YFR. (Y = Yeah, R = Right, and the rest is left as an exercise to the reader.)
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 Sent: Monday, October 31, 2005 8:51 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [ActiveDir] Exchange now supported on virtual hardware [okay so now we're getting a bit OT] You do realize that that is officially a "transition tool" that you should use to transition 'to' SMTP [and yes, even with a dynamic IP and all that you can still host your own email] Ed Crowley [MVP] wrote: >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/ > > > 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/
