Re: Virtual vs Physical for E2K7 Mailbox Server
My thoughts with a single mailbox server for 12k users would be port exhaustion ( http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc540453.aspx#TCPProtoConn) and MS's guidance that the maximum number of cores that can efficiently be used by the mailbox role is 8 and 32GB for memory. Throwing a 16 core/64GB will not efficiently scale, but carving that physical hardware into a few VMs would make efficient use of the beefy servers. -alex On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 4:40 PM, Brian Dwyer bdw...@bne.catholic.edu.auwrote: 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
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~
RE: Virtual vs Physical for E2K7 Mailbox Server
The clue is that they probably spent a whole wedge of cash on the ESX host to support the number of mailbox servers they had running. Money that could have been equally well spent on *gasp *physical servers! My colleague has just been to VMworld and told me that they'd virtualised all their MBX servers, but I'm not too sure what the config of a) the host and b) the guest OSes. I'll try and find out. Richard PS - I'm a big fan of not virtualising for the sake of virtualsing. -Original Message- From: bounce-8455945-8066...@lyris.sunbelt-software.com [mailto:bounce-8455945-8066...@lyris.sunbelt-software.com] On Behalf Of Campbell, Rob Sent: 12 March 2009 12:35 To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Virtual vs Physical for E2K7 Mailbox Server I remember an article from VMware about how they had set up Exchange 2007 in a totally virtual environment. They had several thousand mailboxes, and while the mailbox were all being served from the same ESX host, they had multiple mailbox servers installed on that host and no more that a couple thousand mailboxes per server. I think there's a clue there somewhere.. -Original Message- From: Michael B. Smith [mailto:mich...@theessentialexchange.com] Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2009 7:19 AM 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~ ** Note: The information contained in this message may be privileged and confidential and protected from disclosure. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or an employee or agent responsible for delivering this message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the message and deleting it from your computer. ** ~ 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~
RE: Virtual vs Physical for E2K7 Mailbox Server
I think you might have been better off cost-wise with a single dedicated physical server with all the mailboxes on it by the time you factored in all the Exchange server licenses you'd have to buy to do it the way they had it set up. -Original Message- From: Sobey, Richard A [mailto:r.so...@imperial.ac.uk] Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2009 8:00 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Virtual vs Physical for E2K7 Mailbox Server The clue is that they probably spent a whole wedge of cash on the ESX host to support the number of mailbox servers they had running. Money that could have been equally well spent on *gasp *physical servers! My colleague has just been to VMworld and told me that they'd virtualised all their MBX servers, but I'm not too sure what the config of a) the host and b) the guest OSes. I'll try and find out. Richard PS - I'm a big fan of not virtualising for the sake of virtualsing. -Original Message- From: bounce-8455945-8066...@lyris.sunbelt-software.com [mailto:bounce-8455945-8066...@lyris.sunbelt-software.com] On Behalf Of Campbell, Rob Sent: 12 March 2009 12:35 To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Virtual vs Physical for E2K7 Mailbox Server I remember an article from VMware about how they had set up Exchange 2007 in a totally virtual environment. They had several thousand mailboxes, and while the mailbox were all being served from the same ESX host, they had multiple mailbox servers installed on that host and no more that a couple thousand mailboxes per server. I think there's a clue there somewhere.. -Original Message- From: Michael B. Smith [mailto:mich...@theessentialexchange.com] Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2009 7:19 AM 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~ ** Note: The information contained in this message may be privileged and confidential and protected from disclosure. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or an employee or agent responsible for delivering this message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the message and deleting it from your computer. ** ~ 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~ ** Note: The information contained in this message may be privileged and confidential and protected from disclosure. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or an employee or agent responsible for delivering this message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the message and deleting it from your computer. ** ~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com
RE: Virtual vs Physical for E2K7 Mailbox Server
It's all in the storage the network infrastructure. S -Original Message- From: Sobey, Richard A [mailto:r.so...@imperial.ac.uk] Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2009 10:00 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Virtual vs Physical for E2K7 Mailbox Server The clue is that they probably spent a whole wedge of cash on the ESX host to support the number of mailbox servers they had running. Money that could have been equally well spent on *gasp *physical servers! My colleague has just been to VMworld and told me that they'd virtualised all their MBX servers, but I'm not too sure what the config of a) the host and b) the guest OSes. I'll try and find out. Richard PS - I'm a big fan of not virtualising for the sake of virtualsing. -Original Message- From: bounce-8455945-8066...@lyris.sunbelt-software.com [mailto:bounce-8455945-8066...@lyris.sunbelt-software.com] On Behalf Of Campbell, Rob Sent: 12 March 2009 12:35 To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Virtual vs Physical for E2K7 Mailbox Server I remember an article from VMware about how they had set up Exchange 2007 in a totally virtual environment. They had several thousand mailboxes, and while the mailbox were all being served from the same ESX host, they had multiple mailbox servers installed on that host and no more that a couple thousand mailboxes per server. I think there's a clue there somewhere.. -Original Message- From: Michael B. Smith [mailto:mich...@theessentialexchange.com] Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2009 7:19 AM 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~ ** Note: The information contained in this message may be privileged and confidential and protected from disclosure. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or an employee or agent responsible for delivering this message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the message and deleting it from your computer. ** ~ 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~ ~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~
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~
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~
Re: Virtual vs Physical for E2K7 Mailbox Server
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
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~
