Nutanix Cloud Infrastructure

The following tables show the recommended configuration of VMware Distributed Resource Scheduler (DRS). DRS (General) DRS Rules DRS Distributed Power Management (DPM)

Is anyone running Microsoft Exchange on their Nutanix cluster? If so, approximately how many mailbox databases (EDBs) are you running and what is the approximate size of each? Also, overall feedback/thoughts of the performance of your Exchange environment on the Nutanix cluster?

Hello mates, We have 2x NX3350 and Arista switch which handle roughly 100 VM. Workloads are: 20x VM with heavy disk workload which are used mainly for reporting and analysis. R/W ratio is roughly 50/50. They created 20K IOPS workload when they lived on SAN storage with RAID10 and tiny flash tier and average latency was always below 5 ms. 10x VM which are used for application virtualization 70x VM which are use for desktop virtualization. Now, when we migrated to Nutanix, we have only 4K cluster IOPS and 20 ms latency which does not seems to be very good for us. Trying to resolve the issue, we enabled inline compression and increased CVM memory up to 20GB. We also tried to change tier sequential write priority. Unfortunately, this does not help. ncc, cluster status and prism health claim that everything is ok. Before we migrated our environment, we've run diagnostic VM and the results was roughly 100K IOPS for read. Here is the current configuration of cluster:NOS Version: 4

When we want to reconfigure for HA, installation of the fdm always fails with the following error: syslog.log:2014-09-10T07:34:33Z fdm-installer: VIB Nutanix_bootbank_pynfs_5.0.0-0.0.1 violates extensibility rule checks: [u'(line 22: col 0) Element vib failed to validate content'] We need to remove pynfs, reconfigure for HA and then we can re-install pynfs again. Is there a workaround in stead of keep on removing and reinstalling pynfs? Regards John Grinwis

I know this is a Mandriva notice but I assume CentOS is also affected. _______________________________________________________________________ Mandriva Linux Security Advisory MDVSA-2014:097 http://www.mandriva.com/en/support/security/ _______________________________________________________________________ Package : libvirt Date : May 16, 2014 Affected: Business Server 1.0 _______________________________________________________________________ Problem Description: Multiple vulnerabilities has been discovered and corrected in libvirt: The LXC driver (lxc/lxc_driver.c) in libvirt 1.0.1 through 1.2.1 allows local users to (1) delete arbitrary host devices via the virDomainDeviceDettach API and a symlink attack on /dev in the container; (2) create arbitrary nodes (mknod) via the virDomainDeviceAttach API and a symlink attack on /dev in the container; and cause a denial of service (shutdown or reboot host OS) via the (3) virDomainShutdown or (4) virDomainReboot API and a symlink attack on /

Is anyone using Veeam to backup their virtual environment on a Nutanix cluster? If so, how have you configured your backup proxy (how many, virtual or physical, 1 arm or 2 arm configuration, etc)? What are you using for a backup target? What kind of throughputs or processing rates are you seeing? I am running some test jobs, and a few of the jobs I have run identify the soure (Nutanix) as the bottleneck in the job. My backup proxy is a VM with a 2 arm configuration (1 vNIC in the production storage VLAN and 1 vNIC in the backup storage VLAN) running in Network Mode. I'm wondering if there are other modifications I can make to alleviate the source (Nutanix) from being the bottleneck in the jobs.

Hello everyone, Does anyone have an official date for the support of vSphere 5.5? And with 5.5 update 1 right around the corner (next month or so), do you now if the U1 version will be supported on the release date or will we need to wait some more? For what it's worth, our block is running fine in 5.5 since ~1month (although unsupported by Nutanix, we updated it with VUM without problem). Thanks in advance for you answers, Sylvain.

Can someone enlighten me, why KVM uses iSCSI-LUNs and not the NFS exported container like it is done with vSphere/ESX? Currently, I only see disadvantages, like cumbersome handling of VMs, and no benefits.