|
|
|
date: Fri, 15 Feb 2008 07:57:02 -0800,
group: microsoft.public.exchange.clustering
back
Re: Exchange 2007 CCR vs VMware VMotion
On Sat, 16 Feb 2008 00:22:03 -0800, Lehr
wrote:
>My opinion is that CCR cluster is much better solution than VMWare HA.
>VMWare HA relies on cluster where ESX hosts use same(shared) storage...so
>when that storage goes down you don't have nothing.
>With CCR, storage is separated...every exchange host has it's own storage,
>copy of logs and database...
Yep.
And before CCR, I would never have recommended clustering to anyone.
>
>"Andy David {MVP}" wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 07:57:02 -0800, RJ
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Our company is considering deploying Exchange 2007 CCR for high availability.
>> > However, our server group is moving towards VMWare's VMotion solution for HA
>> >which they feel negates our need to use CCR. I am trying to determine which
>> >is the best solution for Exchange. Does anyone have any whitepapers or
>> >reference documents to help shed light on this?
>>
>> With CCR you will be using Exchange tools and relying on Exchange to
>> take care of properly maintaining replication, fail-over and health,
>> etc...
>> Can Vmware provide that?
>>
>>
date: Sat, 16 Feb 2008 10:06:56 -0500
author: Andy David {MVP}
Re: Exchange 2007 CCR vs VMware VMotion
On Thu, 21 Feb 2008 10:25:24 +0100, "Ove Starckjohann"
wrote:
>"Mark Arnold [MVP]" schrieb im Newsbeitrag
>news:fsakr3d9qht2i9v74amddsv26v2ttp2tcu@4ax.com...
>> Yes, CCR is the best solution if you have any SAN other than NetApp.
>> If you have NetApp then the conversation is a little more difficult to
>> answer.
>
>Oh?
>
>would you give some more words about that fact ?
>we're just in process of evaluating which SAN-storage would match for our
>environment. and ex2k7 is definitely a big point in it.
>
>If it's going to be offtopic here i would also appreciate if you provide
>some info via mail.
>
>thx!
>
>Ove
>
SnapShot backup technologies on a great number of platforms just suck.
Either performance sucks once you start taking them or performance
sucks when you're working on them because of the "copy on write"
methodology.
Using CCR lets you have a second copy of the data in another location
and for that copy to get taken in such a manner that does not drag the
storage to its knees.
RAID. RAID5=goddam bad for E2K7. RAID1, 0+1, 10 waste disk. Yes, yes,
yawn yawn, Microsoft say RAID10. This would be the same Microsoft who
say they moved off SANs onto DAS for E2K7. In reality they didn't
actually and the whitepaper was pulled because they A) don't really
understand storage properly (not that I'm claiming I do, far, far from
it) B) lied, C) Didn't want to tick off HP, from whom they get their
storage and who couldn't get their SAS based SAN in good shape in
sufficient time and finally D) because it was hideously wrong in
content. Apart from that the paper was fine. RAID6 is where you want
to be going to get the benefit from sheds of storage and protection.
Sure, RAID10, very resilient to disk failure but hell, how expensive
in disk!! The problem with RAID6 is that there are several ways of
achieving that double parity and some methods are better than others.
Then there is the issue of how some vendors carve up physical disks
for their RAID to LUN configurations (i.e. EMC and their onion layer
approach which can be pretty cool)
Remember you're in a newsgroup forum. It's not fact but opinion based
on years of experience across the board. If you want fact you have a
premier support contract with Microsoft and engage MCS to do your
design and installation work and you do not, ever, not once, argue or
stray from anything they say. In other words, there aint no such thing
as a fact. You're free to totally ignore it, accept it, disagree with
it and more importantly debate it because that helps us all.
date: Thu, 21 Feb 2008 18:25:44 -0500
author: Mark Arnold [MVP]
Re: Exchange 2007 CCR vs VMware VMotion
I imagine a number of Exchange architects are being forced to discuss the
options ESX brings to the equation, especially when the server provisioning
guys are being dined by VMWare weekly.
Did MS really pull the DAS documentation for their CCR implementation?
"Mark Arnold [MVP]" wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Feb 2008 10:25:24 +0100, "Ove Starckjohann"
> wrote:
>
> >"Mark Arnold [MVP]" schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> >news:fsakr3d9qht2i9v74amddsv26v2ttp2tcu@4ax.com...
> >> Yes, CCR is the best solution if you have any SAN other than NetApp.
> >> If you have NetApp then the conversation is a little more difficult to
> >> answer.
> >
> >Oh?
> >
> >would you give some more words about that fact ?
> >we're just in process of evaluating which SAN-storage would match for our
> >environment. and ex2k7 is definitely a big point in it.
> >
> >If it's going to be offtopic here i would also appreciate if you provide
> >some info via mail.
> >
> >thx!
> >
> >Ove
> >
> SnapShot backup technologies on a great number of platforms just suck.
> Either performance sucks once you start taking them or performance
> sucks when you're working on them because of the "copy on write"
> methodology.
> Using CCR lets you have a second copy of the data in another location
> and for that copy to get taken in such a manner that does not drag the
> storage to its knees.
> RAID. RAID5=goddam bad for E2K7. RAID1, 0+1, 10 waste disk. Yes, yes,
> yawn yawn, Microsoft say RAID10. This would be the same Microsoft who
> say they moved off SANs onto DAS for E2K7. In reality they didn't
> actually and the whitepaper was pulled because they A) don't really
> understand storage properly (not that I'm claiming I do, far, far from
> it) B) lied, C) Didn't want to tick off HP, from whom they get their
> storage and who couldn't get their SAS based SAN in good shape in
> sufficient time and finally D) because it was hideously wrong in
> content. Apart from that the paper was fine. RAID6 is where you want
> to be going to get the benefit from sheds of storage and protection.
> Sure, RAID10, very resilient to disk failure but hell, how expensive
> in disk!! The problem with RAID6 is that there are several ways of
> achieving that double parity and some methods are better than others.
> Then there is the issue of how some vendors carve up physical disks
> for their RAID to LUN configurations (i.e. EMC and their onion layer
> approach which can be pretty cool)
>
>
> Remember you're in a newsgroup forum. It's not fact but opinion based
> on years of experience across the board. If you want fact you have a
> premier support contract with Microsoft and engage MCS to do your
> design and installation work and you do not, ever, not once, argue or
> stray from anything they say. In other words, there aint no such thing
> as a fact. You're free to totally ignore it, accept it, disagree with
> it and more importantly debate it because that helps us all.
>
date: Sun, 24 Feb 2008 23:31:01 -0800
author: JPF
|
|
