I think the key (to which Bob alludes) is that virtualization of hardware is no more a panacea for Exchange than virtualization of storage (SAN). Insufficient capacity, be it disk I/O or CPU, will result in poor performance.
Now... where did I put that machete? > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:bounce- > [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > ExchangeDiscussions > Posted At: Thursday, August 31, 2006 9:51 AM > Posted To: swynk > Conversation: E2k3 cluster question (general) > Subject: RE: E2k3 cluster question (general) > > If you will be running VMWare VI3 with the Enterprise features you can > do HA with shared storage (read san). To do that you would need at > least 2 boxes. The HA DSR features allow planned failover (no > downtime) to an alternative box or almost instantaneous unplanned > failover. > > One model I have seen has 1 physical exchange box clustered to a > passive VM, others have indicated good success running Exchange > directly on the VM as the true box, but I would not cluster to the same > box. If you must have clustering and want to go VM at least split them > onto two physical boxes, but if you don't need the A-A abilities of an > Exchange cluster then just rely on the HA capabilities inherent to the > VI3 Enterprise product. > > Now, that isn't to say I would recommend doing that in a VM, others > have, but I'm still a little leery of putting a high utilization server > into a VM unless I could dedicate a ESX box to it, then you gain the HA > and portability but still dedicate the resources to Exchange. If after > running that way a while you determine that your IO and Utilization are > low enough you could then add some lesser priority boxes to it. > > We do use VMWare ESX and have a number of production boxes running in > that environment, but not my Exchange or SQL boxes, although given time > I may go that route. > > Bob > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > Alex Alborzfard Posted At: Thursday, August 31, 2006 9:23 AM Posted To: > ExchangeDiscussions > Conversation: E2k3 cluster question (general) > Subject: RE: E2k3 cluster question (general) > > > Chris, I completely agree with you about the perils of running 2 nodes > on a single physical box, but what do you think of the following: > > If I understand MS's best practice for EXCH clustering, they support > scale-up & -out models. With scale-up you need to build both A & P > nodes for each EXCH cluster. With scale-out you have multiple A nodes & > 1 P node in the cluster. > Now with VM(ware) you're supposedly can have same HA as the scale-up > model with fewer servers than the scale-out. Instead of the MS's scale- > out, with VM you could use 2 servers each containing both A and P > nodes. This works out better because it doesn't rely on a single P node > to cover multiple A nodes in a cluster. So you could build an 8-node > cluster using only 4 servers, with each server, running 2 separate > clusters. > > I'm not sure if it would be supported by MS, but would it make sense to > run an EXCH cluster like that? > > Alex > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > Chris Scharff > Sent: Wednesday, August 30, 2006 4:57 PM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: E2k3 cluster question (general) > > The purpose of a cluster is ostensibly to provide high availability. As > such it's my belief that one needs to understand the boundaries of > supportability and best practices for a cluster and draw a line as > close to the center as possible. > > So in a scenario where one had a 4 node cluster where each of 2 nodes > exists on a single physical machine it would seem to me that you have a > pretty basic design flaw. If you are running an N+1 cluster you lack > sufficient nodes per physical host to run 3 nodes in the event of a > single physical hardware failure. If you're running N+2 you now have > all the complexity of a 4 Node system with all the benefits[1] of an > A/A cluster. > > A FE or connector Exchange server on virtualized HW seems like a > perfectly reasonable deployment scenario for many organizations. I am > not convinced that deploying a mailbox server on same is reasonable and > even less convinced it increases availability. I guess it really > depends on what problem you're trying to solve and I didn't see any > evidence of a problem or a solution in the OP comments. > > [1] Do I really need to clarify that "benefits" is tongue in cheek when > discussing A/A clusters? > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:bounce- > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Alex Alborzfard > > Posted At: Wednesday, August 30, 2006 3:01 PM Posted To: swynk > > Conversation: E2k3 cluster question (general) > > Subject: RE: E2k3 cluster question (general) > > > > Dare I ask: what is specifically wrong with virtualizing Exchange or > is > > it virtualzing an Exchange cluster? What are the major issues and > > pitfalls? > > > > Alex > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > > Chris Scharff > > Sent: Wednesday, August 30, 2006 3:35 PM > > To: Exchange Discussions > > Subject: RE: E2k3 cluster question (general) > > > > In a lab sire. In production.... can't think of a reason other than > > hating your job and wanting a new one. > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:bounce- > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Wehner, Paul > > > (wehnerpl) > > > Posted At: Wednesday, August 30, 2006 2:22 PM Posted To: swynk > > > Conversation: E2k3 cluster question (general) > > > Subject: RE: E2k3 cluster question (general) > > > > > > I'm going to assemble extra ips, quorum, store volumes and give it > a > > > > shot. > > > Might be moderately useful to have two virtual servers on a two > node > > > > cluster. > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > Ed > > > Crowley [MVP] > > > Sent: Wednesday, August 30, 2006 2:04 PM > > > To: Exchange Discussions > > > Subject: RE: E2k3 cluster question (general) > > > > > > I suppose you could install Microsoft Virtual Server and run the > new > > > > Exchange servers in virtual machines, but I don't recommend it for > a > > > > production environment. > > > > > > Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP > > > Freelance E-Mail Philosopher > > > Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups!T > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > > > Wehner, Paul (wehnerpl) > > > Sent: Wednesday, August 30, 2006 10:34 AM > > > To: Exchange Discussions > > > Subject: E2k3 cluster question (general) > > > > > > > > > I have a two node active/passive exchange cluster working fine. > > > Is it possible to add a second exchange cluster to these two boxes? > > > (assuming new ips, different store volumes, etc) Thanks, Paul > > > _________________________________________________________________ > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/read/?forum=exchange > To subscribe: http://e-newsletters.internet.com/discussionlists.html/ > To unsubscribe send a blank email to > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Exchange List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > To unsubscribe via postal mail, please contact us at: > Jupitermedia Corp. > Attn: Discussion List Management > 475 Park Avenue South > New York, NY 10016 > > Please include the email address which you have been contacted with. > > > _________________________________________________________________ > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/read/?forum=exchange > To subscribe: http://e-newsletters.internet.com/discussionlists.html/ > To unsubscribe send a blank email to > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Exchange List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > To unsubscribe via postal mail, please contact us at: > Jupitermedia Corp. > Attn: Discussion List Management > 475 Park Avenue South > New York, NY 10016 > > Please include the email address which you have been contacted with. > > > > _________________________________________________________________ > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/read/?forum=exchange > To subscribe: http://e-newsletters.internet.com/discussionlists.html/ > To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > dl.sparklist.com > Exchange List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > To unsubscribe via postal mail, please contact us at: > Jupitermedia Corp. > Attn: Discussion List Management > 475 Park Avenue South > New York, NY 10016 > > Please include the email address which you have been contacted with. _________________________________________________________________ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/read/?forum=exchange To subscribe: http://e-newsletters.internet.com/discussionlists.html/ To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe via postal mail, please contact us at: Jupitermedia Corp. Attn: Discussion List Management 475 Park Avenue South New York, NY 10016 Please include the email address which you have been contacted with.
