| Author | Messages | |
jmedeiros@xxxx.yyy
 | | 10/27/2005 10:43 AM |
| 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 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: ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Tony Murray
Sent: Thursday, October 27, 2005 2:49 PM
To: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
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/ | | | |
| bdesmond
Posts:374
| | 10/27/2005 10:52 AM |
| 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 to the guests. Obviously there is more of a hit here. If done
correctly, this situation can be implemented well.
Thanks,
Brian Desmond
brian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
c - 312.731.3132
-----Original Message-----
From: ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Medeiros, Jose
Sent: Thursday, October 27, 2005 6:40 PM
To: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; exchangelist@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: # Jose Medeiros-IBM (E-mail)
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 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: ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Tony Murray
Sent: Thursday, October 27, 2005 2:49 PM
To: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
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/ | | | |
| sbradcpa
Posts:320
| | 10/27/2005 10:54 AM |
| 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 this -- http://msmvps.com/bradley/archive/2005/10/25/72869.aspx
In the wake of Katrina, Rita, Wilma...think about it.....
We have a few SBSers that are Vserver'ing a TS box under a SBS on beefy
hardware.
Honestly I had more issues with MSDE instances sucking up and not
letting go than I did with Exchange. I'm not worried about Exchange on
my DC. If I get any more apps asking to put an MSDE instance on my
server, Brett's Jet's databases will be outnumbered. IMHO MSDE is the
'suckage' I'm worried about.
Medeiros, Jose wrote:
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 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: ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Tony Murray
Sent: Thursday, October 27, 2005 2:49 PM
To: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
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/
--
Letting your vendors set your risk analysis these days?
http://www.threatcode.com
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/ | | | |
| bdesmond
Posts:374
| | 10/27/2005 11:05 AM |
| Problem with SBS and VM is that you have a 4GB ram cap and however you
chosoe to split that, it doesn't leave a lot for either box.
Thanks,
Brian Desmond
brian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
c - 312.731.3132
-----Original Message-----
From: ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Susan Bradley, CPA
aka Ebitz - SBS Rocks [MVP]
Sent: Thursday, October 27, 2005 6:52 PM
To: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: exchangelist@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; # Jose Medeiros-IBM (E-mail)
Subject: Re: [ActiveDir] Exchange now supported on virtual hardware
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 this -- http://msmvps.com/bradley/archive/2005/10/25/72869.aspx
In the wake of Katrina, Rita, Wilma...think about it.....
We have a few SBSers that are Vserver'ing a TS box under a SBS on beefy
hardware.
Honestly I had more issues with MSDE instances sucking up and not
letting go than I did with Exchange. I'm not worried about Exchange on
my DC. If I get any more apps asking to put an MSDE instance on my
server, Brett's Jet's databases will be outnumbered. IMHO MSDE is the
'suckage' I'm worried about.
Medeiros, Jose wrote:
> 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 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: ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Tony Murray
> Sent: Thursday, October 27, 2005 2:49 PM
> To: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> 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/
>
>
--
Letting your vendors set your risk analysis these days?
http://www.threatcode.com
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/ | | | |
| jmedeiros@xxxx.yyy
| | 10/27/2005 11:16 AM |
| Hmm.. I agree with it be used for testing purposes in VMWARE or in Virtual server, but not in a I/O intensive enviroment where you have several hundred users.
Sincerely,
Jose Medeiros
ADP | National Account Services
ProBusiness Division | Information Services
925.737.7967 | 408-449-6621 CELL
-----Original Message-----
From: ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Susan Bradley,
CPA aka Ebitz - SBS Rocks [MVP]
Sent: Thursday, October 27, 2005 3:52 PM
To: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: exchangelist@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; # Jose Medeiros-IBM (E-mail)
Subject: Re: [ActiveDir] Exchange now supported on virtual hardware
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 this -- http://msmvps.com/bradley/archive/2005/10/25/72869.aspx
In the wake of Katrina, Rita, Wilma...think about it.....
We have a few SBSers that are Vserver'ing a TS box under a SBS on beefy
hardware.
Honestly I had more issues with MSDE instances sucking up and not
letting go than I did with Exchange. I'm not worried about Exchange on
my DC. If I get any more apps asking to put an MSDE instance on my
server, Brett's Jet's databases will be outnumbered. IMHO MSDE is the
'suckage' I'm worried about.
Medeiros, Jose wrote:
> 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 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: ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Tony Murray
> Sent: Thursday, October 27, 2005 2:49 PM
> To: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> 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/
>
>
--
Letting your vendors set your risk analysis these days?
http://www.threatcode.com
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/ | | | |
| TonyTest
Posts:0
| | 10/27/2005 11:24 AM |
| 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 hardware for branch
offices if they can help it. If the branch office has a requirement
for both a local DC and an Exchange server then running two virtual
servers on one physical machine could save them some money.
Tony
-----Original Message-----
From: ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Medeiros, Jose
Sent: Friday, 28 October 2005 11:40 a.m.
To: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; exchangelist@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: # Jose Medeiros-IBM (E-mail)
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 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: ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Tony Murray
Sent: Thursday, October 27, 2005 2:49 PM
To: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
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/
########################################################################
#####
This communication, including any attachments, is confidential.
If you are not the intended recipient, you should not read it -
please contact me immediately, destroy it, and do not copy or
use any part of this communication or disclose anything about it.
Thank You.
Please note that this communication does not designate an information
system
for the purposes of the NZ Electronic Transactions Act 2002.
This email has been scanned for Viruses and Content
and cleared by NetIQ MailMarshal at Gen-i.
########################################################################
#####
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/ | | | |
| AD00000804
Posts:0
| | 10/28/2005 1:55 AM |
| 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 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: ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On
Behalf Of Tony Murray
Sent: Thursday, October 27, 2005 2:49 PM
To: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
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/ | | | |
| hcoleman
Posts:29
| | 10/28/2005 2:37 AM |
| "It depends..."
We're running some production Exchange front-end servers on
ESX and they perform as well as others that we have on physical hardware.
Connector servers are also good candidates. Heavily loaded mailbox servers...I
agree with you there.
Hunter
From: ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
chuckgaff@xxxxxxxSent: Friday, October 28, 2005 7:53
AMTo: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
exchangelist@xxxxxxxxxxxxxCc: medeiros@xxxxxxxxSubject:
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
To: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
exchangelist@xxxxxxxxxxxxxCc: # Jose Medeiros-IBM (E-mail)
Sent: Thu, 27 Oct 2005 15:39:35 -0700Subject:
[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 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: ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On
Behalf Of Tony Murray
Sent: Thursday, October 27, 2005 2:49 PM
To: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
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/ | | | |
| AD000001335
Posts:0
| | 10/28/2005 3:23 AM |
| Or in a consolidation scenario where you're bringing
together a bunch of decentralized smaller servers into a datacenter for a
migration to a centralized organization.
Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVPFreelance E-Mail
PhilosopherProtecting the world from PSTs and Bricked
Backups!„¢
From: ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Coleman,
HunterSent: Friday, October 28, 2005 7:35 AMTo:
ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxSubject: RE: [ActiveDir] Exchange now
supported on virtual hardware
"It depends..."
We're running some production Exchange front-end servers on
ESX and they perform as well as others that we have on physical hardware.
Connector servers are also good candidates. Heavily loaded mailbox servers...I
agree with you there.
Hunter
From: ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
chuckgaff@xxxxxxxSent: Friday, October 28, 2005 7:53
AMTo: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
exchangelist@xxxxxxxxxxxxxCc: medeiros@xxxxxxxxSubject:
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
To: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
exchangelist@xxxxxxxxxxxxxCc: # Jose Medeiros-IBM (E-mail)
Sent: Thu, 27 Oct 2005 15:39:35 -0700Subject:
[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 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: ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On
Behalf Of Tony Murray
Sent: Thursday, October 27, 2005 2:49 PM
To: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
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/ | | | |
| AD00000804
Posts:0
| | 10/28/2005 4:19 AM |
| What's your sizing of mail stores and mailboxes there --
Chuck
-----Original Message-----From: Coleman, Hunter To: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxSent: Fri, 28 Oct 2005 08:35:27 -0600Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Exchange now supported on virtual hardware
"It depends..."
We're running some production Exchange front-end servers on ESX and they perform as well as others that we have on physical hardware. Connector servers are also good candidates. Heavily loaded mailbox servers...I agree with you there.
Hunter
From: ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of chuckgaff@xxxxxxxSent: Friday, October 28, 2005 7:53 AMTo: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; exchangelist@xxxxxxxxxxxxxCc: medeiros@xxxxxxxxSubject: 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 To: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; exchangelist@xxxxxxxxxxxxxCc: # Jose Medeiros-IBM (E-mail) Sent: Thu, 27 Oct 2005 15:39:35 -0700Subject: [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 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: ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On
Behalf Of Tony Murray
Sent: Thursday, October 27, 2005 2:49 PM
To: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
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/ | | | |
| hcoleman
Posts:29
| | 10/28/2005 4:52 AM |
| Typically 20GB and 800 users per store, with 3 stores per
server.
From: ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
chuckgaff@xxxxxxxSent: Friday, October 28, 2005 10:17
AMTo: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxSubject: Re: [ActiveDir]
Exchange now supported on virtual hardware
What's your sizing of mail stores and mailboxes there --
Chuck
-----Original Message-----From: Coleman, Hunter
To: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxSent: Fri, 28 Oct
2005 08:35:27 -0600Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Exchange now supported on
virtual hardware
"It depends..."
We're running some production Exchange front-end servers on
ESX and they perform as well as others that we have on physical hardware.
Connector servers are also good candidates. Heavily loaded mailbox servers...I
agree with you there.
Hunter
From: ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
chuckgaff@xxxxxxxSent: Friday, October 28, 2005 7:53
AMTo: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
exchangelist@xxxxxxxxxxxxxCc: medeiros@xxxxxxxxSubject:
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
To: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
exchangelist@xxxxxxxxxxxxxCc: # Jose Medeiros-IBM (E-mail)
Sent: Thu, 27 Oct 2005 15:39:35 -0700Subject:
[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 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: ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On
Behalf Of Tony Murray
Sent: Thursday, October 27, 2005 2:49 PM
To: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
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/ | | | |
| AD00000804
Posts:0
| | 10/28/2005 6:32 AM |
| Good thought on the consolidation scenario -- I can see a few more places
where it might be helpful.
Chuck | | | |
| jmedeiros@xxxx.yyy
| | 10/28/2005 9:30 AM |
| 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: ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of chuckgaff@xxxxxxx
Sent: Friday, October 28, 2005 6:53 AM
To: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; exchangelist@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: medeiros@xxxxxxxx
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
To: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; exchangelist@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: # Jose Medeiros-IBM (E-mail)
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: ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On
Behalf Of Tony Murray
Sent: Thursday, October 27, 2005 2:49 PM
To: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
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/ | | | |
| bdesmond
Posts:374
| | 10/28/2005 10:51 AM |
| I disagree. Exchange on ESX can work out quite well in certain situations...
Thanks,
Brian Desmond
brian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
c - 312.731.3132
-----Original Message-----
From: ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Medeiros, Jose
Sent: Friday, October 28, 2005 5:29 PM
To: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; exchangelist@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: medeiros@xxxxxxxx
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: ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of chuckgaff@xxxxxxx
Sent: Friday, October 28, 2005 6:53 AM
To: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; exchangelist@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: medeiros@xxxxxxxx
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
To: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; exchangelist@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: # Jose Medeiros-IBM (E-mail)
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: ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On
Behalf Of Tony Murray
Sent: Thursday, October 27, 2005 2:49 PM
To: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
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/ | | | |
| sbradcpa
Posts:320
| | 10/28/2005 12:49 PM |
| SBS :-)
Max 75. Average SBS install 20 - 30 seats.
Think little :-)
The point is a bit moot though.
Business owner says to SBS consultant "You want me to buy Vserver AND
Windows 2003 AND SBS?"
Probably not a realistic sale :-)
Medeiros, Jose wrote:
Hmm.. I agree with it be used for testing purposes in VMWARE or in Virtual server, but not in a I/O intensive enviroment where you have several hundred users.
Sincerely,
Jose Medeiros
ADP | National Account Services
ProBusiness Division | Information Services
925.737.7967 | 408-449-6621 CELL
-----Original Message-----
From: ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Susan Bradley,
CPA aka Ebitz - SBS Rocks [MVP]
Sent: Thursday, October 27, 2005 3:52 PM
To: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: exchangelist@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; # Jose Medeiros-IBM (E-mail)
Subject: Re: [ActiveDir] Exchange now supported on virtual hardware
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 this -- http://msmvps.com/bradley/archive/2005/10/25/72869.aspx
In the wake of Katrina, Rita, Wilma...think about it.....
We have a few SBSers that are Vserver'ing a TS box under a SBS on beefy
hardware.
Honestly I had more issues with MSDE instances sucking up and not
letting go than I did with Exchange. I'm not worried about Exchange on
my DC. If I get any more apps asking to put an MSDE instance on my
server, Brett's Jet's databases will be outnumbered. IMHO MSDE is the
'suckage' I'm worried about.
Medeiros, Jose wrote:
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 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: ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Tony Murray
Sent: Thursday, October 27, 2005 2:49 PM
To: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
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/
--
Letting your vendors set your risk analysis these days?
http://www.threatcode.com
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/ | | | |
| deji
Posts:140
| | 10/29/2005 9:34 AM |
| Chuck,
you have a performance metrics that bear this out?
Sincerely,
Dèjì Akómöláfé, MCSE+M MCSA+M MCP+I
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: ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx on behalf of chuckgaff@xxxxxxx
Sent: Sat 10/29/2005 5:40 AM
To: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [ActiveDir] Exchange now supported on virtual hardware
It's possible on ESX but I'm still inclined to recommend not virtualizing
Exchange. I think it's terrific with a good SAN on a Windows 2003 cluster
and with high-end server hardware. Again, for testing and development,
that's fine. Maybe I'm old school but that's where I'm at - I don't
personally think the technology is quite as ready for prime time yet to
entrust enterprise messaging systems on it --
Chuck
-----Original Message-----
From: Brian Desmond
To: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Fri, 28 Oct 2005 18:48:48 -0400
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
brian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
c - 312.731.3132
-----Original Message-----
From: ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
] On Behalf Of Medeiros, Jose
Sent: Friday, October 28, 2005 5:29 PM
To: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ;
exchangelist@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: medeiros@xxxxxxxx
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: ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On
Behalf Of
chuckgaff@xxxxxxx
Sent: Friday, October 28, 2005 6:53 AM
To: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ;
exchangelist@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: medeiros@xxxxxxxx
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 >
To: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ;
exchangelist@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: # Jose Medeiros-IBM (E-mail) >
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: ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On
Behalf Of Tony Murray
Sent: Thursday, October 27, 2005 2:49 PM
To: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
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/ | | | |
| AD00000804
Posts:0
| | 10/29/2005 12:43 PM |
| It's possible on ESX but I'm still inclined to recommend not virtualizing Exchange. I think it's terrific with a good SAN on a Windows 2003 cluster and with high-end server hardware. Again, for testing and development, that's fine. Maybe I'm old school but that's where I'm at - I don't personally think the technology is quite as ready for prime time yet to entrust enterprise messaging systems on it --
Chuck -----Original Message-----From: Brian Desmond To: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxSent: Fri, 28 Oct 2005 18:48:48 -0400Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Exchange now supported on virtual hardware
I disagree. Exchange on ESX can work out quite well in certain situations...
Thanks,
Brian Desmond
brian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
c - 312.731.3132
-----Original Message-----
From: ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Medeiros, Jose
Sent: Friday, October 28, 2005 5:29 PM
To: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; exchangelist@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: medeiros@xxxxxxxx
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: ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of chuckgaff@xxxxxxx
Sent: Friday, October 28, 2005 6:53 AM
To: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; exchangelist@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: medeiros@xxxxxxxx
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
To: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; exchangelist@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: # Jose Medeiros-IBM (E-mail)
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: ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On
Behalf Of Tony Murray
Sent: Thursday, October 27, 2005 2:49 PM
To: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
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/ | | | |
| AD000001319
Posts:0
| | 10/30/2005 4:56 AM |
| 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: ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Brian Desmond
> Sent: Friday, October 28, 2005 6:49 PM
> To: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> 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
> brian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> c - 312.731.3132
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
> Medeiros, Jose
> Sent: Friday, October 28, 2005 5:29 PM
> To: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; exchangelist@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Cc: medeiros@xxxxxxxx
> 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: ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of
> chuckgaff@xxxxxxx
> Sent: Friday, October 28, 2005 6:53 AM
> To: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; exchangelist@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Cc: medeiros@xxxxxxxx
> 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
> To: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; exchangelist@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Cc: # Jose Medeiros-IBM (E-mail)
> 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: ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On
> Behalf Of Tony Murray
> Sent: Thursday, October 27, 2005 2:49 PM
> To: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> 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/ | | | |
| deji
Posts:140
| | 10/30/2005 5:27 AM |
| >>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: ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx on behalf of Presley, Steven
Sent: Sun 10/30/2005 8:51 AM
To: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
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: ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Brian Desmond
> Sent: Friday, October 28, 2005 6:49 PM
> To: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> 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
> brian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> c - 312.731.3132
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
> Medeiros, Jose
> Sent: Friday, October 28, 2005 5:29 PM
> To: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; exchangelist@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Cc: medeiros@xxxxxxxx
> 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: ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of
> chuckgaff@xxxxxxx
> Sent: Friday, October 28, 2005 6:53 AM
> To: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; exchangelist@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Cc: medeiros@xxxxxxxx
> 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
> To: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; exchangelist@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Cc: # Jose Medeiros-IBM (E-mail)
> 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: ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On
> Behalf Of Tony Murray
> Sent: Thursday, October 27, 2005 2:49 PM
> To: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> 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/ | | | |
| HanValk
Posts:2
| | 10/31/2005 1:15 AM |
| 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 1000 mailboxes
on a single vitualized Exchange Server 2003.
Han.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
> Medeiros, Jose
> Sent: Friday, October 28, 2005 00:40
> To: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; exchangelist@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Cc: # Jose Medeiros-IBM (E-mail)
> 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 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: ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Tony Murray
> Sent: Thursday, October 27, 2005 2:49 PM
> To: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> 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/ | | | |
|
|