I have no problem with SBS except that stupid POP mail connector. Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP Freelance E-Mail Philosopher Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups!
-----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Susan Bradley, CPA aka Ebitz - SBS Rocks [MVP] Sent: Monday, October 31, 2005 5:29 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [ActiveDir] Exchange now supported on virtual hardware I would just like to point out that the person who has SBS Rocks as part of her email address did not post that.... I was thinking that though..... :-) Ed Crowley [MVP] wrote: > Less than 50 means SBS, doesn't it? Who needs virtualizaton? > > Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP > Freelance E-Mail Philosopher > Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups! > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Michael B. > Smith > Sent: Monday, October 31, 2005 1:45 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Exchange now supported on virtual hardware > > >From a book proposal I wrote: > > According to the United States Small Business Administration (the US > SBA, at http://www.sba.gov/advo/stats/arsbfaq.txt), small firms: > > * Total approximately 23 million in the United States. > * Represent 99.7 percent of all employer firms. > * Employ half of all private sector employees. > * Pay 44.3 percent of the total U.S. private payroll. > * Generate 60 to 80 percent of net new jobs annually. > * Create more than 50 percent of non-farm, private gross domestic > product (GDP). > * Are employers of 39 percent of high tech workers (such as > scientists, engineers, and computer workers). > > Now, the SBA defines a "small firm" as having less than 500 employees. > For the purpose of our discussion, we'll define a small company as > having less than 50 employees. According to > http://www.sba.gov/advo/stats/us_01ss.pdf, > this makes up approximately 50% of all employer firms. > > M > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Al Mulnick > Sent: Monday, October 31, 2005 4:39 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [ActiveDir] Exchange now supported on virtual hardware > > Of course it's always best, but I have to wonder what the benefit of > running smaller exchange servers in a virtual environment would be? > Is that to deal with shrinking datacenter floor space? I was thinking > this might be interesting in an environment where I had lots of branch office deployments. > > Might be easier to deploy a "solution in a box" to those sites. > Faster recovery scenarios come to mind as well. > > I have to say, I'm with Deji on this. If you want to deploy a mailbox > server, I don't see a problem with it up front as long as you treat it > like > clustering: respect the tool and it's idiosynchratic behavior patterns. > Otherwise, how many people are really deploying >2500 user density > (and have heavy user populations) for Exchange? Not nearly as many as > those deploying less if the majority of companies out there are ~99 > employees in the first place. [1] > > [1] just some stat I picked up in a magazine. Whatever. My point is > that the number of companies that have a) the number of employees to > do large density deployments and b) the networks to support it are > fewer than those that would have 10 users here and 50 users there > spread out across the globe. By the numbers, you're more likely to > deploy to a smaller user population than a larger one and I like the > idea of virtualization for these environments. It cuts down on some > of the datacenter clutter although it does increase my risks of > failure; it may cancel out if I can better watch a single machine's environmentals vs. a room full of them. > > > > > >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> Reply-To: [email protected] >> To: [email protected] >> Subject: Re: [ActiveDir] Exchange now supported on virtual hardware >> Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2005 08:21:24 -0500 >> >> 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: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> To: [email protected] >> Sent: Sun, 30 Oct 2005 09:25:09 -0800 >> 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: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Presley, Steven >> Sent: Sun 10/30/2005 8:51 AM >> To: [email protected] >> 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: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brian >>> Desmond >>> Sent: Friday, October 28, 2005 6:49 PM >>> To: [email protected] >>> 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 >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> >>> c - 312.731.3132 >>> >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Medeiros, >>> Jose >>> Sent: Friday, October 28, 2005 5:29 PM >>> To: [email protected]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Exchange now supported on virtual hardware >>> >>> I could not have worded that better. >>> >>> Sincerely, >>> Jose Medeiros >>> ADP | National Account Services >>> ProBusiness Division | Information Services >>> 925.737.7967 | 408-449-6621 CELL >>> -------------------------------------------------------- >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> Sent: Friday, October 28, 2005 6:53 AM >>> To: [email protected]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> Subject: Re: [ActiveDir] Exchange now supported on virtual hardware >>> >>> >>> I couldn't agree more with Tony -- Exchange is a resource hog and >>> should not be done on VMWare except for testing purposes. Just >>> because you can doesn't mean you should.... >>> >>> Chuck Gafford >>> Systems Architect >>> Unisys >>> Mobile: (405) 819-6766 >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Medeiros, Jose <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>> To: [email protected]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> Cc: # Jose Medeiros-IBM (E-mail) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>> 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: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> Behalf Of Tony Murray >>> Sent: Thursday, October 27, 2005 2:49 PM >>> To: [email protected] >>> 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/ > > -- 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/
