Vmware (or Virtual Server or Xen or whatever)

Yahoo Archive
1
From: vantage@yahoogroups.com [mailto:vantage@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Pim Zandbergen
Sent: Tuesday, May 08, 2007 12:24 PM
To: vantage@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Vantage] vmware (or Virtual Server or Xen or whatever)



Michael Barry wrote:

The problem is that guest VM’s, at the current release, are limited to four virtual CPU’s and 16MB of RAM.

I suppose you mean 16GB of RAM.

Yes – it was a typo.


> Placing this limit on a Vantage server extrapolates out to a user count and data center that is not likely large enough to garner the ROI from server consolidation/utilization improvement entailed in the base cost of the product. If future releases increase this upper limit, the equation should look better.
>
Four CPU's and 16 GB of RAM would allow a fair number of users, I would
think; a hundred or so? Are you saying smaller Vantage users would not
benefit from virtualization? Wouldn't the equation you mention also
depend on what other servers could be consolidated?

Thanks,
Pim

Well, a hundred or so would be a smaller implementation and would certainly pose an unacceptable upper limit for sites more likely to be running the most servers. I’m certainly not saying that there are no benefits available to the smaller shops just that the ROI is much lower.



Regards,



Michael





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
2
Hi,

Is there anyone actually deploying Vantage on virtual hardware?
Or considering to? Is there any word by Epicor on this?

We use VMware a lot for testing, support and development on Vantage,
but now customers are asking for it too.


Thanks,

Macroscoop BV
Pim Zandbergen
3
Pim,



VMWare’s flagship product, Virtual Infrastructure 3, has sort of painted itself into a technical box as it concerns production Vantage deployments. Vantage runs with a very minimal penalty under VI3 with the latest Intel/AMD processors with a hardware hypervisor support. The problem is that guest VM’s, at the current release, are limited to four virtual CPU’s and 16MB of RAM. Placing this limit on a Vantage server extrapolates out to a user count and data center that is not likely large enough to garner the ROI from server consolidation/utilization improvement entailed in the base cost of the product. If future releases increase this upper limit, the equation should look better.



Regards,



Michael



Michael Barry
Aspacia Systems Inc
866.566.9600
312.803.0730 fax
<http://www.aspacia.com/> http://www.aspacia.com/




From: vantage@yahoogroups.com [mailto:vantage@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Pim Zandbergen
Sent: Thursday, May 03, 2007 2:49 AM
To: vantage@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Vantage] vmware (or Virtual Server or Xen or whatever)



Hi,

Is there anyone actually deploying Vantage on virtual hardware?
Or considering to? Is there any word by Epicor on this?

We use VMware a lot for testing, support and development on Vantage,
but now customers are asking for it too.

Thanks,

Macroscoop BV
Pim Zandbergen





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
4
Michael Barry wrote:

The problem is that guest VM’s, at the current release, are limited to four virtual CPU’s and 16MB of RAM.

I suppose you mean 16GB of RAM.
> Placing this limit on a Vantage server extrapolates out to a user count and data center that is not likely large enough to garner the ROI from server consolidation/utilization improvement entailed in the base cost of the product. If future releases increase this upper limit, the equation should look better.
>
Four CPU's and 16 GB of RAM would allow a fair number of users, I would
think; a hundred or so? Are you saying smaller Vantage users would not
benefit from virtualization? Wouldn't the equation you mention also
depend on what other servers could be consolidated?

Thanks,
Pim