Why would one use vmware Server 2.x when ESXi is available free of
charge, stable, small footprint, ... ?
We have about 60 vmware machines here, about 20 of them already
converted to ESXi and running fine.
I would never think about going back to Server 2.x or even GSX,
especially when using veeam as a central management console.
http://www.vmware.com/products/esxi/
http://www.veeam.com/esxi-monitoring-free.html
Am 28.06.2010 um 15:45 schrieb Brian Mathis:
> On Mon, Jun 28, 2010 at 9:25 AM, Warren Young <warren@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
>> On 6/25/2010 8:33 AM, Brian Mathis wrote:
>>> - VMware Server seems like it's EOL, even though vmware hasn't
>>> specifically said so yet
>>
>> Given that there are known serious bugs in 2.0.2[*] and that
>> release is
>> now 8 months old, that seems plausible to me. But another plausible
>> explanation is that they've decided to throw all their effort at a
>> 3.0
>> release.
>>
>> Do you have any hard evidence that would help me decide between these
>> two possibilities?
>>
>> [*] glibc change with EL 5.4+ crashes server, creeping CPU time bug
>> mentioned elsewhere in this thread, web UI buggier than Brazil in the
>> rainy season...
>
>
> Here is the support lifecycle page:
> http://www.vmware.com/support/policies/lifecycle/general/index.html#policy_server
> See the footnote under the "VMware Server" section.
>
> Maybe there's a 3.0 in the works, but the general feeling is that they
> have abandoned the product. There have been no updates allowing the
> console to work in Firefox 3.6, no fixes to the hostd crash (glibc
> problem), nor any fixes to the creeping CPU problem. These are all
> major issues that would normally be addressed in any product a company
> would expect to keep around.
>
> All of these things together do not leave one with a good feeling
> about the product. Additionally, the way they are handling this has
> made me feel less confident in VMware as a company, and instead of
> looking at their paid products I have started looking at the
> alternatives. If they just came right out and said they were not
> supporting it any longer, that would be preferable to what they are
> doing now.
> _______________________________________________
> CentOS mailing list
> CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
