Comments on: n+1 is hogwash! http://www.vReference.com/2010/02/15/n1-is-hogwash/ guides, links and news for VMware and virtualization technologies Tue, 31 Aug 2010 09:04:15 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0 By: Forbes Guthrie http://www.vReference.com/2010/02/15/n1-is-hogwash/comment-page-1/#comment-741 Forbes Guthrie Tue, 16 Feb 2010 15:27:18 +0000 http://www.vReference.com/?p=687#comment-741 Hi JC, Keeping HA "enabled" is somewhat mute if its useless. During patching and maintenance downtime, if you have an n+1 setup, HA may as well be off because it isn't going to help at all. Just because it says "I'm enabled - your safe", means diddly. I won't work. To say that its enabled is semantics. The only advantage I can think of is that it saves you having to manually re-enable it once you have more redundancy in the cluster. But yes, I'm being a bit coarse :) I want to create discussion on the subject. Hi JC,
Keeping HA “enabled” is somewhat mute if its useless. During patching and maintenance downtime, if you have an n+1 setup, HA may as well be off because it isn’t going to help at all. Just because it says “I’m enabled – your safe”, means diddly. I won’t work. To say that its enabled is semantics.
The only advantage I can think of is that it saves you having to manually re-enable it once you have more redundancy in the cluster.
But yes, I’m being a bit coarse :) I want to create discussion on the subject.

]]> By: JC http://www.vReference.com/2010/02/15/n1-is-hogwash/comment-page-1/#comment-739 JC Tue, 16 Feb 2010 08:18:04 +0000 http://www.vReference.com/?p=687#comment-739 You're playing with semantics. What you're really suggesting is that it's not possible to keep HA enabled while patching an n+1 environment, which is a lot different than suggesting ESX servers cannot be patched without VM downtime in an n+1 environment. p.s. HA does NOT prevent VM downtime, even n+100. :) (now I'm playing with semantics). You'll need Fault Tolerance for that. You’re playing with semantics. What you’re really suggesting is that it’s not possible to keep HA enabled while patching an n+1 environment, which is a lot different than suggesting ESX servers cannot be patched without VM downtime in an n+1 environment.

p.s. HA does NOT prevent VM downtime, even n+100. :) (now I’m playing with semantics). You’ll need Fault Tolerance for that.

]]> By: Ronald http://www.vReference.com/2010/02/15/n1-is-hogwash/comment-page-1/#comment-735 Ronald Mon, 15 Feb 2010 22:33:49 +0000 http://www.vReference.com/?p=687#comment-735 I always try to convince the customer of n+1+1. n for the number of hosts needed to run their environment. 1 for a planned server downtime, and 1 for an unplanned server downtime. Only in very small or money constrained environments, does the customer choose n+1, knowing the consequences. I always try to convince the customer of n+1+1. n for the number of hosts needed to run their environment. 1 for a planned server downtime, and 1 for an unplanned server downtime.
Only in very small or money constrained environments, does the customer choose n+1, knowing the consequences.

]]>