http://malaysiavm.com/blog/ibmx3950esx/ Sun, 20 May 2012 14:57:50 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 http://malaysiavm.com/blog/ibmx3950esx/comment-page-1/#comment-364 craig Fri, 28 Nov 2008 00:29:32 +0000 http://malaysiavm.com/blog/?p=635#comment-364 in the traditional scenerio, you will be right, again, this is not a right or wrong answer, as if we put it in 2 esx server which provide sufficient resources, it should be good enough. Of course, 3 ESX will provide higher redundancy and minimize the impact when 1 of the ESX host is down. It did provide extra administration cost when we have more ESX servers too. in the traditional scenerio, you will be right, again, this is not a right or wrong answer, as if we put it in 2 esx server which provide sufficient resources, it should be good enough. Of course, 3 ESX will provide higher redundancy and minimize the impact when 1 of the ESX host is down. It did provide extra administration cost when we have more ESX servers too.

]]> http://malaysiavm.com/blog/ibmx3950esx/comment-page-1/#comment-363 vmkoko Thu, 27 Nov 2008 16:45:35 +0000 http://malaysiavm.com/blog/?p=635#comment-363 From Operation and Best Practice prospective, you should always have 3 ESX instead of 2 ESX regardless how large the physical server can scale. From Operation and Best Practice prospective, you should always have 3 ESX instead of 2 ESX regardless how large the physical server can scale.

]]>