If you will be running VMWare VI3 with the Enterprise features you can do HA with shared storage (read san). To do that you would need at least 2 boxes. The HA DSR features allow planned failover (no downtime) to an alternative box or almost instantaneous unplanned failover.
One model I have seen has 1 physical exchange box clustered to a passive VM, others have indicated good success running Exchange directly on the VM as the true box, but I would not cluster to the same box. If you must have clustering and want to go VM at least split them onto two physical boxes, but if you don't need the A-A abilities of an Exchange cluster then just rely on the HA capabilities inherent to the VI3 Enterprise product. Now, that isn't to say I would recommend doing that in a VM, others have, but I'm still a little leery of putting a high utilization server into a VM unless I could dedicate a ESX box to it, then you gain the HA and portability but still dedicate the resources to Exchange. If after running that way a while you determine that your IO and Utilization are low enough you could then add some lesser priority boxes to it. We do use VMWare ESX and have a number of production boxes running in that environment, but not my Exchange or SQL boxes, although given time I may go that route. Bob -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Alex Alborzfard Posted At: Thursday, August 31, 2006 9:23 AM Posted To: ExchangeDiscussions Conversation: E2k3 cluster question (general) Subject: RE: E2k3 cluster question (general) Chris, I completely agree with you about the perils of running 2 nodes on a single physical box, but what do you think of the following: If I understand MS's best practice for EXCH clustering, they support scale-up & -out models. With scale-up you need to build both A & P nodes for each EXCH cluster. With scale-out you have multiple A nodes & 1 P node in the cluster. Now with VM(ware) you're supposedly can have same HA as the scale-up model with fewer servers than the scale-out. Instead of the MS's scale-out, with VM you could use 2 servers each containing both A and P nodes. This works out better because it doesn't rely on a single P node to cover multiple A nodes in a cluster. So you could build an 8-node cluster using only 4 servers, with each server, running 2 separate clusters. I'm not sure if it would be supported by MS, but would it make sense to run an EXCH cluster like that? Alex -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Chris Scharff Sent: Wednesday, August 30, 2006 4:57 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: E2k3 cluster question (general) The purpose of a cluster is ostensibly to provide high availability. As such it's my belief that one needs to understand the boundaries of supportability and best practices for a cluster and draw a line as close to the center as possible. So in a scenario where one had a 4 node cluster where each of 2 nodes exists on a single physical machine it would seem to me that you have a pretty basic design flaw. If you are running an N+1 cluster you lack sufficient nodes per physical host to run 3 nodes in the event of a single physical hardware failure. If you're running N+2 you now have all the complexity of a 4 Node system with all the benefits[1] of an A/A cluster. A FE or connector Exchange server on virtualized HW seems like a perfectly reasonable deployment scenario for many organizations. I am not convinced that deploying a mailbox server on same is reasonable and even less convinced it increases availability. I guess it really depends on what problem you're trying to solve and I didn't see any evidence of a problem or a solution in the OP comments. [1] Do I really need to clarify that "benefits" is tongue in cheek when discussing A/A clusters? > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:bounce- > [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Alex Alborzfard > Posted At: Wednesday, August 30, 2006 3:01 PM Posted To: swynk > Conversation: E2k3 cluster question (general) > Subject: RE: E2k3 cluster question (general) > > Dare I ask: what is specifically wrong with virtualizing Exchange or is > it virtualzing an Exchange cluster? What are the major issues and > pitfalls? > > Alex > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > Chris Scharff > Sent: Wednesday, August 30, 2006 3:35 PM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: E2k3 cluster question (general) > > In a lab sire. In production.... can't think of a reason other than > hating your job and wanting a new one. > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:bounce- > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Wehner, Paul > > (wehnerpl) > > Posted At: Wednesday, August 30, 2006 2:22 PM Posted To: swynk > > Conversation: E2k3 cluster question (general) > > Subject: RE: E2k3 cluster question (general) > > > > I'm going to assemble extra ips, quorum, store volumes and give it a > > shot. > > Might be moderately useful to have two virtual servers on a two node > > cluster. > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ed > > Crowley [MVP] > > Sent: Wednesday, August 30, 2006 2:04 PM > > To: Exchange Discussions > > Subject: RE: E2k3 cluster question (general) > > > > I suppose you could install Microsoft Virtual Server and run the new > > Exchange servers in virtual machines, but I don't recommend it for a > > production environment. > > > > Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP > > Freelance E-Mail Philosopher > > Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups!T > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > > Wehner, Paul (wehnerpl) > > Sent: Wednesday, August 30, 2006 10:34 AM > > To: Exchange Discussions > > Subject: E2k3 cluster question (general) > > > > > > I have a two node active/passive exchange cluster working fine. > > Is it possible to add a second exchange cluster to these two boxes? > > (assuming new ips, different store volumes, etc) Thanks, Paul _________________________________________________________________ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/read/?forum=exchange To subscribe: http://e-newsletters.internet.com/discussionlists.html/ To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe via postal mail, please contact us at: Jupitermedia Corp. Attn: Discussion List Management 475 Park Avenue South New York, NY 10016 Please include the email address which you have been contacted with. _________________________________________________________________ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/read/?forum=exchange To subscribe: http://e-newsletters.internet.com/discussionlists.html/ To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe via postal mail, please contact us at: Jupitermedia Corp. Attn: Discussion List Management 475 Park Avenue South New York, NY 10016 Please include the email address which you have been contacted with. _________________________________________________________________ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/read/?forum=exchange To subscribe: http://e-newsletters.internet.com/discussionlists.html/ To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe via postal mail, please contact us at: Jupitermedia Corp. Attn: Discussion List Management 475 Park Avenue South New York, NY 10016 Please include the email address which you have been contacted with.
