I agree we use VMware ESX here, and the features and scalability
basically leave Microsoft's Implementation in the dirt. If you want to
do enterprise class service, HA  with VM's ESX is a superior product. 
 
Yes it has stringent hard requirements ( Hey VMware/EMC tested the
configs, its like a very tight HCL to be followed, makes for good
engineering sense)
Yes its pricey: But you get what you pay for, the features and benefits
plus the cost savings and increased utilization of the hardware, is
killer in the end. 
 
Sorry, but if I was going to do a test enviornment, sure MS virtual
Server works fine, but for Production, putting the Farm on ESX, period. 
 
Z
 

Edward E. Ziots 
Network Engineer 
Lifespan Organization 
MCSE,MCSA,MCP+I,M.E,CCA,Network+, Security + 
email:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
cell:401-639-3505 

 

________________________________

From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Coleman, Hunter
Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2007 5:22 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Remote DC's on Virtual Server


On the Virtual Infrastructure side: Moving running guests across hosts
(vmotion), the network configuration options, lower host overhead,
grouping hosts into resource pools and allowing guests to automatically
migrate based on allocation guarantees, 4-way SMP guests, 64-bit guests
:->
 
Nothing wrong with Virtual Server, but I see it more on par with VMware
Server than ESX/Virtual Infrastructure.

________________________________

From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Akomolafe, Deji
Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2007 2:40 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Remote DC's on Virtual Server


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 <x-excid://32770000/uri:http://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: [email protected]
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: [email protected]
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 <x-excid://32770000/uri:http://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: [email protected]
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] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 

 

Reply via email to