[cisco-voip] C-series servers

[Ryan Ratliff]

To clarify the support the team that supports the data center virtualization technology supports the UCS servers.  The team in RTP sits right by us and works closely with us for UC on UCS issues.   That said, you should still expect to talk with a CUCM person if you have a telephony issue, regardless of the server it runs on.  Where it gets messy (not in a bad way) is when it's a platform issue that impacts telephony services.  Given that the platform now consists of the blade, the chassis, the vSwitch, and a SAN on the backend the potential for headaches is a bit higher but I can't say we've had any real ugly issues yet.  Most of the cases I've seen have just been install issues due to some quirks with using the ova templates.

-Ryan

On Feb 26, 2011, at 6:10 PM, Matthew Saskin wrote:

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

_______________________________________________
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/20110228/18a4cdf5/attachment.html>