View Only
  • 1.  Install vCenter Server Appliance bare metal

    Posted Dec 16, 2017 01:55 AM

    Pretty self-explanatory, but I'll try my best to improve the question: since basically vCenter Server needs an OS to run and that's some version of Linux, VMware's Photon I believe, why not eliminate the hypervisor layer to have it get the most of its dedicated host    -- I just found the perfect vCenter for my scenario, an old Mac mini. I have two other dedicated hosts to only one VM and a big server with hundreds of gigs of ram where all the rest of the VMs live so I don't need to perform vMotions, I do need however, vCenter to interface with those features not available an ESXi host alone.

    If I'm missing something please tell me, I'm virtually new to virtualizing -- heh--sorry, had to    -- I think it's the bes the best way. Besides, the processor on the Mac mini would force me to downgrade the EVC mode to the Penryn generation, it is that old, for my vCenter it's actually perfect, though.

  • 2.  RE: Install vCenter Server Appliance bare metal
    Best Answer

    Posted Dec 16, 2017 02:03 AM

    vCenter on Linux (vCSA) comes as an appliance which cannot be installed on bare metal. Besides that, it makes little sense to do so because of the flexibility you would lose in the process.

  • 3.  RE: Install vCenter Server Appliance bare metal

    Posted Dec 16, 2017 02:15 AM

    The only use I can think of is if if I need to move vCenter out of the host; but I guess you're right--I was just looking at the host on vCenter and it's truly nothing the overhead it imposes. I'll just not add it to the main cluster. Thanks!   

  • 4.  RE: Install vCenter Server Appliance bare metal

    Posted Dec 16, 2017 02:41 AM

    It sounds like you're running a lab with a host that is just enough host to run the single VM.  So it's understandable that you would want to try to maximize the use of resources in this way.  As a general rule, the vSphere product is engineered mostly for production environments.  Obviously, labs account for a large portion of the product install base, but even in lab scenarios a lot of customers use the infrastructure to host workloads for other end-customers (engineers, devs, etc.).  In these cases, an outage still causes disruption and therefore it's usually important for labs to be resilient.

    So, for that reason, the current best practice guidance is to virtualize the vCenter server and let it manage its own host that is virtualizing it.  Way way back, this was not necessarily the case, and the only build option was Windows, so a lot of people did dedicate hardware to this task.  But one of the main reasons to put vCenter in the environment as a VM is to let the infrastructure bring the same resiliency benefits to the hosting infrastructure as it does to the end-user virtual machine workloads.  It's also generally a best practice to separate the hosting infrastructure on to a 3+ host cluster separate from workloads, although it is not necessary and a lot of users don't do this for lack of resources.

    Other reasons to virtualize workloads that are big enough to consume entire hosts (these do exist and a lot of customers have them) are:

    • Consistency - the same environment applies to all workloads; the same management tools can be used across all
    • Portability - the VM can be ported to many different environments or locations without imaging software
    • Mobility - the VM can be migrated to another host in the event of a host hardware failure with little to no recovery effort, especially if it's moved proactively before the failure occurs.  Shared storage is necessary for this
    • Abstraction from hardware - removes the dependency on the hardware that happens when loading an OS on baremetal

    Not all of those apply in a small lab environment, but those are reasons people try to virtualize everything and why the vendor delivers the vCenter appliance the way they do.  Unfortunately, there are no installable bits for Linux platforms, only for Windows.  I would expect the Windows edition to go away in some future version.  The move to the virtual appliance was made in order appease Linux users who hate Windows, customers who want to avoid Windows licensing fees (as well as SQL Server/Oracle licensing), and to simplify the deployment as much as possible.

    I would recommend to just virtualize it for these reasons.  The ESXi host itself doesn't induce much overhead.  It's up to you whether to still use the host or to just put it in the general population with the rest of the VMs, but I wouldn't bother trying to cluster that machine.

    I would also recommend having some shared storage available in case you do decide you want to vMotion something off of its dedicated host.  It could just be swing space on an NFS server hosted as a VM on the large server.  This could give you an exit strategy to vacate one of those other hosts in case the need arises.

  • 5.  RE: Install vCenter Server Appliance bare metal

    Posted Dec 16, 2017 03:20 AM

    Thank you for your answer,

    I am running a lab, well-sort of, but I do have plenty of resources memory-wise on what it was at the beginning a single huge host, later in time I offloaded a couple of VM to small individual hosts to leverage their CPUs. Earlier today I tried the same with the vCenter Server itself to do precisely what you mention, maximize resources but I'm finding out it's really negligible ESXi's on the host.

    When I first decided to start virtualizing servers I tried first using Windows Server because I was going to "save" on licensing but it was nightmare dealing with Hyper-V especially having zero experience with anything more complicated than Mac OS X Server and my only virtualization background being a random VirtualBox install at 4am; on the other hand the same week I took the vSphere trial I signed up but sometimes I still think I'm on WindowsServer-time, I keep thinking bulk for some reason. I probably wouldn't even be renting the vCenter Appliance if ESXI was capable of working with VM templates and wouldn't even care about templates if Windows wasn't so prone to failure.  

    Thanks again!