many partitions on a VMFS Datastore!

Similar Questions

• Cannot extend VMFS datastore

  Mary!

  I have a virtual machine with two partitions. Partition for the system (IDE) and (SCSI) partition for data. The partition of SCSI has there own underlying the LUN on a storage. LUN capacity was 50 GB where the VMFS data store uses almost the full ability of LUN (49, 75GB). So I developed the LUN on the storage of 60 GB and now I want to extend the data on this LUN VMFS store and add a few more GB. But although I can see the raw capacity (60 GB) of the LUN in storage/properties for this VMFS datastore I can't expad the datastore to VMFS himself. When I click on expand I get no device/LUN to use.

  Any suggestions?

  And my main goal is to expand the data store VMFS.

  It's exactly what I got. When you log on to an ESXi host (using the vSphere Client and the root user), you will have the same storage Wizard dialog box as in the screen shot you posted before. After logging in, go to 'Configuration'-> 'Storage', select the datatstore VMFS, you want to develop and run the wizard.

  André

• multiple VMFS datastore

  is it possible to create multiple on a single LUN or a local RAID data store?

  concerning

  Maniac

  NTFS is not an aware of cluster file system - so one server is the owner of this partition. If a single server will have access to e/s on the NTFS partition.

  VMFS is aware of cluster - so many servers will have access to e/s to the partition - for performance reasons it is recommended to deploy a single VMFS data on a single storage lun store to ensure that the LUN does not become a bottleneck.

• Laptop HP ENVY 15 TS: why don't I have so many partitions

  I have 6 partitions on my computer windows 8.1 and I wonder if I need all and I can remove all.

  The first is a healthy 400 MB (recovery Partition).

  The second is a 260 MB Healthy (EFI System Partition).

  The third is my primary partition.

  The fourth is a healthy 505 MB (recovery partition).

  The fifth is a healthy 450 MB (recovery partition).

  The sixth and last Partition Recovery My 23.78 GB NTFS healthy (OEM Partition)

  Can someone help me?

  Hi jmfoss,

  Weolcome to the hp support forums

  The reason for so many partitions is the following:

  Your partion first and second are used to start the system.

  3rd partition is you your main partition where Windows is installed.

  Your fourth, fifth and support partitions that contain third-party software that are installed on the spot.

  The final score is were are software hp is installed during reimage system.

  When you press F11 and enter HP Recovery Manager will use the fourth, fifth and sixth partition to reimage your system.

  Hope this helps,

• Create a new VMFS datastore

  Hi guys,.

  You have a few examples or a simple way on the creation of a new VMFS datastore using Orchestrator?

  Thank you.

  Hello

  check the "Create vmfs for all available disks" workflow in Library / vCenter / storage.

  It contains a logical example creating VMFS data warehouses, you should be able to adopt it for specific volumes.

  Also, check out ONYX and Onyx for WebClient Onyx for the Web Client to find the needed API calls when you create manually in the client.

  Kind regards

  Joerg

• Cannot add VMFS datastore to ESXi host

  Hi all

  I have a problem with the CF 1 logical unit number which can be seen as a device through several paths on all 10 hosts in a cluster, but it appear as a data store VMFS on 6 of the hosts. Other LUNS of the same Bay appear correctly on all hosts. 10 guests see the LUN with the same LUN ID and all hosts are identical regarding the version of ESXi (5.0 Update 2), HBA and firmware models.

  On the 4 hosts who can see the device but not the VMFS data store, it seems that he sees the LUN as a snapshot: 'list of snapshot storage vmfs esxcli' translates into:

  4f5e5cbb-a87cd2c6-86e9-d8d385f98034
  Volume name: LUN101_SAS2
  VMFS UUID: 4f5e5cbb-a87cd2c6-86e9-d8d385f98034
  Can mount: true
  Reason of mountability-United Nations:
  Can will: false
  Reason for non-resignaturability: the volume is actively used
  County of measure pending: 1

  The UUID VMFS above matches the UUID VMFS seen on 6 guests who can see the VMFS data store.

  When I try to use 'Add storage', the device appears with a lambel VMFS: LUN101_SAS2(head). I don't know why (head) was added to the label of VMFS. Oscreen n the following signature to keep 'existing' and "Assign a new signature" options are grayed out. The only option is "Disc Format. I need to keep the existing signature because it run virtual machines that have their files .vmx and hard on this LUN.

  Would the fact that I have virtual machines running on this LUN, I cannot choose the option to "keep the existing signature?

  I need to Storage vMotion these virtual machines to a different LUN before I add the VMFS datastore to 4 guests?

  TIA

  Hey RoscoT;

  Try the following command

  #esxcfg - volume - l

  This should show the volume

  To constantly increase the volume, use esxcfg-volume - M followed of the UUID or volume name

  Concerning

  one

• Maximum VMs per VMFS datastore

  Can someone explain to me why the general rule concerning the number of clones linked by VMFS datastore is supposed to be 90, safer at 60? (39:00 in the video)

  My VMFS data store can handle more IO wise and wise, so why would I limit this number of storage? Numbers wise, I can run 120 VM out of a 2 400 GB data store.

  Here are estimates based on the data accumulated on the ground.  If you can get a larger number, it's fine.  These figures will be based on the IOPS / s, its use for the end user, locking, back-end storage, etc.  Basically the storage i/o profile of the entire group of the Active Desktop disk activity goes beyond what the back-end data store is able to provide.  If there is no offset in a desktop experience virtual because the affirmation of storage, revealed by tests or the use of your actual deployment, the number of clones linked by the data store can be merit to be studied.  For starters, these figures are given for the initial orientation.

• Failed to create full-size VMFS Datastore on large virtual disk on Dell R710 5 2 t + 1, Raid 5 PERC6i controller

  ESXi4, I installed it on my Dell R710. She has 6 1 TB on PERC6i SAS drives, 5 discs do Raid 5 with hot spare disk 1. And I created 3 VD, 1 is from 40 GB to install the OS, 2 is 1 TB to contain the model ISO and VM and 3 is 2.6 TB to contain the VM.

  After installing ESXi4, I found only 2 created Datastore: 2. 39 GB 1 Datastore and 1 TB data store no data store has been created on the VD 2.6 TB.

  I tried to create it manually, but I found that only 635 GB in size can be created on this 2.6 t. Why? As I remembered ESXi4 can support up to 64 TB VMFS Datastore.

  The BIOS is 1.0.4.

  Someone had the idea?

  Take a look at this "vSphere and 2 TB LUN has changed VI3.x.

  http://virtualgeek.typepad.com/virtual_geek/2009/06/vSphere-and-2TB-LUNs-changes-from-vi3x.html

  Oh, a data store to 64 would consist of 32 degrees to ~ 2 TB. The limit on the size of the LUN behind the data store is 512 b less than 2 TB

• PowerCLI script for VMFS datastore list with ID NAA and latency?

  Hi all

  Can anyone here please share a script, or help me to change the PowerCLI to display the store name of VMFS data, capacity and NAA.ID and latency in the past 24 hours?

  So far I can only use the WHowe script below:

  $esxName = "PRODESXi10".

  SE PRODVCENTER01-connect-VIServer-Server "VM".

  New-VIProperty-name lunDatastoreName - ObjectType ScsiLun-Value {}

  Param ($LUN)

  $ds = $lun. VMHost.ExtensionData.Datastore | % {Get-view $_} | `

  where {$_.} Summary.Type - eq "VMFS" - and

  (_.Info.Vmfs.Extent $ |) where {$_.} DiskName - eq $lun. CanonicalName})}

  {if ($DS)}

  $ds. Name

  }

  } - Force | Out-Null

  Get-VMHost-name $esxName | Get-ScsiLun | Select CanonicalName, CapacityMB, lunDatastoreName

  Thanks in advance,

  But you easily add a timestamp.

  Get-Datastore.

  Select Name,

  @{N = "DateTime"; E = {Get-DateTime}},

  @{N = "CanonicalName"; E = {$_.ExtensionData.Info.Vmfs.Extent [0].} DiskName}},

  @{N = 'Latency'; E = {}

  $esx = @(get-View-Id $_.) ExtensionData.Host.Key | Get - VIObjectByVIView)

  $instance = $_.ExtensionData.Info.Vmfs.Uuid

  $stat = 'datastore.totalReadLatency.average ','datastore.totalWriteLatency.average '.

  $stats = get-Stat-entity $esx - Stat $stat - Realtime - MaxSamples 1 - Instance $instance

  ($stats |) Measure-object-property - average value. Select - ExpandProperty average) /($esx.) Count * 2)

  }}

• Cannot resize VMFS DataStore in ESXi 5.1

  All,

  I use a network SAN OpenFiler as a VMWare Datastore.  The current size of the data store was 1 TB and I decided to increase the size of the LUN via OpenFiler to 2 TB.  However, this increase in the logic unit number size is not reflected in the VMWare Datastore and I cannot increase (extend) the size of the existing data store.  I seem to be affected by the same problem as described here:

  VMWARE: Cannot expand / increase Datastore VMFS on ESX

  Any ideas on how to increase the size of the data store in ESXi?

  Thank you.

  Then, it might be a problem of presentation. try not represented this LUN from the storage host and re group - present.

  Ensure that the data store is dismounted and detached from everything first.

  Thank you
  Avinash

• VMFS datastore and advised LUN (IO queue)?

  Hello

  I have a few quick questions regarding best practices SAN LUNS and VMFS data warehouses.

  Assumptions:

  1 iSCSI SAN (single storage processor)

  2. 2 disk pools (2 x RAID5 @ 3 discs/RAID5)

  3 4 LUNS (LUN/Disk 2 pool)

  4 LUN size: 500 GB/LUN for a toal of 2 TB of storage

  Question:

  1. on what data store VMs would have a larger disk performance?

  A. Datastore1 created on LUN0 on disk pool 1 and Datastore2 on LUN1 on disk pool OR 1

  B. Datastore1 created the LUN0 on disk pool 1 and Datastore2 created the LUN0 on disc 2 of pool?

  I guess what I'm trying to ask here is to have LUNS on clusters of separate drives faster than to have all the LUNS on the same disk pool? If A VM hard exists on Datastore1 of B above, setting hard of VM B on Datastore2 of B above would improve the overall performance for both virtual machines? On the other hand, respectively, capping A VM and hard of B VM on Datastore1 and Datastore2, of A above still an effective option? This brings me to question 2.

  2 - is data on separate warehouses LUN fracture the queue of e/s of SAN LUNS on all LUNS? In other words, the SAN will access all LUNS at the same time, thereby increasing the performance vs having all VMs on a single LUN shared with a single e/s queue?

  Thank you

  Steve

  In General, you're trading the guaranteed 90 IOPS / sec per IOPS VMDK / s maximum 180, but shared between 2 VMDK.

  This seems to be an entirely theoretical question and sometimes almost philosophical, whether for trade this broad for this.

  If you think about it more later, it is quite similar to place vCPUs and VMs on ESX host - is it better to share some CPU more Rapids (= more expensive systems) or gives a processor dedicated Basic (= more material)?

  If I stick my neck, I would say that the difference between the aforementioned buildings is visible only marginally and you could probably be very happy with a flat 6 pin R5 datastore as well.

  But the specific difference between 2 R1s and an A10 with 2 LUNS or even a R10 with 1 LUN but 2 VMDK worth thinking.

  As I've already said:

  If speed and performance is a problem (MSSQL IOPS requirements) then you're already wrong with the SATAs and plan instead to study in an array of more powerful than to try to get the last bits of your SATAs.

  Don't get me wrong, surely SATA can do miracles in the small environment, but especially if I notice a 50 GB DB MSSQL for P2V I would first collect some perfmon data and plan my storage as a result even more than I would normally do in SMB environments.

  You will not get a PRIUS to take the load of a SUV, no matter how long and diligent, you plan to distribute the load.

• Impossible to extend VMFS datastore (after extending the LUN)

  Hello people,

  I have a big problem. I extended my unit number logic of my table from 300 to 500 GB. Then my ESX saw it perfectly, 500 GB (vmhba1:2:8).

  I tried to extend the vmfs data store, but this is post the follow-up of errors:

  Configuring the host error: unable to update the disk partition information

  All suggest?...

  Reading Bogacki article posted, it might be a locking issue, which could probably be bypassed with closing down all the VM in this data store. However - as I have said - is not a supported configuration, and I wouldn't use it in a production environment in waat. I know there is a lot of work and downtime in ESX 3.5, but my recommendation is to create a new LUN and migrate the virtual machine.

  André

• Can how many partitions I create normally in a basic MBR disk?

  Hello

  I read this article somewhere:

  By default on a MBR Basic disk, you can create a maximum of 4 primary partitions or 3 primary and 1 Extended partition partitions with up to 128 volumes logics in the extended on a hard disk partition.

  However, I wonder what letters vlolumes will be taken as there are only 26 letters in English.

  Hello

  Use paths in car:

  Using basic disks and Partitions
  http://TechNet.Microsoft.com/en-us/library/dd163549.aspx

  Assign a mount point on a drive folder path
  http://TechNet.Microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc753321.aspx

  You can find more on TechNet that use paths in car.

  TechNet - Xp, Vista and Windows 7 IT Pro
  http://social.technet.Microsoft.com/forums/en/category/w7itpro, windowsvistaitpro, windowsxpitpro.

  TechNet - Windows Server (Server 2008 R2 Forums are locked so you will need
  use other current support forums)
  http://social.technet.Microsoft.com/forums/en/category/WindowsServer

  I hope this helps.

  Rob Brown - Microsoft MVP<- profile="" -="" windows="" expert="" -="" consumer="" :="" bicycle=""><- mark="" twain="" said="" it="">

• Detach the corrupt empty VMFS datastore hosts (data store is an iSCSI LUN)

  Sorry people - can't all in fact it nails with a Google.

  I have a corrupted (size beyond 2 TB by accident) data store. Migrate all hosts out there - she is empty.

  As it is corrupt, it does not in the normal way.

  Now I CAN just tear out of the EqualLogic SAN - but I don't want to confuse ESXi.

  Can someone tell me how "friendly but firm" about ESXi to let go of it before I delete it the San?

  Thanks many many - Tim

  Like a little help, I have denied access of a host to the LUN and restarted mode maint.

  It is not in the view hosts of storage thereafter.

  If I repeat, it erases it completely from vCenter?

  Your Tim

• ORA-14299 &amp; many partitions limits per table

  Hello

  I have linked the question, see below for the definition of table and error during the insert.

  CREATE TABLE MyTable

  (

  RANGEPARTKEY NUMBER (20) NOT NULL,

  HASHPARTKEY NUMBER (20) NOT NULL,

  SOMEID1 NUMBER (20) NOT NULL,

  SOMEID2 NUMBER (20) NOT NULL,

  SOMEVAL NUMBER (32,10) NOT NULL

  )

  PARTITION BY RANGE (RANGEPARTKEY) INTERVAL (1)

  SUBPARTITION BY HASH (HASHPARTKEY) 16 SUBPARTITIONS

  (PARTITION myINITPart NOCOMPRESS VALUES LESS THAN (1));

  Insert Into myTable

  Values

  (65535,1,1,1,123.123)

  ORA-14299: total number of partitions/subpartitions exceeds the maximum limit

  I am aware of the restriction that Oracle has on a table. (Max 1024K-1 including the partitions

  subpartitions) that prevents me to create a document with the key value of 65535.

  Now I am stuck as I have more than this number (65535) ID, the question becomes how to manage

  by storing data of the older identifications this 65534?

  One of the alternatives that I thought is retirement/drop old partitions and modify the first partition

  myINITPart to store data for more partitions (which are actually retired in any way) - that I could

  having more available for store IDS.

  Therefore the PARTITION myINITPart VALUES LESS THAN (1) would be replaced by VALUES myINITPart PARTITION

  LESS THAN (1000) and Oracle will allow me to store additional data 1000 ids. My concern is Oracle

  I do not change the attributes of the original score.

  Don't we see no alternatives here? Bottomline, I want to store data for IDS higher than 65535 without restriction.

  Thank you very much

  Dhaval

  Gents,

  I want to share that I found alternative.

  Here's what I did.

  (1) merge first partition in following adjacent partition, in this way, I will eventually have an extra-tested partition, the number of limit of n + 1 partition (this is what I wanted) - so where before I do not - charge I will eventually merge the first partition (in this case, my first couple of partition will be empty anyway in order to not lose anything by merging)-faster in my case.

  (2) any index, we have will be invalidated needs to rebuild itself, I'm good that I have none.

  (3) local index is not invalidated.

  So, I was able to increase the limit of fusion just first partition in following a good - work around.

  Thank you all on this thread.