Surgient Success

 I am still in the process of evaluating VQMS.  Previously I tried out VMWare LabManager 2.5. One of the biggest differences I am noticing is that VMWare had a very easy path to import an existing virtual machine into the system, and once imported, it was also easy to manage updates and changes to the image as part of the image library.  So far I have not been able to import any existing images from ESX Server into VQMS.  Trying to manually copy the image files into the VQMS library share has been one roadblock after another.  First I run up against the 2GB file size limit when I mount the windows share using SMB, so my large 25GB vmdk files can't be copied directly to the windows VQMS server.  To get around that I tarballed them, which made the file less than 1 GB.  Now I can't seem to unzip my tarball file successfully on windows.  I guess the file got corrupted somehow.  It takes so long to try different steps I really am not getting very much accomplished. 

I was able to deploy using empty configurations with an ISO file of the Windows XP boot disk, but of course I had to go in through the VI client and attach the vmware SCSI boot floppy to make it boot correctly and see the disk.  Not very convenient, and not something I would want to hand off to general users to try and emulate.

Another thing I find inconvenient is the concept of Server Configurations in VQMS.  You can only add a Server Configuration once to an Application Configuration.  If you want a configuration with multiple machines that are based on the same image (with network customization of course)  you have to add a Server Configuration for each one to the library in order to build an Application Configuration to deploy.  In Vmware it was easy to take a stock image from the library and add it multiple times, with options to configure each instance as a unique machine (they used Altiris Sidgen to customize windows images).  A recent project here wanted to build a test configuration with 50+ client machines accessing a server for a stress test.  If I had to set that up in VQMS it would have taken all day.  Assuming I was able to get the original client machine image imported, which I have not done yet.

Geoff,

 
There are some significant philosophical differences between management of labs in VQMS vs. VLM as you've seen (not to mention some of the limitations of VMware - like the 2GB file size limit within Samba):

• VLM works well for a small, centralized group with few ESX hosts running their labs.  VQMS provides an enterprise-class lab and image management system which extends throughout the software lifecycle.  Sometimes during a small-scale evaluation VLM looks more straightforward to set up, but that's largely because it doesn't have the capability to scale across geographically distributed environments, has no real notion of organizational security, has no ability to manage images and versions, and has no central reservation system to help you manage the number of ESX hosts required (and keep them to a minimum).
• VQMS provides a central library (which is virtualization-independent) - where VLM has library space scattered across all of your ESX hosts.  This becomes a huge content management problem - you never know where the "real version" of an image is.  How would you back up your images ?  If you lose the host where your base image lives, the image (and every lab that uses it) will be gone.  Surgient provides for multiple physical library locations, but they are managed as a single library.
  
• Solving the content manangement problem at an enterprise level means choosing a library strategy (central - as in VQMS/VDMS/VTMS) and using that library for the entire lifecycle of image management (Dev/Test/Support/Training/Sales).  Moving images back and forth is time-consuming and filled with limitations (not related to Surgient) as you've seen.  Importing images is (mostly) a one-time effort, and we can give you some guidance on how to make that easier.
• VQMS provides layers of abstraction (Application and Server Configurations) to give your end users the ability to reserve a configuration that is based on a previously determined setup (with all networking predefined). VLM deals with VM's and requires that the user have all-or-none access to the host (lots of security issues around that), and that they understand how to set up the networking and lab configurations (error prone due to wide-ranging skill levels and lack of repeatability).
• Once the images are imported and the App/Server Configs defined, everything is in place for a centralized library where you can control access to images, hosts, etc. and control versions of images.  VLM doesn't provide any of that.
  

On the surface, it may seem that some functions are easier within VLM (largely because they don't provide any of the Enterprise-level features that are required).

That being said, let me address your specific issues:

• scp or sftp are good ways to get around SMB's 2GB limit during the initial import of files.
• Creation of the new images (especially the base OS images) should only have to be done once by the administrator, not by the general users.  It does sound like we might need some better documentation around that process.  (The empty configuration deployment shouldn't require you to go between VQMS and the VI client).  All of the general user checkouts are self-service based on those App Configs.
  
• In general the App/Server configuration process should make it much easier to operate with a smaller number of images (you can put as many copies of the same client image within an App Config as you need to).  If everything has been set up correctly, every system is unique.   Planning your Server and App Configs for your use cases will make it very easy to build new App Configs with well-planned Server Configs and images.
  

 
I'll get with you offline to talk about your specific use case with the 50 client systems and a single server. 

gdillon:

I am still in the process of evaluating VQMS.  Previously I tried out VMWare LabManager 2.5.

Can you please share with us your experiences with VMware's Lab Manager product as well?  How easy was it to use?  What problems or difficulties emerged from using it either compared to Surgient's VQMS or standing on its own?

Thanks,

David