Interesting points, Hunter.
Not to engage in a holy war or something, but would you mind mentioning what
makes one of these Orange and the other Apple (the fruit)? No, don't mention
64-bit Guest, thank you very much :)[1]
[1]<Grumbling> I wish MS will hurry up on this front already. </grumbling>
Sincerely,
_____
(, / | /) /) /)
/---| (/_ ______ ___// _ // _
) / |_/(__(_) // (_(_)(/_(_(_/(__(/_
(_/ /)
(/
Microsoft MVP - Directory Services
www.akomolafe.com - we know IT
-5.75, -3.23
Do you now realize that Today is the Tomorrow you were worried about Yesterday?
-anon
From: Coleman, Hunter
Sent: Thu 1/18/2007 1:24 PM
To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Remote DC's on Virtual Server
IMHO, ESX/VM Infrastructure and Virtual Server are like apples and oranges.
Yes, they are both virtualization environments, but have vastly different
capabilities. VM Infrastructure has a much broader and deeper feature set that
does come with added cost and complexity.
Regardless, in the context of the original question I'd be concerned about the
load Exchange is going to place on the host hardware. How many Exchange users
are in the 8 domains, and how many of these would potentially be connecting to
the alternate site? Are you going to have GC availability to support Exchange?
What other resources at the hotsite might be looking for DC/GC services?
I would also be careful about having a configuration at my hotsite that is
significantly different from my normal production environment. When things have
melted down to the point of failing over to the hotsite, it's not a good time
to be pulling out the manuals for your infrastructure because you don't work
with it day in and day out.
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Akomolafe, Deji
Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2007 1:22 PM
To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Remote DC's on Virtual Server
ESX (VMWare) is good - and pricey. And very strict as to hardware specs. And
complex to setup and administer. And, I could be wrong on this, NOT
(MS)-supported for virtualizing DCs.
Virtual Server, on the other hand, is good, not pricey, less picky, more
supported (I believe it's actually validated) for DCs virtualization. Plus, the
liberal OS licensing scheme is very attractive to me.
Yes, I know, VMWare rules the market. Yes, I am biased.
Sincerely,
_____
(, / | /) /) /)
/---| (/_ ______ ___// _ // _
) / |_/(__(_) // (_(_)(/_(_(_/(__(/_
(_/ /)
(/
Microsoft MVP - Directory Services
www.akomolafe.com - we know IT
-5.75, -3.23
Do you now realize that Today is the Tomorrow you were worried about Yesterday?
-anon
From: Salandra, Justin A.
Sent: Thu 1/18/2007 11:57 AM
To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org
Subject: [ActiveDir] Remote DC's on Virtual Server
What would you recommend for the following situation.
We are thinking of having a hot site where Exchange will be replicated to a
remote location. Since Exchange will be remote over the Internet, we will need
to have DC's for each domain available in that remote site. (This would all be
going across a VPN)
I was thinking about placing 8 DC's on a VMWare Infrastructure 3 server
Enterprise edition. These DC's would really only be used in the event of a
disaster and people started connecting to Exchange up in the remote site.
Is VMWare Infrastructure 3 good? What would you use?
Justin A. Salandra
MCSE Windows 2000 & 2003
Network and Technology Services Manager
Catholic Healthcare System
646.505.3681 - office
917.455.0110 - cell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
