<div dir="ltr"><blockquote style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;" class="gmail_quote">Interesting, I though Exchange in a VM was pretty common. At a recent<br>
tech expo in GR, hosted by Trivalent, it seemed like the majority of<br>
people had done it or were headed that way. I talked to at least two<br>
who had virtualized Exchange.<br></blockquote>
<br>It is fairly common, as I stated - A lot of people Virtualize exchange, and as of Exchange 2003 SP2 - and that seems to be working well.<br>The reason I am holding off on 2008/2007 is two fold - First I'm curious to see what changes are made in the first year/service pack, and I'm waiting to upgrade network servers until we can go to an all 64bit infrastructure to reap the benefits of a 64bit host and client architecture.<br>
I can't speak to the technical reasons of exact negatives, other than the fact that It's not really broken so I'm not going to change it quite yet - its low on my priority list.<br>I know people are doing it and it's working correctly.<br>
<br>My friend who works at Alticor said they reviewed it, and decided against virtualizing exchange 2007 - so there must be some compelling issues why not to, I could ask him what the technical reasons were they decided against it if you want.<br>
Although Alticor is large enough it could be completely for political or bureaucratic reasons.<br><br>I would be interested to hear the reasons Bruce's consultant would cite for not virtualizing exchange?<br><br>My statements of resource Load on exchange depend completely on your organization and what services they use, and how many users they service, you could have a very under utilized exchange server for all I know - however on an average it is one of the more resource intensive applications on any given business network, simply from the amount of data that is moved around, and the connections / emails that are sent/received.<br>
Per 1 email the average server receives 5.2 spam emails.<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 7:14 PM, Adam Tauno Williams <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:awilliam@whitemice.org">awilliam@whitemice.org</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"><div class="Ih2E3d"><br>
> I agree with you, I am avoiding virtualizing Exchange 2007 and any<br>
> 2008 products until they are tried and tested - you would be smart to<br>
> hold off on exchange, besides most exchange servers have fairly high<br>
> resource requirements on a continual basis, so a dedicated box isn't<br>
> all bad.<br>
> We and MANY MANY MANY hosted exchange and hosted database companies<br>
> run both exchange 2003, 2007, and sql 2005 in virtual environments.<br>
<br>
</div>Interesting, I though Exchange in a VM was pretty common. At a recent<br>
tech expo in GR, hosted by Trivalent, it seemed like the majority of<br>
people had done it or were headed that way. I talked to at least two<br>
who had virtualized Exchange.<br>
<br>
And there certainly are write-ups about it:<br>
<<a href="http://www.vmware.com/pdf/exchange_esx25_wp_eng.pdf" target="_blank">http://www.vmware.com/pdf/exchange_esx25_wp_eng.pdf</a>><br>
<<a href="http://www.dell.com/downloads/global/power/ps4q07-20080147-Muirhead.pdf" target="_blank">http://www.dell.com/downloads/global/power/ps4q07-20080147-Muirhead.pdf</a>><br>
<br>
I'm curious what makes Exchange a particularly bad VM candidate? Is it<br>
simply the I/O load? Although I don't host Exchange I read a fair<br>
number of Exchange articles in order to harvest ideas for OpenGroupware<br>
and just because it is an interesting product. It seems that current<br>
versions of Exchange can be installed modularly, with different units on<br>
different hosts; could it potentially make sense to virtualize some<br>
components of Exchange (such as hub transport or unified messaging) and<br>
not others (such as the mailbox server)?<br>
<br>
I've not virtualized either of my two database servers (1 Informix and 1<br>
PostgreSQL) for that [I/O] reason. It just didn't make sense;<br>
especially since both support point-in-time restore, etc... on their<br>
own. I was concerned about Cyrus IMAPd in a VM with the meta-data spool<br>
on iSCSI, but so far it seems to work well (probably because cache rates<br>
are VERY high).<br>
<div class="Ih2E3d"><br>
> We have quite a few SQL 2005 virtualized instances - developers love<br>
> it, and there is no reason not to do it.<br>
<br>
</div>I've got one M$-SQL instance in a VM from an app used by a company my<br>
employer assimilated. But it is so tiny as to be irrelevant.<br>
<div class="Ih2E3d"><br>
> Oh you want to try and work on the (name here) database while your in<br>
> Arizona? here just take server with you ... (done)<br>
<br>
</div>So cool! I still find that awesome.<br>
<div class="Ih2E3d"><br>
> And Microsoft did publish an article on considerations... so if you<br>
> follow that you should be in their (albeit unsupported) good graces.<br>
> <a href="http://www.microsoft.com/sql/techinfo/whitepapers/virtenviron.mspx" target="_blank">http://www.microsoft.com/sql/techinfo/whitepapers/virtenviron.mspx</a><br>
> SQL 2003 works great hosted on VM Server 1.06, 2.0, ESX, and ESXi - so<br>
> you should be fine any way you go about it.<br>
<br>
<br>
</div><div><div></div><div class="Wj3C7c">_______________________________________________<br>
grlug mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:grlug@grlug.org">grlug@grlug.org</a><br>
<a href="http://shinobu.grlug.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/grlug" target="_blank">http://shinobu.grlug.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/grlug</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div>