[cisco-voip] Virtualized subscriber

[Nick Matthews]

It's worth considering the opposite:
If your publisher hardware dies how much pain are you going through to
restore it?  How long?  Depending on your Vmware and UCS environment
this could be as low as a few minutes.
If you have a site outage, how much of your voice
infrastructure/publisher is out of service?  If you're already doing
SAN replication you can start the VM up elsewhere.

You can clone the VM before a big upgrade, and roll back to the clone
if things don't go well, etc.  Vmotion has limited support, etc.

IMO there are enough advantages to outweigh the complexities.  A lot
of people are doing C210/C200 with local disk as a starter, but the
b-series is where the cool kicks in.  FWIW, I haven't seen an upgrade
or new deployment use MCS for about 1 year now.  Cisco has also seen
no major deployment problems due to virtualization - which is pretty
impressive.

-nick

On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 8:33 PM, Erick <ewellnitzvoip at gmail.com> wrote:
> I understand the virtualization and NAS fears but at my last gig we ran
> 100%virtual for over a year with minimal issues related to VM (vm guys
> didn't listen to requirements) and no storage issues.
>
> Current gig we're deploying something like 270 voice VMs on B series blades.
>
>
>
> On Dec 19, 2011, at 6:54 PM, Lelio Fulgenzi <lelio at uoguelph.ca> wrote:
>
> I'm less concerned with stability than I am with too many hands in the pot.
> Our VM infrastructure is shared by many services and groups, and I'm not
> sure I can maintain 100% uptime either due to unforeseen issues or for
> maintenance. The last thing I want to do is restore a publisher due to
> corrupt data because a SAN/NAS (or whatever they call it nowadays) was not
> staying up during a maintenance window. ;)
>
> But that's just me.
>
> ---
> Lelio Fulgenzi, B.A.
> Senior Analyst (CCS) * University of Guelph * Guelph, Ontario N1G 2W1
> (519) 824-4120 x56354 (519) 767-1060 FAX (ANNU)
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> Cooking with unix is easy. You just sed it and forget it.
>                               - LFJ (with apologies to Mr. Popeil)
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: "Matthew Saskin" <msaskin at gmail.com>
> To: "Lelio Fulgenzi" <lelio at uoguelph.ca>
> Cc: "Jorge L. Rodriguez Aguila" <jorge.rodriguez at netxar.com>,
> cisco-voip at puck.nether.net
> Sent: Monday, December 19, 2011 6:02:05 PM
> Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] Virtualized subscriber
>
> Truth be told, the stability is there to just virtualize 100% and forget
> about it.  I'm at the point with my client base where essentially 100% of
> new projects are either greenfield on VMware/UCS or technology refreshes.
> This is clients across all verticals and sizes, ranging from ~200 seat
> retail call centers to 10K+ seat IPT and 5K+ seat UCCE implementations in
> the finance/insurance space.
>
> -matthew
>
>
> On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 5:47 PM, Lelio Fulgenzi <lelio at uoguelph.ca> wrote:
>>
>> I would probably consider this so that my publisher is on real hardware
>> and subscribers are on VMware sessions. The reason I say this is because of
>> so many dependencies with VMware, network device and storage device, if
>> anything happens to the shared storage, worse comes to worse, I just restore
>> a pub and wait for a sync to complete.
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>> On Dec 19, 2011, at 5:44 PM, "Jorge L. Rodriguez Aguila"
>> <jorge.rodriguez at netxar.com> wrote:
>>
>> Thanks to everyone, sound like this is something worth exploring.
>>
>> ________________________________
>> From: Mike Wilusz (miwilusz) <miwilusz at cisco.com>
>> To: Jorge L. Rodriguez Aguila; cisco-voip at puck.nether.net
>> <cisco-voip at puck.nether.net>
>> Sent: Mon Dec 19 18:42:19 2011
>> Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] Virtualized subscriber
>>
>> Having a single CUCM cluster split between virtualized on UCS and running
>> on MCS servers is supported.  As long as CUCM is installed on supported
>> platforms, it can run in a hybrid appliance and virtualized configuration.
>>
>> -mike
>>
>> From: "Jorge L. Rodriguez Aguila" <jorge.rodriguez at netxar.com>
>> Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2011 16:32:01 -0400
>> To: "cisco-voip at puck.nether.net" <cisco-voip at puck.nether.net>
>> Subject: [cisco-voip] Virtualized subscriber
>>
>> We have a customer where we recently deployed a CUCM solution, They are
>> running CUCM 8.5.1 on two MCS7825 I4 servers. This deployment is no more
>> than a year old, 14 months tops. Now they are looking to virtualize their DC
>> servers and deploy a DRS DC on one of their remote locations, It is too soon
>> to change out those servers but I was wondering if it is possible to deploy
>> a second subscriber which would run on one of the UCS servers or chassis
>> they acquire. Can you have such a hybrid layout. I’m sure TAC will probably
>> won’t support but this would be a better option than having them split the
>> SUB/PUB via a 10MB WAN link that they have to the site.
>>
>>
>>
>> Jorge
>>
>>
>>
>> Jorge L. Rodriguez Aguila
>>
>> CCNA, CCNP-VOICE
>>
>> Senior Voice/Data Consultant
>>
>> Netxar Technologies
>>
>> Tel-787-765-0058
>>
>> Cel 787-688-8530
>>
>> jorge.rodriguez at netxar.com
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________ 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
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> cisco-voip mailing list
> cisco-voip at puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
>