This is a pretty big generalization...but for an Exchange environment with a small(er) number of high-powered mailbox servers, however you want to divide up your resources - CPU, RAM, disk I/O -- you get the same product on physical or virtual. If you aren't going to scale up to a dozen or more less-powerful mailbox servers, then virtualization may not help you; in fact, the TCO for Exchange will be HIGHER when virtualized. The VMWare or even Hyper-V layer has administrative costs and can introduce additional complexity over sitting on physical servers.
But virtualization will probably always make sense for other roles, especially if it's already a strategy for your datacenter. On 3/12/09, Brian Dwyer <bdw...@bne.catholic.edu.au> wrote: > Apologies for not thinking before posting. > > Our organisation is in the process of moving "everything" to a Virtual > environment. Exceptions will be made if necessary but must be justified. > > NetApps storage is being implemented with blade servers to host virrtual > servers at the data centre, with a secnod NetApps storage and blades > on-site. > Data, VM images/snapshots etc will be replicated from the data centre > and backed up here. > All servers are currently located in a data centre - we have lost > connectivity twice in the last 6 months (cut cables) > Main Issue- > All exisitng Exchange hardware is up for replacement. > > We need to- > 1. implement an email archiving solution. > 2 . upgrade to Exchange 2007 as our 2003 service is reaching capacity. > > Exchange 2003 services consists of - > 2 x FE and 3 X BE mailbox servers with direct attached storage. > 1.4 TB of mail in 14 databases. > 12,000 users, in 133 locations. 70% use OWA only. > > Original design was for and E2K7 services on physical servers > 2 x Client Access/Hub Transport Servers > A single clusted mailbox server with CCR live node and databases in the > data centre > passive node and database replicas on-site > > Management would now like the designed reviews for virtualisation > > The physical servers allocated for the Clustered mailbox server are 32GB > DL360 G5's with 4 x quad caore processors. These may be "replaced" with > BL680c GS E7450 2P 8G Svr with 64GB ram and 6 x quad core processors. > > My preference is for - > > 2 x VIRTUAL CAS/HUB servers running on existing virtual hosts (1in data > cente one on-site) WFS installed on CAS/Hub onsite server. > > 1 x Clustered Mailbox Serverwith CCR running on the physical BL680c's. > Live node in the Data Centre Blade Shelf, Passive Node in the onsite > Blade shelf. > Live databases on tier 1 storage in the Data Centre > Passive databases on tier 2 (or3) storage on site. > > My reasoning is - > > Exchange will be on a physical server. The high specs of the BL680c are > required as the design has a single back-end server. > Exchange 2007 and Server 2008 which will be running on the blade is > fully 64-bit compliant and can make use of the RAM and processors much. > Licencing costs will be reduced. > CCR will provide automatic failover in event of a failure of data centre > or nectwork connectivity. > > Cheers > > Brian > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Robinson, Chuck [mailto:chuck.robin...@emc.com] > Sent: Friday, 13 March 2009 7:11 AM > To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues > Subject: RE: Virtual vs Physical for E2K7 Mailbox Server > > Virtualized Scenario : > In a failover situation, you would be hosting all 12000 users on 2 > virtual servers running on 1 physical host. > If utilizing CCR, that would assume you are running the two CCR passive > nodes on the remaining physical server as well. > > There is a lot more information to consider when sizing MBX servers, > however my initial calculations says you are going to be over utilized. > > In a virtual environment, consider N+1 when planning capacity. > > > Chuck Robinson > _______________ > Solutions Architect > MCSE: Messaging > EMC Consulting > Phone: 732-321-3644 | Mobile: 973-865-0394 chuck.robin...@emc.com > www.emc.com/consulting > > Transforming Information Into Business Results > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Brian Dwyer [mailto:bdw...@bne.catholic.edu.au] > Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2009 4:53 PM > To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues > Subject: RE: Virtual vs Physical for E2K7 Mailbox Server > > 12000 mailboxes, 14 DB all around 100gb each currently running E2K3 2 x > FE 3 xBE - 70% of clients connect via OWA NetApps storage tier1 > allocated to Exchange Storage and Servers located in DataCentre - with > second storage unit located on-site -opportunity to CCR passive node and > DB's - have had 2 instances of loss of connectivity to data centre due > to connection failure which results in loss of email. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Michael B. Smith [mailto:mich...@theessentialexchange.com] > Sent: Thursday, 12 March 2009 10:19 PM > To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues > Subject: RE: Virtual vs Physical for E2K7 Mailbox Server > > How many mailboxes? What's the storage backend? How big are the stores? > What's the front-end look like? > > -----Original Message----- > From: Brian Dwyer [mailto:bdw...@bne.catholic.edu.au] > Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2009 1:30 AM > To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues > Subject: Virtual vs Physical for E2K7 Mailbox Server > > > I have 2 x HP BL680 G5 E7450 2P 8G Servers to use as either - > > Clustered mailbox server using CCR > > or configure as > > ESX virtual hosts to support virtual mail box server/s > > Looking for a recommendation on which way to go....... > > > thanks in advance > > Brian > > > -- > This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by the > BCEC Security Gateway, and is believed to be clean. Brisbane Catholic > Education however gives no warranties that this e-mail is free from > computer viruses or other defects. Except for responsibilities implied > by law that cannot be excluded, Brisbane Catholic Education, its > employees and agents will not be responsible for any loss, damage or > consequence arising from this e-mail. > > > ~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~ > ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja ~ > > > > ~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~ > ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja ~ > > -- > This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by the > BCEC Security Gateway, and is believed to be clean. Brisbane Catholic > Education however gives no warranties that this e-mail is free from > computer viruses or other defects. Except for responsibilities implied > by law that cannot be excluded, Brisbane Catholic Education, its > employees and agents will not be responsible for any loss, damage or > consequence arising from this e-mail. > > > ~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~ > ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja ~ > > > > ~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~ > ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja ~ > > > -- > This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by the BCEC > Security Gateway, and is believed to be clean. Brisbane Catholic Education > however gives no warranties that this e-mail is free from computer viruses > or other defects. Except for responsibilities implied by law that cannot be > excluded, Brisbane Catholic Education, its employees and agents will not be > responsible for any loss, damage or consequence arising from this e-mail. > > > ~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~ > ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja ~ > > -- Sent from my mobile device ~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja ~
