[cisco-voip] Is anyone using using a non-Cisco approved server forCUCM?

[Ed Leatherman]

I'm getting ready to replace 3 of my 7845's that are going
end-of-support with HP's. MUCH cheaper.

On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 8:45 PM, Liakos, James <jliakos at csr.com.au> wrote:
> Where I use to work we never bought Cisco MS Server's but instead only the
> HP equivalent…
>
> Never had a problem.
>
> Yes like you said, much cheaper !
>
>
>
> JL.
>
> From: cisco-voip-bounces at puck.nether.net
> [mailto:cisco-voip-bounces at puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Omori, Hiroshi
> Sent: Thursday, 19 February 2009 12:37
> To: cisco-voip at puck.nether.net
> Subject: [cisco-voip] Is anyone using using a non-Cisco approved server
> forCUCM?
>
>
>
> In these times of shrinking budgets, I was wondering if anyone is using a
> non-Cisco approved server for the CUCM?
>
>
>
> Cisco and HP created a part number, 470064-887, which is equivalent to the
> MCS 7845H2.  It's still available from HP but it looks like it has a
> discontinued CPU(5140) and the RAID controller is a P400/256 instead of a
> P400/512.
>
>
>
> I received a quote for a HP DL-380 G5 server that has a newer CPU and RAID
> controller that is almost half the price of the Cisco "approved"
> configuration.
>
>
>
> I'm pretty sure the CUCM would run fine, in fact we're running a 5 server
> cluster on HP DL-380 G5 servers using the E5345 CPU's in our test lab but I
> wanted to see if anyone has encountered any problems.
>
>
>
> Thanks!
>
>
>
> Hiroshi Omori
>
> Network Engineer
>
> UCLA - University of California, Los Angeles
>
> Communications Technology Services
>
> 741 Charles Young Drive South
>
> Building CSB1, 2nd floor
>
> Los Angeles, Ca. 90095
>
>
>
> (310) 206-3700
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> cisco-voip mailing list
> cisco-voip at puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
>
>



-- 
Ed Leatherman
Assistant Director, Voice Services
West Virginia University
Telecommunications and Network Operations