[cisco-voip] C-series servers

[Paul]

Since the UCSM runs off of the Fabric Interconnect, how would one be able to use 
the UCSM 1.4 with a standalone C-series box...or are we still limited to the 
CMIC in that case?



________________________________
From:Mike Wilusz (miwilusz) <miwilusz at cisco.com>
To:Matthew Saskin <msaskin at gmail.com>; Ed Leatherman <ealeatherman at gmail.com>
Cc:Cisco VOIP <cisco-voip at puck.nether.net>
Sent: Sat, February 26, 2011 3:29:21 PM
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] C-series servers


Note:  UCS C-series management support was added to UCS Manager v1.4(1).
 
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/unified_computing/ucs/release/notes/OL_24086.html#wp56822


 
-mike
 
From:cisco-voip-bounces at puck.nether.net 
[mailto:cisco-voip-bounces at puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Matthew Saskin
Sent: Saturday, February 26, 2011 6:11 PM
To: Ed Leatherman
Cc: Cisco VOIP
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] C-series servers
 
Ed - C series servers can only be managed separately, no UCS manager.

For what it's worth, I've got clients ranging from 2 x UCS C210's in a small 
environment (CUCM + UCXN) to ones with multiple B-series chassis running large 
CUCM + UCCE deployments.  All are happy, and none have experienced any support 
issues.  In fact, one has turned UCS into their de facto blade hardware, 
displacing HP.  It's a stable platform, and for most new deployments, hard to 
cost justify still using MCS servers.  As a point of reference (based on list 
price), a C210 is only a touch more expensive when you include VMware licensing 
than an MCS-7845, however you can run 2-4 apps instead of 1.  If you look at the 

maintenance costs, UC Support/smartnet on a UCS C210 costs about 30-50% of what 
it costs on an MCS-7845, which is another compelling reason.  Reduce server 
count by 50%+ and reduce ongoing maintenance by 50%+ per chassis = big-time 
savings.

To my understanding there is a single TAC support team, at least for RTP, that 
is responsible for most/all UC on UCS tickets, regardless of what component they 

are related to; UCS, Nexus, or UC Apps - this helps to keep the ball in one 
court if/when it comes down to support issues.  As long as everything is 
deployed per the UC on UCS guidelines, all should be well.

Matthew Saskin
msaskin at gmail.com
203-253-9571



On Fri, Feb 25, 2011 at 8:04 AM, Ed Leatherman <ealeatherman at gmail.com> wrote:
Thats basically what we're planning, except CER instead of CM. Nice.

Are you using UCS Manager for these servers or are they manageable individually?

On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 3:09 PM, Carter, Bill <bcarter at sentinel.com> wrote:
> We are implementing this now. Two C-Series servers. Server 1 has
> UCM-Publisher, UCxN, UCCX, Server 2 has UCM-Subscriber, UCxN, UCCX.
>
> Works really well. Also found significant performance improvement when
> doing upgrades...Fast!
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: cisco-voip-bounces at puck.nether.net
> [mailto:cisco-voip-bounces at puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Matthew
> Loraditch
> Sent: Wednesday, February 09, 2011 3:24 PM
> To: Ed Leatherman; Cisco VOIP
> Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] C-series servers
>
> Well I've got a C200M2 on order for someone. Not sure that I'll be able
> to give you much helpful reaction given my install timeline length but
> if you still need info once I've got her up and running I'll be glad to
> give some.
>
>
> Matthew Loraditch, CCVP, CCNA, CCDA
> 1965 Greenspring Drive
> Timonium, MD 21093
> support at heliontechnologies.com
> (p) (410) 252-8830
> (F) (443) 541-1593
>
> Visit us at www.heliontechnologies.com
> Support Issue? Email support at heliontechnologies.com for fast assistance!
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: cisco-voip-bounces at puck.nether.net
> [mailto:cisco-voip-bounces at puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Ed Leatherman
> Sent: Wednesday, February 09, 2011 4:19 PM
> To: Cisco VOIP
> Subject: [cisco-voip] C-series servers
>
> Anyone deployed or running any UC apps on the UCS C210 servers? Any
> thoughts or opinions? Do you like the hardware better than a HP or IBM?
> Has running on VMWare caused any support headaches?
>
> I'm planning to migrate Unity Connection to it and also looking at this
> as an option for UCCX as our current hardware is EOL soon. Since it
> would be virtualized i can use the server that will have the connection
> VM to also host one of the UCCX nodes, which will help out price-wise.
>
> --
> Ed Leatherman
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>



--
Ed Leatherman
_______________________________________________
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip at puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip