« EMC Celerra VSA UBERv3 (DART 6.0) now available!!! | Main | EMC MirrorView Insight for VMware vSphere 4.1 »

September 13, 2010


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Jason Boche

From a technology perspetive, PP/VE is great. 5-10 years ago, the licensing model would have been acceptable for non ESX environments. My only issue is, outside of the "unlimited model", the current PP/VE licensing scheme essentially enacts a snail mail version of activation each time a (what should be stateless) host is rapdily redeployed. This removes the rapid attribute from the redeploy process. Thank you for taking customer feedback and making products better.

Tomi Hakala

Chad, in your video you say that with PowerPath/VE you have full support for HA/DRS with MSCS enabled guests, but "Setup for Failover Clustering and Microsoft Cluster Service" document for vSphere 4.1 says that vMotion of clustered virtual machines is not supported? I don't see how MP plugin could change that. This is an very important issue for us, so can you be more specific on this?

Chad Sakac

Tomi - I know about that disconnect. The VMware support position for clustering is fundamentally gated by QA/Test resources. the eLab folks tested it, and it passed all the qual work we've done for EONS for MSCS/WSFC clustering testing. If you look at the old WHCL (when cluster configs needed to be explicitly submitted), EMC was the storage behind HALF of all the cluster configs.

The test harness deals with all the conditions that a storage device needs to handle during all cluster operations (all the various reservation states) and is a very, VERY mature test harness.

So - EMC will support that config, today, period.

I'm trying to see if I can get VMware to update their doc to reflect that (and I'm also proposing that EMC eLab test basic NMP RR - also not supported in that doc, and iSCSI and FCoE - also not supported in that doc).

A little blurry, but is important to understand that it's fundamentally not a technical issue, but a question of what officially is qualled.

Working to eliminate any confusion (by trying to get VMware to update their VMware's docs).

Chad Sakac

@Jason - I totally agree that the licensing scheme is archaic. Amusingly, spent my morning with the licensing team trying to get them to adapt EMC's licensing models (broadly) to the virtual world, and in the VMware-specific context around PP/VE, make it link into vSphere's native licensing model.



I'll toss in another vote for improving the PP\VE licensing model. It should, as you comment, be part of vSphere's native licensing model. While we wait for that to happen, one step in the right direction would be to provide a PP\VE licensing VM template/appliance (such as is done for the solutions enabler). It would save having to build one from scratch.

Also on PP\VE install - The documentation could use a bit of help. It's not that it's missing information, but rather, one must jump between several sections and even different documentation-sets just to get it running.


Can you publish a list of all currently supported arrays? For example, the EMC site generically lists IBM and HP, but I doubt the full line of each vendor is supported. If this list was publically available, it might help people decide whether they can even use it in their environment. For example, does it support HP P4000, EVA and 3PAR? How about mid-range IBM arrays?


is 5.4 SP2 supported on ESXi 4.1 Update 1?

Bryan Rood

I've read this and the LONG licensing doc and I still don't know *what* EMC's licensing model is for PPVE. Can someone comment on that and just mention what the model is? I.e. is it per host, per HBA, per array, per socket, per core?

Thank you.

Gaganpreet Singh

Hi .

I wanted to enable the FTP or sFTP on VNX arrays
Please can you suggest me the steps.
In Unisphere i went to Settings>Network>Settings for File
I tried to Select the FTP(data trasnfer, Control)
and Click on Enable
it didn't succedd

The comments to this entry are closed.

  • BlogWithIntegrity.com


  • The opinions expressed here are my personal opinions. Content published here is not read or approved in advance by Dell Technologies and does not necessarily reflect the views and opinions of Dell Technologies or any part of Dell Technologies. This is my blog, it is not an Dell Technologies blog.