[cisco-voip] Cisco MCS vs UCS Servers

Sat Sep 25 21:13:48 EDT 2010

This is the log from my TAC case, when trying to upgrade the Subscriber
(hardware) to match the version on the Publisher (VM), I had the following
error:

---
21 July 2010 23:39:03: PHONE LOG
I did a utils system upgrade status and found this:

DEBUG: Mismatch Manufacturer: expected VMware found IBM

Customer is running the Publisher in VMWare and the Subscriber in a 7835-I3.

According to previous cases this cannot be done and customer has to install
all servers in VMWare or all in MCS servers.
---

Now, this TAC engineer might have been wrong, but he clearly states that
these cannot be mismatched.  I wasn't necesarily looking for a supported
setup, I was merely trying to test hardware in a lab before deploying out to
a remote site, and do a bit of lab work prior.  I ran across an error during
the upgrade and the resultant debug turned up the above mentioned message.

I didn't do an exhaustive search, but I don't see anywhere in the docs where
you can mix and match between VM (on UCS) and hardware, nor did I find
anything mentioning that you can't.

FWIW, I hope it works out for the people trying it..
Charles

On Sat, Sep 25, 2010 at 11:37 AM, Nick Matthews <matthnick at gmail.com> wrote:

> If your VMware publisher wasn't on a UCS server, then it isn't supported.
> 3rd party hardware isn't supported yet, except for Unity.
>
> -nick
>
>
> On Sat, Sep 25, 2010 at 2:10 AM, Charles Goldsmith <wokka at justfamily.org>wrote:
>
>> Interesting, I was told by TAC that it was not supported.  To burn in
>> hardware and to do some lab work before I put a subscriber into production,
>> I paired it with a virtual publisher, upgrade on them failed miserably (they
>> would run at the default version off the DVD), but I couldn't upgrade from
>> whatever 8.x I had on DVD to current.
>>
>> If anyone wants details on this, I can dig it up, I had posted on here
>> with the upgrade errors, when no response was had, opened a case on it and
>> was told no.
>>
>> BTW, my subscriber was an IBM server, 7835 series.
>>
>> YMMV
>> Charles
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 7:58 PM, Nick Matthews <matthnick at gmail.com>wrote:
>>
>>> Yes.  Some of the limitations of the hardware are things like MoH live
>>> feeds, your console dumps now go somewhere else, RTMT hardware stats are
>>> replaced with some VMware/UCS equivalents, etc.  But from an application
>>> layer it's the same.  It does however know how much CPU/disk/memory you've
>>> given it and shows on the about screen.
>>>
>>> -nick
>>>
>>> On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 8:19 PM, STEVEN CASPER <SCASPER at mtb.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>  Interesting.... For me to upgrade to 8.x I need to replace 4 of my
>>>> subscribers and my publisher next year however I just purchased some HP G6
>>>> servers to replace my 7835 servers. Can you mix virtual subscribers and a
>>>> publisher with MCS type subscriber and TFTP servers?
>>>>
>>>> Steve
>>>>
>>>> >>> Ahmed Elnagar <ahmed_elnagar at rayacorp.com> 9/23/2010 7:01 PM >>>
>>>>
>>>> Cisco SEs is pushing on the virtualization for new customers and
>>>> customers considering upgrading to version 8.x…be aware that all H series is
>>>> already EOS due to the bad relationship between Cisco and HP “obviuolsy the
>>>> UCS was part of the fight” IBM servers has a lot of problems “this is from
>>>> my own personal point of view”.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> UCS is great C series configuration is to support 4 X 7945 server and
>>>> the cost is significantly less than hardware server…plus the added benefits
>>>> like hardware efficiency and DC sizing for large customers…etc.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The drawbacks would be that you will need experience not only in UC part
>>>> but add to it the VMware and UCS itself…if you are going to B series it is
>>>> more complicated than the C series.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> A great advantage for UCS is that you are able to have a sort of a
>>>> “redundant Publisher server” as the database is stored in SAN and if the
>>>> engineer fails it switches over to another own automatically so as if you
>>>> have a redundant server “but I think this is supported with the B series” I
>>>> am not very aware of deep technical info in this part.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> If I were you I would go with UCS C series “for easier management”
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> And remember; all the world is going virtual J
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>  Best Regards;
>>>>
>>>>   Ahmed Elnagar
>>>>
>>>>   Senior Network PS Engineer
>>>>
>>>>   Mob: +2019-0016211
>>>>
>>>>   CCIE#24697 (Voice)
>>>>
>>>>  [image: ccie_voice_large.gif]
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *From:* cisco-voip-bounces at puck.nether.net [mailto:
>>>> cisco-voip-bounces at puck.nether.net] *On Behalf Of *
>>>> george.hendrix at l-3com.com
>>>> *Sent:* Wednesday, September 22, 2010 4:41 PM
>>>> *To:* cisco-voip at puck.nether.net
>>>> *Subject:* [cisco-voip] Cisco MCS vs UCS Servers
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Hi everyone,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>   I noticed Cisco has the new UCS C and B series servers.  Does anyone
>>>> have any thoughts as to whether these are the way to go or not?  Do they
>>>> perform better than the MCS H or I series?  Also since these are out now,
>>>> does anyone know if there are plans to put the remainder of the MCS servers
>>>> EOL?  BTW, this would be for a new CUCM 8 installation.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>>
>>>> Bill Hendrix
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Disclaimer: NOTICE The information contained in this message is
>>>> confidential and is intended for the addressee(s) only. If you have received
>>>> this message in error or there are any problems please notify the originator
>>>> immediately. The unauthorized use, disclosure, copying or alteration of this
>>>> message is strictly forbidden. Raya will not be liable for direct, special,
>>>> indirect or consequential damages arising from alteration of the contents of
>>>> this message by a third party or as a result of any malicious code or virus
>>>> being passed on. Views expressed in this communication are not necessarily
>>>> those of Raya.If you have received this message in error, please notify the
>>>> sender immediately by email, facsimile or telephone and return and/or
>>>> destroy the original message.
>>>>
>>>> ************************************
>>>> This email may contain privileged and/or confidential information that is intended solely for the use of the addressee.  If you are not the intended recipient or entity, you are strictly prohibited from disclosing, copying, distributing or using any of the information contained in the transmission.  If you received this communication in error, please contact the sender immediately and destroy the material in its entirety, whether electronic or hard copy.  This communication may contain nonpublic personal information about consumers subject to the restrictions of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act and the Sarbanes-Oxley Act.  You may not directly or indirectly reuse or disclose such information for any purpose other than to provide the services for which you are receiving the information.
>>>> There are risks associated with the use of electronic transmission.  The sender of this information does not control the method of transmittal or service providers and assumes no duty or obligation for the security, receipt, or third party interception of this transmission.
>>>> ************************************
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> cisco-voip mailing list
>>>>
>>>> cisco-voip at puck.nether.net
>>>> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> cisco-voip mailing list
>>> cisco-voip at puck.nether.net
>>> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
>>>
>>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-voip/attachments/20100925/ddac0efa/attachment.html>