>	So instead you'd rather manage thousands of LUNs?
2011-06-28 18:02:14 <Kevin`>	I already have hundreds of them on my current system. at home.
2011-06-28 18:02:17 <Kevin`>	it's not really that bad.
2011-06-28 18:02:17 <suprsonic>	yeah, Im glad I didn't take the gig
2011-06-28 18:02:28 <suprsonic>	the overhead to manage storage must be a bitch
2011-06-28 18:02:42 <theacolyte>	So what are you gaining exactly by one VM per LUN?
2011-06-28 18:03:00 <kkress>	duh.  More LUNs
2011-06-28 18:03:01 <suprsonic>	crap I have to run, I'll get more information tomorrow
2011-06-28 18:03:27 <theacolyte>	The only thing I can think of is snapshots may be a little more useful, but.....
2011-06-28 18:03:30 <suprsonic>	theacolyte tiered storage and SAN level snaphots of the vms?
2011-06-28 18:03:40 <theacolyte>	suprsonic: you can get that without doing 1 LUN per VM
2011-06-28 18:03:45 <suprsonic>	agreed
2011-06-28 18:03:47 <Veers>	Kevin`: 1500 files I can deal with
2011-06-28 18:03:58 <suprsonic>	he said they dont trust VMware's snapshots
2011-06-28 18:04:02 <Kevin`>	theacolyte: easier storage management (provided your storage system is easy to manage and automated together with the vm stuff), easier migration and recovery. doesn't vmware kind of mess up parallel IO if you add a bunch of luns to it, making this pointless in context?
2011-06-28 18:04:03 <Veers>	yeah its easy for you yourself to manage it because you control everything
2011-06-28 18:04:56 <Veers>	one of our environments here has 8000 virtual machines; that'd be 8000 LUNs with 8000 separatte LUN queues to manage and we'd be hitting configuration support maximums on a LOT of vendors arrays
2011-06-28 18:05:50 <theacolyte>	Well
2011-06-28 18:06:01 <theacolyte>	You could just get a seperate storage arrray for each VM
2011-06-28 18:06:04 <theacolyte>	Sorry, sorry
2011-06-28 18:06:12 <Veers>	now when I awnt to do storage replication for DR for example; I need to setup say 1000 relationships
2011-06-28 18:06:16 <Veers>	instead of say 10
2011-06-28 18:06:26 <Veers>	which means I buy more storage controllers to handle the extra overhead
2011-06-28 18:06:43 <Veers>	and dealing with array snapshots with over 1000 devices would probably be nothing short of painful
2011-06-28 18:06:48 <Alowishus>	but you could be sure you're never DR replicating any more than absolutely necessary!
2011-06-28 18:07:20 <Veers>	and now to provision a VM I need to touch the storage which means I increase the odds of something going wrong
2011-06-28 18:07:30 <Veers>	as oopposed to the VMware admin just creating a file
2011-06-28 18:07:40 <Veers>	or Xen, or Hyper-V
2011-06-28 18:07:58 <Veers>	a lot of enterprises avoided hyper-V because of that whole 1 VM per LUN if you want quick migrate functionality issue
2011-06-28 18:08:33 <Veers>	also a lot of HBAs max out at 128 or 256 devices; so a cluster would effectively be limited to a max of that many virtual machines
2011-06-28 18:09:04 *	soultekkie has quit (Quit: Ex-Chat)
2011-06-28 18:09:36 <Kevin`>	doesn't hyper-v have some strange limited clustered ntfs support specifically for doing that?
2011-06-28 18:10:08 *	of-logic-carl1 has quit (Quit: Leaving.)
2011-06-28 18:10:51 <Veers>	they do now
2011-06-28 18:10:56 <Veers>	when it cmae out it didn't
2011-06-28 18:11:05 <Veers>	they're inching closer and closer to "good enough"
2011-06-28 18:16:31 *	VirtSecurity (~VirtSecur@cpe-72-177-136-197.satx.res.rr.com) has joined #vmware
2011-06-28 18:16:42 *	VirtSecurity has quit (Client Quit)
2011-06-28 18:19:03 <Veers>	basically without VMFS my next choice is NFS
2011-06-28 18:19:57 <Veers>	with FAST I expect the idea of say 10TB LUNs to be less painful to a lot of people
2011-06-28 18:20:45 *	fester has quit (Ping timeout: 258 seconds)
2011-06-28 18:20:55 <Veers>	hahha
2011-06-28 18:21:02 *	Eitan (~Eitan@adsl-99-22-192-148.dsl.lsan03.sbcglobal.net) has joined #vmware
2011-06-28 18:21:02 <vader-->	do you think alot of people are leaning towards XEN over View for VDI?
2011-06-28 18:21:10 *	benkevan has quit (Quit: leaving)
2011-06-28 18:21:39 *	dspDrew has quit (Quit: Miranda IM on Steroids)
2011-06-28 18:22:26 *	RaycisCharles has quit (Quit: Later.)
2011-06-28 18:22:34 <Veers>	I see a lot of people with existing citrix stuff that stick wiht it
2011-06-28 18:22:43 <Veers>	I'd recommend it over View if you have a lot of remote sites
2011-06-28 18:23:03 <Veers>	bu there is a little more complexity with Citrix vs View
2011-06-28 18:24:23 *	Agiofws (~Agiofws@athedsl-117769.home.otenet.gr) has joined #vmware
2011-06-28 18:29:19 *	Stenbryggen (~Stenbrygg@78.156.98.103) has joined #vmware
2011-06-28 18:29:38 <Eitan>	so ive been put in charge of managing some vms i did not set up... a few of the guest computers get terribly slow internet connection, like 15 -20k per sec. I set up a brand new one, a centos box to see if i still got hte issue. and i do, anybody ever heard of this on esxi4.1 ?