Skip to main content

ESX 3i embedded server may pose new challenges for admins?

With 3i, instead of executing scripts directly on the Linux-like console, administrators will have access to a remote command line interface (CLI) from a standalone virtual infrastructure (VI) client to perform old ESX commands, said Raghu Raghuram, VMware vice president of platform products.
But remote CLI allows administrators to invoke only ESX-specific commands, such as those that start with the "esxcfg" string; Linux-specific facilities are not included. That means that "the commands we use to gather information will remain the same but how we invoke them will have to change," said Alistair Sutherland, director of Taupo Consulting, a VMware integrator in Edinburgh, Scotland.

Granted, running scripts in the service console is somewhat of a relic from a previous era, said VMware's Raghuram, even if the practice persists today. "Before VirtualCenter, we had the service console concept, and we used to encourage people to go there," he said. But with the advent of VirtualCenter in 2004, VMware introduced a set of application programming interfaces (APIs) that people can use to interact with ESX hosts, and "that philosophy is still unchanged; both 3 and 3i still connect to VirtualCenter."


Read on...
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Security: VMware Workstation 6 vulnerability

vulnerable software: VMware Workstation 6.0 for Windows, possible some other VMware products as well type of vulnerability: DoS, potential privilege escalation I found a vulnerability in VMware Workstation 6.0 which allows an unprivileged user in the host OS to crash the system and potentially run arbitrary code with kernel privileges. The issue is in the vmstor-60 driver, which is supposed to mount VMware images within the host OS. When sending the IOCTL code FsSetVoleInformation with subcode FsSetFileInformation with a large buffer and underreporting its size to at max 1024 bytes, it will underrun and potentially execute arbitrary code. Security focus
Post a Comment
Read more

OS Virtualization comparison: Parallels' Virtuozzo vs the rest

Virtuozzo's main differentiators versus hypervisors center on overhead, virtualization flexibility, administration and cost. Virtuozzo requires significantly less overhead than hypervisor solutions, generally in the range of 1% to 5% compared with 7% to 25% for most hypervisors, leaving more of the system available to run user workloads. Customers can also virtualize a wider range of applications using Virtuozzo, including transactional databases, which often suffer from performance problems when used with hypervisors. On the administration side, customers need to manage, maintain and secure just a single OS instance, while the hypervisor model requires customers to manage many OS instances. Of course, the hypervisor vendors have worked hard to automate much of this process, but it still requires more effort to manage and maintain multiple operating systems than a single instance. Finally, OS virtualization with Virtuozzo has a lower list price than the leading hypervisor for comme...
Post a Comment
Read more