We are running ESX 3.5. It sounds like you are recommending using the raw device mapping which makes sense for clustered servers in VMware. Do you see a big performance difference between physical and virtual?
Original Message: ----------------- From: Ken Schaefer [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2008 21:26:22 +1000 To: [email protected] Subject: RE: Excahnge Setup SCR generally gives you a bit more flexibility than CCR. See: http://msexchangeteam.com/archive/2007/06/28/445538.aspx for a list of differences You can certainly run Exchange in a VM. Just be aware that virtualisation always adds overhead of some level, so if you are currently I/O constrained (i.e. I/O is bottlenecking your systems) then virtualising will just make the situation worse. Now, the higher end virtualisation products all allow direct disk access (i.e. you can add a LUN as a disk to the VM), and the overhead is reasonably low (around 10%). If you can provide enough spindles and LUNs, then you can get Exchange working in VMs with respect to the performance issues. Cheers Ken -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, 12 July 2008 2:43 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: Excahnge Setup Can any of you Exchange guys comment on your preference for using Stanby Continuous Replication or Cluster continuous replication? Also, running Exchange as VM's. some prefer not to run Exchange as VM's because of the I/O contention problems. That is why we are running Notes on physical boxes. Mike ~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja! ~ ~ <http://www.sunbelt-software.com/SunbeltMessagingNinja.cfm> ~ -------------------------------------------------------------------- mail2web LIVE – Free email based on Microsoft® Exchange technology - http://link.mail2web.com/LIVE ~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja! ~ ~ <http://www.sunbelt-software.com/SunbeltMessagingNinja.cfm> ~
