5 Essential Tips for Maximizing Your Experience at Nutanix .NEXT for Bloggers
Hi Our setup will look very similar to the attached diagram once it’s setup (taken from here - https://portal.nutanix.com/page/documents/details?targetId=Nutanix-Security-Guide-v6_1:wc-network-segmentation-intro-wc-c.html). We won’t have the separate DVS for the VM’s though as these will be on the same DVS with everything else 😊 What I'm trying to understand is what the vmk2 kernel interface is used for and why this must be on its own port group and can’t use the same port used by the CVM. I’ve illustrated what I thought should be possible with the blue line. Within Prism where you change the setting for the Backplane network, you must select a port group for the CVM and for the host. However, when you try to select the same port group for both host and CVM it gives an error and won’t let you do it. Does anyone know why they need to be on separate port groups even though they will be on the same Backplane VLAN? I hope that made sense
HiESXi 7 as our Hypervisor. Most workloads are windows and we host a number of failover guest clusters that use volume groups.We prefer not to mount the containers that are used specifically for our volume group disks as all they contain is the disks for our guest clusters. We don’t really want people accidentally deploying a VM to these Datastores or anything else if they were presented to ESXi. Is there a way to disable this alert for specific containers? I’m assuming the answer is no here (needs to be more granular).If not, then has anyone got any recommendations on the best way to prevent these Datastores from being written to if we just present them to ESXi i.e make them read-only inside ESXi somehow? Thanks
Just a basic quick question I’d like confirmation on if possible. In a Nutanix Metro availability configuration (ESXi stretched cluster stretched across two sites) do all the CVM’S from both clusters have to be on the same Layer 2 Network to be supported?
HiI'm hoping someone has a similar setup. I originally posted this question a month or so ago but the answer I received isn't correct. The post has been marked as solved so I'm unable to reply hence why I'm opening a new one. I think there was a misunderstanding with my described setup in the previous post so I've tried to make it clearer here. This is tricky to explain without diagrams so I appreciate this may be difficult to provide a valid answer and I may not get a response.Our SetupWe have a 2 sites connected by fast links with one Nutanix cluster at each site (16 nodes in each Nutanix cluster). These two Nutanix clusters make up 1 stretched ESXi cluster hosting mainly Window servers. We then use Metro availability to replicate between these sites\Nutanix clusters.So in short - One ESXI cluster that's stretched across two sites and we use Nutanix Metro to synchronously replicate.On this environment we host a number of VM guest failover SQL clusters (2 nodes in each cluste
HiI'm hoping someone has a similar setup. We have a 2 sites connected by fast links with one Nutanix cluster at each site (16 nodes in each cluster). We use Metro availability to replicate between sites. We have 1 stretched ESXi cluster hosting mainly Window servers.We have a number of VM guest failover SQL clusters (2 nodes in each cluster) which require shared storage and therefore require the use of Nutanix Volume groups. Each VM is connected to the volume group via ISCSI.We can't use Metro replication to replicate these VMS and their associated volume groups to the other site as you can't replicate volume groups with Metro availability - it's not supported.So, the only other option is to use Async replication. Here are my questions:In the manual the conditions for Async say "Do not have VMs with the same name on the primary and the secondary clusters. Otherwise, it may affect the recovery procedures"Q: If we failover the async protection domain containing the cluster node VM
Hi We have 2 sites with fast links between them with 1 Nutanix cluster on each site. All the hosts are running the ESXi 6.7 hypervisor. We use Metro availability so we have 1 ESXi cluster stretched across both sites. Currently Prism central runs on a VM in located on hosts in the primary site in a Metro availability enabled container\DS. We looking into scaling out our Prism Central installation from 1 node to 3 nodes. Ideally I was thinking we could spread the Prism Central nodes across the two sites, perhaps by having 1 node on site 1 and 2 nodes on site 2. However, the Prism Central scale out manual states the following: “All scale out Prism Central VMs must run on the same cluster. For example, running two VMs in cluster_1 and one VM in cluster_2 is not supported". Is this referring to one ESXi cluster or one Nutanix Cluster - I just want to be sure? Thanks in advance.
HyperVisor - ESXi 6.7U3Mostly Windows VMsI’m sure there’s good reason for this and it's probably to do with the way SQL handles memory but when I check the memory usage from Prism or Prism Central for a VM that’s running SQL it’s not accurately reflecting what the VM is actually using. For example, from within the VM if I fire up task manager or even perfmon it will report the memory usage at say 95% whereas from Prism it reports the VM as using 25%.I need to generate a report for a collection of SQL VMs and application servers but I think for the SQL VMs I'm going to have to provide perfmon screenshots or something.Can anyone explain to me in simple terms why this is happening?
We have 2 Nutanix clusters running with the ESXi Hypervisor. We’re using Metro availability to replicate datastores\containers between clusters. We’d like to replicate some of the VMs that reside in these Metro enabled containers over to a potential 3rd site. We were thinking to use Async replication for this.Is this possible and is it supported?I ask this because in the “Conditions For implementing Asynchronous Replication” guidelines there is a condition that states “Multiple protection domains cannot protect the same VM. Configure one protection domain to protect a VM”.
Just a few questions re sequential I/O and the OPLOG versus the Extent Store. If the I/O is deemed sequential in nature, will this always bypass the OPLOG or only when the write operation is larger then 1MB? Does bypassing the oplog mean that the write will be a lot slower in comparison? It still hits the SSD so my assumption is that it’s going to be the same. Why does the process of coalescing the writes before sequentially draining them help with performance? I’m interested in why this step is necessary as opposed to just writing directly to the SSD and then replicating out.
Already have an account? Login
Enter your username or e-mail address. We'll send you an e-mail with instructions to reset your password.
Sorry, we're still checking this file's contents to make sure it's safe to download. Please try again in a few minutes.
Sorry, our virus scanner detected that this file isn't safe to download.
