l.activedir.org; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Exchange now supported on virtual hardware
>
> Yes Exchange is a resource hog. If I run Exchange (virtualized) on it
> own set of hardware? This should provide sufficient
> resources (assuming
> y
-
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
oard 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
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 fa
Sent: Monday, October 31, 2005 8:51 PM
To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org
Subject: Re: [ActiveDir] Exchange now supported on virtual hardware [okay so
now we're getting a bit OT]
You do realize that that is officially a "transition tool" that you should
use to transition 'to'
@mail.activedir.org
Subject: Re: [ActiveDir] Exchange now supported on virtual hardware [okay so
now we're REALLY OT]
The Pop connector also does not drop the email into the Exchange in a place
where the Exchange IMF filter will score it. Thus if anyone uses the POP
connector on SBS you lose the ability t
loyees. For the purpose of our discussion, we'll define a small
company as having less than 50 employees. According to
http://www.sba.gov/advo/stats/us_01ss.pdf,
this makes up approximately 50% of all employer firms.
M
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECT
- 312.731.3132
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brett Shirley
Sent: Tuesday, November 01, 2005 12:39 AM
To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org
Subject: Re: [ActiveDir] Exchange now supported on virtual hardware [okay so
now we're getting
han a larger one and I like the
idea of virtualization for these environments. It cuts down on some
of the datacenter clutter although it does increase my risks of
failure; it may cancel out if I can better watch a single machine's
environmentals vs. a room full of them.
from PSTs and Bricked Backups!(tm)
> >
> >-Original Message-
> >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Susan Bradley,
CPA
> >aka Ebitz - SBS Rocks [MVP]
> >Sent: Monday, October 31, 2005 5:29 PM
> >To: ActiveDir@mail.act
TECTED]
> >[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Susan Bradley, CPA
> >aka Ebitz - SBS Rocks [MVP]
> >Sent: Monday, October 31, 2005 5:29 PM
> >To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org
> >Subject: Re: [ActiveDir] Exchange now supported on virtual hardware
> >
> >I w
:29 PM
To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org
Subject: Re: [ActiveDir] Exchange now supported on virtual hardware
I would just like to point out that the person who has SBS Rocks as part of
her email address did not post that
I was thinking that though. :-)
Ed Crowley [MVP] wrote:
Less than 50 means S
- SBS Rocks [MVP]
Sent: Monday, October 31, 2005 5:29 PM
To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org
Subject: Re: [ActiveDir] Exchange now supported on virtual hardware
I would just like to point out that the person who has SBS Rocks as part of
her email address did not post that
I was thinking that
% of all employer firms.
M
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Al Mulnick
Sent: Monday, October 31, 2005 4:39 PM
To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org
Subject: Re: [ActiveDir] Exchange now supported on virtual hardware
Of course it's alway
er 31, 2005 4:44 PM
To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Exchange now supported on virtual hardware
A new FAQ was published on this topic yesterday:
http://blogs.technet.com/exchange/archive/2005/10/31/413382.aspx
I love the wording in this one.
***
Q: Do we support Exchange on
A new FAQ was published on this topic yesterday:
http://blogs.technet.com/exchange/archive/2005/10/31/413382.aspx
I love the wording in this one.
***
Q: Do we support Exchange on other virtualization platforms?
A: Microsoft has a general support policy for running Microsoft software
in non-Micr
onday, October 31, 2005 1:45 PM
To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Exchange now supported on virtual hardware
>From a book proposal I wrote:
According to the United States Small Business Administration (the US SBA, at
http://www.sba.gov/advo/stats/arsbfaq.txt), small firms:
It may make sense for smaller environments - I'm usually dealing with
the 1000 user-plus environments on most occasions. In everything testing
is key.
Thanks for the good points,
Chuck Gafford
Systems Architect
Unisys
all employer firms.
M
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Al Mulnick
Sent: Monday, October 31, 2005 4:39 PM
To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org
Subject: Re: [ActiveDir] Exchange now supported on virtual hardware
Of course it's always best, bu
el out if I can better watch a
single machine's environmentals vs. a room full of them.
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org
To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org
Subject: Re: [ActiveDir] Exchange now supported on virtual hardware
Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2005 08:21:24 -0500
05 09:25:09 -0800Subject: 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 exch
Hi,
I have seen tests conducted with loadsim on Exchange Server 2003 running on
bare metal and on Vmware ESX Server 2003 running on the same hardware. The
conclusion was that one can host a lot more mailboxes on bare metal. There's
a white paper on Vmware's site that says not to host more than 100
ECTED]
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
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: S
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
e-
> 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 qui
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sat 10/29/2005 5:40 AM
To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org
Subject: Re: [ActiveDir] Exchange now supported on virtual hardware
It's possible on ESX but I'm still inclined to recommend not virtualizing
Exc
alf 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 Servic
: 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
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 n
Good thought on the consolidation scenario -- I can see a few more places
where it might be helpful.
Chuck
Typically 20GB and 800 users per store, with 3 stores per
server.
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Friday, October 28, 2005 10:17
AMTo: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.orgSubject: Re: [ActiveDir]
Exchange now supported on virtual hardware
What's your sizing of mail stores and mailboxes there --
Chuck
-Original Message-From: Coleman, Hunter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.orgSent: Fri, 28 Oct 2005 08:35:27 -0600Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Exchange now supported on virtual hardware
"It dep
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Coleman,
HunterSent: Friday, October 28, 2005 7:35 AMTo:
ActiveDir@mail.activedir.orgSubject: RE: [ActiveDir] Exchange now
supported on virtual hardware
"It depends..."
We're running some production Exchange front-end
EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Friday, October 28, 2005 7:53
AMTo: 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 -- Exchan
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 PRO
-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Susan Bradley,
CPA aka Ebitz - SBS Rocks [MVP]
Sent: Thursday, October 27, 2005 3:52 PM
To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; # Jose Medeiros-IBM (E-mail)
Subject: Re: [ActiveDir] Exchange now supported on virtua
Hi Jose
You're absolutely right about the need for careful capacity planning
when looking to go down this route.
SBS is fine for certain environments. A branch office deployment could
be an example of where virtualisation might be appropriate.
Organisations don't typically want to double up on h
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Susan Bradley,
CPA aka Ebitz - SBS Rocks [MVP]
Sent: Thursday, October 27, 2005 3:52 PM
To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; # Jose Medeiros-IBM (E-mail)
Subject: Re: [ActiveDir] Exchange now
Susan Bradley, CPA
aka Ebitz - SBS Rocks [MVP]
Sent: Thursday, October 27, 2005 6:52 PM
To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; # Jose Medeiros-IBM (E-mail)
Subject: Re: [ActiveDir] Exchange now supported on virtual hardware
Ultimate bare metal restore capability on any hardware comes to
Ultimate bare metal restore capability on any hardware comes to mind :-)
Ultimate Patch rollback.
Supported imaging of a SBS/DC? :-) While we don't have UNC rollback
issues because of our single DC, the threat of getting that box back
online as soon as you can for a small firm.
Read thi
Depends how you present the storage. Using the term VMWare here is a poor
generalization. With ESX you can present raw LUNs straight off the SAN to
VMs. With GSX/Virtual Server you can still do this, but you have to go
through the abstraction layer that GSX/Virtual Server has to present OS
storage
42 matches
Mail list logo
