[cisco-voip] Virtualized subscriber

Lelio Fulgenzi lelio at uoguelph.ca
Mon Dec 19 22:04:29 EST 2011 

I definitely think there are advantages to a vm deployment. I guess it will take some time to familiarize ourselves with those advantages and how we can ensure the stability of a voice deployment on our vm infrastructure. 

To answer your question though, right now, we have spare hardware as well as a 24x7x4 HP maintenance contract, so the publisher can be up and running in a short time. As long as the subscriber keep running, then services should continue running. Right? ;) 

--- 
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) 


----- Original Message -----
From: "Nick Matthews" <matthnick at gmail.com> 
To: "Erick" <ewellnitzvoip at gmail.com> 
Cc: "Lelio Fulgenzi" <lelio at uoguelph.ca>, cisco-voip at puck.nether.net 
Sent: Monday, December 19, 2011 9:22:48 PM 
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] Virtualized subscriber 

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 
> 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-voip/attachments/20111219/dd9164c9/attachment.html>

More information about the cisco-voip mailing list