I'm not arguing there's not a use case for 25TB of active VMFS per host as I too work with many terabytes of data on the hosts. What I meant is more along the lines of it seems like VMware is assuming people are using RDM or NFS for situations where that much data is required. If this is such an issue, why would VMware not have a resolution? I agree they aren't accounting for the mostly rare in the grand scheme of things cases for >25TB per host of active VMFS, but maybe they have a good reason for it or they are just assuming that people aren't using VMFS for file servers of that size(which isnt' good practice).
↧