4 ms·
To me, 24GB per cpu seems very low for a VM host.
by Despite 15y ago
To me, 24GB per cpu seems very low for a VM host.
- nodata 15y agoReally? Per 10-core cpu or per core?
- Despite 15y agoBy my reading of this pdf, each physical CPU requires a license and each license allows for 24-48GB of guest ram. It seems they're specifically trying to limit licensing by vRAM, rather than CPU because there are more cores in CPU's now. http://www.vmware.com/files/pdf/vsphere_pricing.pdf http://www.vmware.com/files/pdf/vsphere_pricing.pdf
- spydum 15y agoReally? The standard host hardware for the place I work was 128gb/16 core for the longest time. Prior to that, it was 64g/8 core.. which did suffer of memory overcommit for a while. The 128/16 balances quite nicely. 128/16 leaves plenty of room for over a dozen reasonably sized VM's (8gb/2vcpu) without even approaching oversubscription of memory. Sure, if you want to go crazy and stack more than 15-20 VM's on a host you might need more memory, but I find for most app server work loads, you end up overloading your storage i/o (even 4Gbps HBAs have their limits).
- Despite 15y agoTo be clear, I was talking about physical cpu's, not cores. But honestly, that's not the right way to think about the licensing. Sure, you need a license for each physical cpu, but beyond that you're just licensing for vRAM. So the real question is, is 24GB vRAM per license low.
- wmf 15y agois 24GB vRAM per license low? Several people have calculated that a vSphere license costs much more than the RAM itself.