What is the difference between vmx-XXXX.vswp, XXXX.vswp and sysswp-xyz.swp , where XXXX presents VMname ?
The smaller vmx-xxx.vswp that are typically somewhere between ~64-256 MiB in size (depends on number of vCPUs, VM memory size, 32/64 bit Guest OS etc.) are overhead swap files for the VMX-process that is executing the VM on the host. This is unrelated to the actual VM memory swap files. Read more about this type of swap files here:
http://pubs.vmware.com/vsphere-51/index.jsp?topic=%2Fcom.vmware.vsphere.resmgmt.doc%2FGUID-51767DC5-9A03-4B41-A385-9A11F6BD36F1.html
The XXXX.vswp files are VM memory swap files. The disk space space consumed by these files is calculated as (configured VM memory size - VM reserved memory). The files are created on power-on and removed when a VM enters the powered-off state.
I have no idea what these sysSwap-hls-xxx files are and don't remember seeing those anywhere.
To get around your current problem you can:
- Expand the LUN and datastore as you suggested
- Try to temporarily reserve all memory for one or more VMs. I'm not sure if this is effective immediately and sets their memory swap files to 0 on the fly though.
- Temporarily power-off one or more VMs. This will remove the memory (and vmx) swap file of this VM and re-create them when the VM is powered-on again
I would size my swap disk according to something like ((total configured VM memory + (#VMs * 128 MiB)) + 20%). I personally would not take reserved memory into account in this case. Also keep in mind that if your environment grows in memory capacity and VMs, your swap disks will have to grow eventually too.
anyways on the LUN properties, I can see that it is only using 4+% - How does that figure with what is told me in the VMware front ( I would be asking this in an EMC forum seperately ) ?
This is because the larger VM memory swap files are usually only empty files reserving the space in case it's needed. Nothing is actually written to them unless your hosts are actively swapping VM memory to disk, which is something you usually want to avoid at any cost.
So if you thin-provisioned this LUN, you should not see a lot of space being actually allocated from the SAN side.