| Author | Messages | |
AD00000804
Posts:0
 | | 10/31/2005 1:27 AM |
| I could see virtualizing low-end Exchange systems such as FEs and Bridgehead servers as stated earlier. The higher end databases are the ones that I have a problem with at this point in time, but I'm sure that the technology will evolve to where this becomes possible for higher end databases.
It would be best in all cases to test a virtualized and non-virtualized option with production levels before proceding in a production environment.
Chuck Gafford
Systems Architect
Unisys
-----Original Message-----From: deji@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxTo: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxSent: Sun, 30 Oct 2005 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 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/ | | | |
| AD000001319
Posts:0
| | 10/31/2005 3:21 AM |
| Oh I agree...I'd be the first person to say that my position was a negative view of virtualization based on historical experiences. The problem really comes down to comfort in dealing with the technology and whether its supported or not. I think its obvious that I work for a company that is quite comfortable with the technology, but I personally (as things are now) am not comfortable in using virtualized hosts for database servers. For "expendable" services like FE servers or bridgehead servers...now that it is proven to work quite well after some tweaking I am more then willing to put them in that spot. I am not, however, ready to commit to putting my any one of my 650gb clustered mail servers on a virtualized host just yet. It's based less on a technological reason and more for a comfort reasons. Would it work with the current state of virtualization technology? Probably, but I am not ready to make that leap yet.
Some times what we have to go off is our experience until something motivates us to look at it again. When I looked at virtualizing my bridgehead servers at first it did not work well at all and I personally got VERY frustrated with it and was calling it a failure (which is what I expected due to past experience). But I was convinced by the folks who manage our VMWare stuff that they could get it to work and so we looked at it further and did some tweaks and now its working just right. I would not say that its a "no-no" by default, but I have to understand the technology, be comfortable with it if I am going to put my many terabytes of mail stores on it, and it HAS to be supported. When we put out BR and FE servers on VM it was still a grey area when it came to support and I suspect "officially" it still may be, but we have not had any problems so far when it comes to support.
If we had a support case and Microsoft would state that they could not help because its a VM...if its a bridgehead or FE server we can just turn it off or remove it with not harm done and then troubleshoot the problem (part of what makes these easy to virtualized is that they are expendable). This is not the same situation with a clustered mail store server. I think this is my main stumbling block with even considering a virtualized mail host the more I think of it. I am not comfortable, as things are today, with the level of support being offered for this type of setup.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
> deji@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Sent: Sunday, October 30, 2005 12:25 PM
> To: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: 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 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/
>
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/ | | | |
| FreddyHARTONO
Posts:19
| | 10/31/2005 3:45 AM |
| What about virtualizing DCs - say ESX farm with DCs - whats the downside and
things to watch out for?
Basically I've taken over support of DC for a company, but hardware specs
are in a mess - dell,compaqs,hp,ibm and now seems like some of them are even
on ESX farm.
Just like to know if I should get rid of these remote domain controllers and
buy a real server or leave things as it is and kill myself with the
different hardware bundles alltogether :)
Thank you and have a splendid day!
Kind Regards,
Freddy Hartono
Group Support Engineer
InternationalSOS Pte Ltd
mail: freddy.hartono@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
phone: (+65) 6330-9740 - temp
-----Original Message-----
From: ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Presley, Steven
Sent: Monday, October 31, 2005 11:18 AM
To: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Exchange now supported on virtual hardware
Oh I agree...I'd be the first person to say that my position was a negative
view of virtualization based on historical experiences. The problem really
comes down to comfort in dealing with the technology and whether its
supported or not. I think its obvious that I work for a company that is
quite comfortable with the technology, but I personally (as things are now)
am not comfortable in using virtualized hosts for database servers. For
"expendable" services like FE servers or bridgehead servers...now that it is
proven to work quite well after some tweaking I am more then willing to put
them in that spot. I am not, however, ready to commit to putting my any one
of my 650gb clustered mail servers on a virtualized host just yet. It's
based less on a technological reason and more for a comfort reasons. Would
it work with the current state of virtualization technology? Probably, but
I am not ready to make that leap yet.
Some times what we have to go off is our experience until something
motivates us to look at it again. When I looked at virtualizing my
bridgehead servers at first it did not work well at all and I personally got
VERY frustrated with it and was calling it a failure (which is what I
expected due to past experience). But I was convinced by the folks who
manage our VMWare stuff that they could get it to work and so we looked at
it further and did some tweaks and now its working just right. I would not
say that its a "no-no" by default, but I have to understand the technology,
be comfortable with it if I am going to put my many terabytes of mail stores
on it, and it HAS to be supported. When we put out BR and FE servers on VM
it was still a grey area when it came to support and I suspect "officially"
it still may be, but we have not had any problems so far when it comes to
support.
If we had a support case and Microsoft would state that they could not help
because its a VM...if its a bridgehead or FE server we can just turn it off
or remove it with not harm done and then troubleshoot the problem (part of
what makes these easy to virtualized is that they are expendable). This is
not the same situation with a clustered mail store server. I think this is
my main stumbling block with even considering a virtualized mail host the
more I think of it. I am not comfortable, as things are today, with the
level of support being offered for this type of setup.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
> deji@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Sent: Sunday, October 30, 2005 12:25 PM
> To: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: 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
> 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/
>
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/ | | | |
| listmail
Posts:463
| | 11/05/2005 3:49 AM |
| The biggest issue, IMO, with virtualizing DCs is possibility of rollback. It
is also a pretty cool strength if you are doing it on purpose and really
know what you are doing, think of a very cool forest recovery feature if you
can truly manage it properly. Mostly I would expect most places to mess up
the rollback so would recommend they avoid it like the plague.
Overall on whether you can something virtualized or not I think comes down
to the throughput necessary for the desired application (not as in program
but as in use). I read the don't put more than 1000 mailboxes on a VMWARE
server but there is no teeth behind that. What if there are 5000 mailboxes
but only 3% are active at any given moment? I expect that would be fine (I
would still test though). You can't give a good generic answer for the use
of Exchange or AD that goes across all companies for physical hardware, how
is anyong going to do it for virtual? It comes down to determining the
capacity you need and either testing to make sure you can provide that
capacity or being quick to respond when it becomes obvious you do not have
enough. 1000 BlackBerry users aren't the same as 1000 users using desktop
archiving/searching aren't the same as 1000 "normal" MAPI users aren't the
same as 1000 POP3 users, etc.... That is the case in the physical hardware
world as well as virtual.
Any large company or organization already does (or at least damn well
should) do load testing in a lab when designing the various cogs for their
email or AD (or ADAM) infrastructure. You don't make some calculations and
say that is it and throw it out into production. No it won't be perfect
because it is generally pretty difficult if not impossible to fully mimic
what the production load will be but you really need to give it best effort
based on what you have seen in the current system. If moving from some other
system to Exchange/AD obviously it will be very tough and then you simply
try to go off the best practices and be ready to accept that they aren't
correct for you. For instance the 4:1 Exchange to GC proc best practice, how
many items can you list in 60 seconds that it doesn't really take into
account. Probably quite a few, it isn't intended to be THE ANSWER. It is
intended to be a starting point, a dart tossed at the board so people can
move forward.
joe
-----Original Message-----
From: ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Freddy HARTONO
Sent: Sunday, October 30, 2005 10:44 PM
To: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Exchange now supported on virtual hardware
What about virtualizing DCs - say ESX farm with DCs - whats the downside and
things to watch out for?
Basically I've taken over support of DC for a company, but hardware specs
are in a mess - dell,compaqs,hp,ibm and now seems like some of them are even
on ESX farm.
Just like to know if I should get rid of these remote domain controllers and
buy a real server or leave things as it is and kill myself with the
different hardware bundles alltogether :)
Thank you and have a splendid day!
Kind Regards,
Freddy Hartono
Group Support Engineer
InternationalSOS Pte Ltd
mail: freddy.hartono@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
phone: (+65) 6330-9740 - temp
-----Original Message-----
From: ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Presley, Steven
Sent: Monday, October 31, 2005 11:18 AM
To: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Exchange now supported on virtual hardware
Oh I agree...I'd be the first person to say that my position was a negative
view of virtualization based on historical experiences. The problem really
comes down to comfort in dealing with the technology and whether its
supported or not. I think its obvious that I work for a company that is
quite comfortable with the technology, but I personally (as things are now)
am not comfortable in using virtualized hosts for database servers. For
"expendable" services like FE servers or bridgehead servers...now that it is
proven to work quite well after some tweaking I am more then willing to put
them in that spot. I am not, however, ready to commit to putting my any one
of my 650gb clustered mail servers on a virtualized host just yet. It's
based less on a technological reason and more for a comfort reasons. Would
it work with the current state of virtualization technology? Probably, but
I am not ready to make that leap yet.
Some times what we have to go off is our experience until something
motivates us to look at it again. When I looked at virtualizing my
bridgehead servers at first it did not work well at all and I personally got
VERY frustrated with it and was calling it a failure (which is what I
expected due to past experience). But I was convinced by the folks who
manage our VMWare stuff that they could get it to work and so we looked at
it further and did some tweaks and now its working just right. I would not
say that its a "no-no" by default, but I have to understand the technology,
be comfortable with it if I am going to put my many terabytes of mail stores
on it, and it HAS to be supported. When we put out BR and FE servers on VM
it was still a grey area when it came to support and I suspect "officially"
it still may be, but we have not had any problems so far when it comes to
support.
If we had a support case and Microsoft would state that they could not help
because its a VM...if its a bridgehead or FE server we can just turn it off
or remove it with not harm done and then troubleshoot the problem (part of
what makes these easy to virtualized is that they are expendable). This is
not the same situation with a clustered mail store server. I think this is
my main stumbling block with even considering a virtualized mail host the
more I think of it. I am not comfortable, as things are today, with the
level of support being offered for this type of setup.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
> deji@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Sent: Sunday, October 30, 2005 12:25 PM
> To: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: 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
> 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/
>
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/ | | | |
| MarcusOh
Posts:9
| | 11/07/2005 5:53 AM |
| So further on the concept of "rollback", since a virtual DC is now supported - are there any whitepapers or technical commentary on how to perform a successful rollback?
We use virtual DCs for one purpose - the capability to move them to the lab and build a domain. However, I'm really interested in this rollback concept now... :)
:m:dsm:cci:mvp marcusoh.blogspot.com
-----Original Message-----
From: ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of joe
Sent: Saturday, November 05, 2005 10:49 AM
To: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Exchange now supported on virtual hardware
The biggest issue, IMO, with virtualizing DCs is possibility of rollback. It
is also a pretty cool strength if you are doing it on purpose and really
know what you are doing, think of a very cool forest recovery feature if you
can truly manage it properly. Mostly I would expect most places to mess up
the rollback so would recommend they avoid it like the plague.
Overall on whether you can something virtualized or not I think comes down
to the throughput necessary for the desired application (not as in program
but as in use). I read the don't put more than 1000 mailboxes on a VMWARE
server but there is no teeth behind that. What if there are 5000 mailboxes
but only 3% are active at any given moment? I expect that would be fine (I
would still test though). You can't give a good generic answer for the use
of Exchange or AD that goes across all companies for physical hardware, how
is anyong going to do it for virtual? It comes down to determining the
capacity you need and either testing to make sure you can provide that
capacity or being quick to respond when it becomes obvious you do not have
enough. 1000 BlackBerry users aren't the same as 1000 users using desktop
archiving/searching aren't the same as 1000 "normal" MAPI users aren't the
same as 1000 POP3 users, etc.... That is the case in the physical hardware
world as well as virtual.
Any large company or organization already does (or at least damn well
should) do load testing in a lab when designing the various cogs for their
email or AD (or ADAM) infrastructure. You don't make some calculations and
say that is it and throw it out into production. No it won't be perfect
because it is generally pretty difficult if not impossible to fully mimic
what the production load will be but you really need to give it best effort
based on what you have seen in the current system. If moving from some other
system to Exchange/AD obviously it will be very tough and then you simply
try to go off the best practices and be ready to accept that they aren't
correct for you. For instance the 4:1 Exchange to GC proc best practice, how
many items can you list in 60 seconds that it doesn't really take into
account. Probably quite a few, it isn't intended to be THE ANSWER. It is
intended to be a starting point, a dart tossed at the board so people can
move forward.
joe
-----Original Message-----
From: ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Freddy HARTONO
Sent: Sunday, October 30, 2005 10:44 PM
To: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Exchange now supported on virtual hardware
What about virtualizing DCs - say ESX farm with DCs - whats the downside and
things to watch out for?
Basically I've taken over support of DC for a company, but hardware specs
are in a mess - dell,compaqs,hp,ibm and now seems like some of them are even
on ESX farm.
Just like to know if I should get rid of these remote domain controllers and
buy a real server or leave things as it is and kill myself with the
different hardware bundles alltogether :)
Thank you and have a splendid day!
Kind Regards,
Freddy Hartono
Group Support Engineer
InternationalSOS Pte Ltd
mail: freddy.hartono@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
phone: (+65) 6330-9740 - temp
-----Original Message-----
From: ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Presley, Steven
Sent: Monday, October 31, 2005 11:18 AM
To: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Exchange now supported on virtual hardware
Oh I agree...I'd be the first person to say that my position was a negative
view of virtualization based on historical experiences. The problem really
comes down to comfort in dealing with the technology and whether its
supported or not. I think its obvious that I work for a company that is
quite comfortable with the technology, but I personally (as things are now)
am not comfortable in using virtualized hosts for database servers. For
"expendable" services like FE servers or bridgehead servers...now that it is
proven to work quite well after some tweaking I am more then willing to put
them in that spot. I am not, however, ready to commit to putting my any one
of my 650gb clustered mail servers on a virtualized host just yet. It's
based less on a technological reason and more for a comfort reasons. Would
it work with the current state of virtualization technology? Probably, but
I am not ready to make that leap yet.
Some times what we have to go off is our experience until something
motivates us to look at it again. When I looked at virtualizing my
bridgehead servers at first it did not work well at all and I personally got
VERY frustrated with it and was calling it a failure (which is what I
expected due to past experience). But I was convinced by the folks who
manage our VMWare stuff that they could get it to work and so we looked at
it further and did some tweaks and now its working just right. I would not
say that its a "no-no" by default, but I have to understand the technology,
be comfortable with it if I am going to put my many terabytes of mail stores
on it, and it HAS to be supported. When we put out BR and FE servers on VM
it was still a grey area when it came to support and I suspect "officially"
it still may be, but we have not had any problems so far when it comes to
support.
If we had a support case and Microsoft would state that they could not help
because its a VM...if its a bridgehead or FE server we can just turn it off
or remove it with not harm done and then troubleshoot the problem (part of
what makes these easy to virtualized is that they are expendable). This is
not the same situation with a clustered mail store server. I think this is
my main stumbling block with even considering a virtualized mail host the
more I think of it. I am not comfortable, as things are today, with the
level of support being offered for this type of setup.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
> deji@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Sent: Sunday, October 30, 2005 12:25 PM
> To: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: 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
> 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/
>
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/ | | | |
| deppdm@xxxx.yyy
| | 11/10/2005 2:33 AM |
| Yes Exchange is a resource hog. If I run Exchange (virtualized) on it
own set of hardware? This should provide sufficient resources (assuming
you have high quality hardware) and also give you the benefits of
virtualization. Or consider running multiple Exchange servers on a
32-way machine. Each machine would have its own dedicated Disk
controllers (either SCSI or Fibre) Memory and CPU. If you need more/cpu
simply reconfigure the virtual machine. Granted this would be more for
large enterprises rather than SMBs but I would not simply dismiss the
idea.
Dennis
-----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/ | | | |
| HanValk
Posts:2
| | 11/14/2005 11:50 AM |
| We've performed tests with one VM (using ESX Server) with Exchange installed
on it. This VM had a blade all for itself. With this configuration we could
only host 1500 mailboxes and still have acceptable response times.
When we did the same tests on bare metal (same blade) we could host 4000
mailboxes. Vmware has a nice paper on virtualization of Exchange 2003 with
ESX Server.
Han.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
> Depp, Dennis M.
> Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2005 15:31
> To: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; exchangelist@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Cc: medeiros@xxxxxxxx
> 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
> you have high quality hardware) and also give you the benefits of
> virtualization. Or consider running multiple Exchange servers on a
> 32-way machine. Each machine would have its own dedicated Disk
> controllers (either SCSI or Fibre) Memory and CPU. If you
> need more/cpu
> simply reconfigure the virtual machine. Granted this would
> be more for
> large enterprises rather than SMBs but I would not simply dismiss the
> idea.
>
> Dennis
>
> -----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/ | | | |
|
|