So further on the concept of "rollback", since a virtual DC is now supported - are there any whitepapers or technical commentary on how to perform a successful rollback?
We use virtual DCs for one purpose - the capability to move them to the lab and build a domain. However, I'm really interested in this rollback concept now... :) :m:dsm:cci:mvp marcusoh.blogspot.com -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of joe Sent: Saturday, November 05, 2005 10:49 AM To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Exchange now supported on virtual hardware The biggest issue, IMO, with virtualizing DCs is possibility of rollback. It is also a pretty cool strength if you are doing it on purpose and really know what you are doing, think of a very cool forest recovery feature if you can truly manage it properly. Mostly I would expect most places to mess up the rollback so would recommend they avoid it like the plague. Overall on whether you can something virtualized or not I think comes down to the throughput necessary for the desired application (not as in program but as in use). I read the don't put more than 1000 mailboxes on a VMWARE server but there is no teeth behind that. What if there are 5000 mailboxes but only 3% are active at any given moment? I expect that would be fine (I would still test though). You can't give a good generic answer for the use of Exchange or AD that goes across all companies for physical hardware, how is anyong going to do it for virtual? It comes down to determining the capacity you need and either testing to make sure you can provide that capacity or being quick to respond when it becomes obvious you do not have enough. 1000 BlackBerry users aren't the same as 1000 users using desktop archiving/searching aren't the same as 1000 "normal" MAPI users aren't the same as 1000 POP3 users, etc.... That is the case in the physical hardware world as well as virtual. Any large company or organization already does (or at least damn well should) do load testing in a lab when designing the various cogs for their email or AD (or ADAM) infrastructure. You don't make some calculations and say that is it and throw it out into production. No it won't be perfect because it is generally pretty difficult if not impossible to fully mimic what the production load will be but you really need to give it best effort based on what you have seen in the current system. If moving from some other system to Exchange/AD obviously it will be very tough and then you simply try to go off the best practices and be ready to accept that they aren't correct for you. For instance the 4:1 Exchange to GC proc best practice, how many items can you list in 60 seconds that it doesn't really take into account. Probably quite a few, it isn't intended to be THE ANSWER. It is intended to be a starting point, a dart tossed at the board so people can move forward. joe -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Freddy HARTONO Sent: Sunday, October 30, 2005 10:44 PM To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Exchange now supported on virtual hardware What about virtualizing DCs - say ESX farm with DCs - whats the downside and things to watch out for? Basically I've taken over support of DC for a company, but hardware specs are in a mess - dell,compaqs,hp,ibm and now seems like some of them are even on ESX farm. Just like to know if I should get rid of these remote domain controllers and buy a real server or leave things as it is and kill myself with the different hardware bundles alltogether :) Thank you and have a splendid day! Kind Regards, Freddy Hartono Group Support Engineer InternationalSOS Pte Ltd mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] phone: (+65) 6330-9740 - temp -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Presley, Steven Sent: Monday, October 31, 2005 11:18 AM To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Exchange now supported on virtual hardware Oh I agree...I'd be the first person to say that my position was a negative view of virtualization based on historical experiences. The problem really comes down to comfort in dealing with the technology and whether its supported or not. I think its obvious that I work for a company that is quite comfortable with the technology, but I personally (as things are now) am not comfortable in using virtualized hosts for database servers. For "expendable" services like FE servers or bridgehead servers...now that it is proven to work quite well after some tweaking I am more then willing to put them in that spot. I am not, however, ready to commit to putting my any one of my 650gb clustered mail servers on a virtualized host just yet. It's based less on a technological reason and more for a comfort reasons. Would it work with the current state of virtualization technology? Probably, but I am not ready to make that leap yet. Some times what we have to go off is our experience until something motivates us to look at it again. When I looked at virtualizing my bridgehead servers at first it did not work well at all and I personally got VERY frustrated with it and was calling it a failure (which is what I expected due to past experience). But I was convinced by the folks who manage our VMWare stuff that they could get it to work and so we looked at it further and did some tweaks and now its working just right. I would not say that its a "no-no" by default, but I have to understand the technology, be comfortable with it if I am going to put my many terabytes of mail stores on it, and it HAS to be supported. When we put out BR and FE servers on VM it was still a grey area when it came to support and I suspect "officially" it still may be, but we have not had any problems so far when it comes to support. If we had a support case and Microsoft would state that they could not help because its a VM...if its a bridgehead or FE server we can just turn it off or remove it with not harm done and then troubleshoot the problem (part of what makes these easy to virtualized is that they are expendable). This is not the same situation with a clustered mail store server. I think this is my main stumbling block with even considering a virtualized mail host the more I think of it. I am not comfortable, as things are today, with the level of support being offered for this type of setup. > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Sunday, October 30, 2005 12:25 PM > To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org > Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Exchange now supported on virtual hardware > > >>Perhaps some day I'll have time to run JetStress on an > clustered Exchange > server on ESX attached to a SAN to see how it performs. > > Which is a good thing to do before concluding that virtualizing > exchange is a "no-no". I'm jetstressing, and doing the old, trusted > loadsim (albeit without access to a SAN) and I can't see a diff in > performance. It's easy to based our conclusions on prior (bad) > experiences and start telling people not to virtualize exc. But, until > we can see any conclusive study of a performance lag, such advice is > technically unsound and indefensible. > Virtualization has > evolved. > > > Sincerely, > > Dèjì Akómöláfé, MCSE+M MCSA+M MCT > Microsoft MVP - Directory Services > www.readymaids.com - we know IT > www.akomolafe.com > Do you now realize that Today is the Tomorrow you were worried about > Yesterday? -anon > > ________________________________ > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Presley, Steven > Sent: Sun 10/30/2005 8:51 AM > To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org > Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Exchange now supported on virtual hardware > > > > We are quite a large ESX shop (number of guest OS's are in the 1000's > I > believe) and while I fought it for quite some time we have ended up > using ESX for our 5 front-end servers and our 3 bridgehead servers. > Most ESX guest OS's don't require much tweaking, but Exchange > certainly does (at least the bridgehead servers). Once we got the > settings right for the bridgehead servers they fly like any other > piece of hardware (the FE's didn't really require much tweaking). We > have roughly 4,000 POP3\IMAP users, an average of 6k-7k of unique > logons into OWA weekly, and roughly 800,000 messages going through the > bridgehead servers daily. > Virtualization of Exchange does indeed work for these types of servers > when properly configured. Where I have seen ESX (and its little > sister > GSX) fail is hosting for servers that run highly active databases. > ESX works great for dedicated SMTP\POP3\IMAP\HTTP servers, but I would > never put a production Exchange mail store server on ESX for > performance reasons alone. I have not specifically tested it however, > but its more of based on past experience (perhaps as virtualization > advances this will be a reality some day). Perhaps some day I'll have > time to run JetStress on an clustered Exchange server on ESX attached > to a SAN to see how it performs. > > For anyone who might ask why such a large virtualization footprint in > our datacenters. The reason is simple. We have literally ran out of > space and power in our datacenters. Even as we build new datacenters > they fill up just as fast as we open them. While I don't have the > numbers to give (not my field of focus here) I seem to remember seeing > a report that virtualizing certain portions of our datacenter, where > possible, has so far saved millions in hardware costs. > > It certainly is not for everything, but virtualization technology is > definitely improving to where it is definitely an option. > For Exchange > and Active Directory, if ESX (or Virtual Server) is properly > configured it can work quite well. > > Best regards, > Steven > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > Brian Desmond > > Sent: Friday, October 28, 2005 6:49 PM > > To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org > > Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Exchange now supported on virtual hardware > > > > I disagree. Exchange on ESX can work out quite well in certain > > situations... > > > > Thanks, > > Brian Desmond > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > c - 312.731.3132 > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Medeiros, > > Jose > > Sent: Friday, October 28, 2005 5:29 PM > > To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Exchange now supported on virtual hardware > > > > I could not have worded that better. > > > > Sincerely, > > Jose Medeiros > > ADP | National Account Services > > ProBusiness Division | Information Services > > 925.737.7967 | 408-449-6621 CELL > > -------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Friday, October 28, 2005 6:53 AM > > To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: Re: [ActiveDir] Exchange now supported on virtual hardware > > > > > > I couldn't agree more with Tony -- Exchange is a resource hog and > > should not be done on VMWare except for testing purposes. Just > > because you can doesn't mean you should.... > > > > Chuck Gafford > > Systems Architect > > Unisys > > Mobile: (405) 819-6766 > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Medeiros, Jose <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Cc: # Jose Medeiros-IBM (E-mail) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Sent: Thu, 27 Oct 2005 15:39:35 -0700 > > Subject: [ActiveDir] Exchange now supported on virtual hardware > > > > > > Hi Tony, > > > > I have to respond to this. Many IT managers think you can just > > virtualize any application because of all the marketing hype. Be > > very > careful, I/O is > > critical > > to Exchange and any other database application which may make > > running it on VMWARE or VIRTUAL SERVER unpractical not to mention > > Exchange is also very resource intensive and will take whatever it > > can. Now I am sure if you have a very small environment that it may > > make sense, but with Microsoft Small Business server why would you > > want to? > > > > Any body else car e to throw in there two cents? > > > > Sincerely, > > Jose Medeiros > > ADP | National Account Services > > ProBusiness Division | Information Services > > 925.737.7967 | 408-449-6621 CELL > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------- > > -------------- > > ------------------------------------ > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Behalf Of Tony Murray > > Sent: Thursday, October 27, 2005 2:49 PM > > To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org > > Subject: [ActiveDir] [OT] Exchange now supported on virtual hardware > > > > > > Microsoft has introduced support for Exchange 2003 SP2 and later on > > Virtual Server 2005 R2. This article has just been released. > > > > http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;320220 > > > > I guess this means we can now run a DC and Exchange on the same > > physical hardware without any of the previous limitations. > > > > Tony > > > > List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx > > List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx > > List archive: > > http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/ > > > > List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx > > List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx > > List archive: > > http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/ > > > List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx > List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx > List archive: > http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/ > > > List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx > List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx > List archive: > http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/ > List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx List archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/ List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx List archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/ List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx List archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/ List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx List archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/
