| Author | Messages | |
jdmanley
Posts:70
 | | 12/09/2008 2:43 AM |
| Database portability has been around since 2003, no? (or even 2000?) Anyway, thank you for the responses. I managed to find a Technet article which actually addresses this scenario. It is supported (although you should disable VM migration features - such as vmotion/quick migration - on the hosts to avoid potential data loss), even in a mixed physical/virtual environment. Still not sure whether to go down this route, but good to know we could get support...
FWIW: Pasted from http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc794548.aspx
Both CCR and SCC are supported in hardware virtualization environments provided that the virtualization environment does not employ clustered virtualization servers.
...
It is supported to deploy CCR or SCC using a combination of physical nodes and virtual nodes. As with all Exchange high availability configurations, you must ensure that all nodes are sized appropriately to handle the full workload during scheduled or unscheduled outages.
...
We do not recommend using hypervisor-based virtual machine migration (such as Hyper-V's quick migration) for virtualized Exchange servers. In a virtual machine migration configuration, an unscheduled outage can result in data loss.
-----Original Message-----
From: ActiveDir-owner@mail.activedir.org [mailto:ActiveDir-owner@mail.activedir.org] On Behalf Of Brian Desmond
Sent: Monday, December 08, 2008 8:25 PM
To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] virtualized Passive-node (SCC) clusters supported by MS in Win2k8?
Not sure I see how database portability has anything to do with this scenario?
Thanks,
Brian Desmond
brian@briandesmond.com
c - 312.731.3132
-----Original Message-----
From: ActiveDir-owner@mail.activedir.org [mailto:ActiveDir-owner@mail.activedir.org] On Behalf Of Akomolafe, Deji
Sent: Monday, December 08, 2008 8:39 PM
To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] virtualized Passive-node (SCC) clusters supported by MS in Win2k8?
Not a good idea, granted. But "database portability" was invented in E2K7 to address this specific concern.
Sincerely,
_____
(, / | /) /) /)
/---| (/_ ______ ___// _ // _
) / |_/(__(_) // (_(_)(/_(_(_/(__(/_
(_/ /)
(/
Microsoft MVP - Directory Services
www.akomolafe.name - we know IT
-5.75, -3.23
Do you now realize that Today is the Tomorrow you were worried about Yesterday? -anon
________________________________________
From: ActiveDir-owner@mail.activedir.org [ActiveDir-owner@mail.activedir.org] On Behalf Of Brian Desmond [brian@briandesmond.com]
Sent: Monday, December 08, 2008 6:33 PM
To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] virtualized Passive-node (SCC) clusters supported by MS in Win2k8?
Having separate hardware platforms in a cluster isn't usually a good idea. I see the logic in this design, still not sure I'd go for it.
Thanks,
Brian Desmond
brian@briandesmond.com
c - 312.731.3132
-----Original Message-----
From: ActiveDir-owner@mail.activedir.org [mailto:ActiveDir-owner@mail.activedir.org] On Behalf Of Akomolafe, Deji
Sent: Monday, December 08, 2008 7:30 PM
To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] virtualized Passive-node (SCC) clusters supported by MS in Win2k8?
Considering the fact that vitualizing E2K7 is "supported" by MS, I think it'd be hard for them to not support your envisioned deployement scenario. You might want to ask your TAM (if you have one), but my money is on the side of the coin that says they will say "yes".
Sincerely,
_____
(, / | /) /) /)
/---| (/_ ______ ___// _ // _
) / |_/(__(_) // (_(_)(/_(_(_/(__(/_
(_/ /)
(/
Microsoft MVP - Directory Services
www.akomolafe.name - we know IT
-5.75, -3.23
Do you now realize that Today is the Tomorrow you were worried about Yesterday? -anon
________________________________________
From: ActiveDir-owner@mail.activedir.org [ActiveDir-owner@mail.activedir.org] On Behalf Of John Manley [john.manley@avanade.com]
Sent: Monday, December 08, 2008 5:19 PM
To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] virtualized Passive-node (SCC) clusters supported by MS in Win2k8?
Thanks for responding Deji. We're using SnapMirror for off-site replication (in place of SCR). For the three-node SCC (not CCR) cluster configuration it would be Active/Active/Passive, with the Passive being the VM (on a beefy DL580 - plenty of resources for failover), an N+1 configuration. I realize MS likes to push CCR now in scenarios like this, but the storage overhead isn't acceptable in this case.
Anyway, I was mainly trying to figure out if a virtualized cluster node would be supported by MS. Anyone know by chance?
-----Original Message-----
From: ActiveDir-owner@mail.activedir.org [mailto:ActiveDir-owner@mail.activedir.org] On Behalf Of Akomolafe, Deji
Sent: Monday, December 08, 2008 4:27 PM
To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] virtualized Passive-node (SCC) clusters supported by MS in Win2k8?
Now that I re-read your question, I suspect that you are looking to do a 2-node SCC with a third server serving as SCR target for the nodes. If you were wondering whether or not this 3rd "node" could be virtualized, then the anser is "yes". You don't have a lot of HAL affinity in Exchange clustering anymore, so the servers don't all have to "look" the same anymore.
Sincerely,
_____
(, / | /) /) /)
/---| (/_ ______ ___// _ // _
) / |_/(__(_) // (_(_)(/_(_(_/(__(/_
(_/ /)
(/
Microsoft MVP - Directory Services
www.akomolafe.name - we know IT
-5.75, -3.23
Do you now realize that Today is the Tomorrow you were worried about Yesterday? -anon
________________________________________
From: ActiveDir-owner@mail.activedir.org [ActiveDir-owner@mail.activedir.org] On Behalf Of Akomolafe, Deji
Sent: Monday, December 08, 2008 4:22 PM
To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] virtualized Passive-node (SCC) clusters supported by MS in Win2k8?
How do you intend to cluster THREE E2K7 mailbox servers?
TO answer your question directly, you can do CCR with 2 nodes where one now is physical and the other is virtual. Now, whether that is a "supported" config, I have no clue, but there is nothing that I know of that technically prevents that config.
Sincerely,
_____
(, / | /) /) /)
/---| (/_ ______ ___// _ // _
) / |_/(__(_) // (_(_)(/_(_(_/(__(/_
(_/ /)
(/
Microsoft MVP - Directory Services
www.akomolafe.name - we know IT
-5.75, -3.23
Do you now realize that Today is the Tomorrow you were worried about Yesterday? -anon
________________________________________
From: ActiveDir-owner@mail.activedir.org [ActiveDir-owner@mail.activedir.org] On Behalf Of John Manley [john.manley@avanade.com]
Sent: Monday, December 08, 2008 3:11 PM
To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org
Subject: [ActiveDir] virtualized Passive-node (SCC) clusters supported by MS in Win2k8?
I apologize if this is off-topic, but is anyone aware of Microsoft's support stance when it comes to hybrid physical/virtualized clusters? For example, we have a 2-node A/P SCC cluster, and would like to virtualize a passive third node (on ESX). Does anyone know if this is officially supported by Microsoft? Oh, and to make it more fun, this cluster is an Exchange '07 CMS cluster.
Thanks!
-John
List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx
List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx
List archive: http://www.activedir.org/ma/default.aspxList info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx
List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx
List archive: http://www.activedir.org/ma/default.aspxList info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx
List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx
List archive: http://www.activedir.org/ma/default.aspx
List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx
List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx
List archive: http://www.activedir.org/ma/default.aspxList info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx
List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx
List archive: http://www.activedir.org/ma/default.aspx
List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx
List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx
List archive: http://www.activedir.org/ma/default.aspxList info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx
List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx
List archive: http://www.activedir.org/ma/default.aspx
List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx
List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx
List archive: http://www.activedir.org/ma/default.aspx
List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx
List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx
List archive: http://www.activedir.org/ma/default.aspx
| | | |
|
|