Exchange Server - Virtualizing non-mailbox roles with Exchange 2007

Asked By Dave Wade

03-Oct-09 02:34 PM

Folks,

I need to update our Exchange servers and will be using 2007. Because of
SAN restrictions I will need to build a SCC cluster so needs separate
servers for Client Access and Hub. When I run the System Centre Exchange
Planning wizard with profiles that I think match our messaging profile, I
get  low  utilizations on the non-mailbox server roles. This makes me think
these roles would be suitable for server virtualization. Has any one any
experience of this with either VM/Ware ESX or HyperV. I have tried some
google searchs but getting past the product hype pages is tricky....

Dave

03-Oct-09 03:50 PM

Why do you "need" an SCC?  What is the business value proposition versus a
standalone mailbox server?

Some people virtualize the maibox server.  There are way too many variables
requiring consideration to be able to go into a personal recommendation
here.  Your mileage may vary.
--
Ed Crowley MVP
.

05-Oct-09 08:27 AM

What do you mean "SAN restrictions"? Why do you 'need' SCC? Why not
standalone? There is no possible storage restiction that would make
you use SCC over CCR or anything else.

05-Oct-09 11:15 AM

Hey may only have 'x' amount of spare disk in the SAN, and has no budget for
DAS, and thus is thinking of using SCC.

In regard to Virtualization - I guess it depends on how many users you have
and what your current Virtualized infrastructure is - if you have not got one
then you need to make sure you think of the costs associated with that too.

Oliver

05-Oct-09 11:37 PM

Dave, I understand you have your own reasons to go for SCC and wondering if
CAS , HTS roles would be a good idea placing on virtual environment and my
previous implementation experience might be able to answer your questions,
hopefully (-:
I had to go for SCC for my own reasons as well, not the limitations but SAN
appliance was offering perfect DR solutions (NETAPP) Snapmanager and I was
extremely comfortable going for SCC for so many reasons I will just mention
couple of them, Netapp has never failed me over 10 years, in multiple very
large implementations and Snapmanager offered perfect DR solutions ( it does
log shipping and just like CCR) and replicate SAN data to San data.
So I ended up placing two Hub servers on VM, two CAS servers on VM, 2 ISA
server for exchange on VM, for redundancy, each server was placed on
separate VM farm, so that if one VM farm goes down the mail infrastructure
would work without any interruption. I used as mail gateways 2 Ironport on
toe different data center and created two sent connectors one with high cost
for redundancy. Both Ironport published outside to public DNS for redundancy
.Although traditional DNS provides round robin response, in reality it is up
to sender who to send the mail too and one thing  I did not implement was
road balancer in front of Ironport like F5 to be able to provide true
redundancy (-: , ran out off $$$$

So VM servers has been working with no glitch over months, mail uptime is
99.9 , I have been extremely pleased with Exchange servers running on VMware
( HTS, CAS) no issues at all. Same goes for SCC , it has been running
flawless fail over with 08 server is much better in my opinion, and
maintenance is the most part I love about SCC.
This was not the first time I placed Exchange servers on VM farm we have been
doing this since Exchange 2003 (except mailbox server) we placed exchange
2003 servers in large environments and they have been running with no issues
over years (almost 6 years) , honestly I have not seen one single issue, but
please remember all these implementation have been followed by MS best
practices ( memory, HD, CPU etc.) except the VM part (-:
Good luck to you on your implementation

Regards
Ocd

--
oz Casey Dedeal,

MVP (Exchange)
MCITP (EMA), MCITP (SA)
MCSE 2003, M+, S+, MCDST
Security+, Project +, Server +

Http://smtp25.blogspot.com (Blog)
Http://telnet25.spaces.live.com (Blog)
Http://telnet25.worldpress.com (Blog

08-Oct-09 06:48 PM

I already have SCC.  I do not have enough space in the SAN for two copies of
the data.

08-Oct-09 07:01 PM

I understand why other do not like it. However we need a new SAN put as a
public authority we need to have a proper tender and that takes time.
Looking at our load graph we cannot get a new SAN before our Exchange 2003
servers "hit the buffers". We are already seeing extended disk latency on
the Exchange disks so I need to move pretty quickly.


I think we may go a similar root when we upgrade the SAN


Ah yes where I am its ?...



What sort of messaging load? We do about 1 million messages a month...


Yes I  understand that part. Its why putting Exchange in Virtual can be
un-attractive!


Thanks,
Dave

09-Oct-09 08:01 AM

My employers and VMware co-wrote this.
http://www.vmware.com/files/pdf/partners/netapp-vmware-exchange-tr-final.pdf
it is a good day when an org owned by storage vendor EMC can do a joint
paper with NetApp.
We have best practice documents. We have hundreds of thousands of
seats virtualized.