[cisco-voip] UCS chassis redundancy

Fri Sep 2 04:41:43 EDT 2011

I knew it!!!! 

Sent from my iPhone

On Sep 2, 2011, at 12:32 AM, Paul <asobihoudai at yahoo.com> wrote:

> CallManager running off of the router's service module *is* already approved - but only for the DoD from what I've seen.
> 
> 
> From: Matthew Berry <matthew.berry at cdw.com>
> To: "Wellnitz, Erick A." <erick.wellnitz at kattenlaw.com>; Dennis Heim <Dennis.Heim at cdw.com>; Lelio Fulgenzi <lelio at uoguelph.ca>; Nick Matthews <matthnick at gmail.com>
> Cc: "cisco-voip at puck.nether.net" <cisco-voip at puck.nether.net>
> Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2011 10:12 AM
> Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] UCS chassis redundancy
> 
> I'd have to agree with Dennis, and not just because we work at the same company. :)
> 
> Yes, bandwidth is cheap, Erick.  However, experience has shown that a branch office running a few bonded T1s or T3s isn't going to be as reliable as a customers data center LAN.  If you put a subscriber out at a remote site, running on an ISR G2, can you image the impact of that site's circuit was flapping over a few days (carriers aren't always the quickest to dispatch)?
> 
> I would rather keep my CUCM servers in 1-2 data centers with some sort of other resilient data connection in between.  If one of the branches has a circuit flap issue, only that branch is affected, not the entire environment.
> 
> Scalability is another thing.  Unless you setup a supercluster, you're not going to get past the eight subscriber limitation in CUCM.  You're going to wind up with some sites running off a remote CUCM anyway.
> 
> Last thing…  Cisco is extremely strict regarding the hardware requirements for virtualized UC servers.  I can't imagine them ever approving an ESXi-based UC solution running off a service module.  Even the SRE-910SM falls short with a Intel Core Duo, 1.86 Ghz and 8GB of RAM.  Such a setup would only potentially be able to support a single UC virtualized application.
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> Matthew Berry, CCIE #26721 (Voice)         
> CDW | Sr. Unified Communications Engineer         
> Single Number Reach: +1.763.592.5987         
> Email:  matthew.berry at cdw.com
> 
> 
> From: "Wellnitz, Erick A." <erick.wellnitz at kattenlaw.com>
> Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2011 16:59:50 +0000
> To: Dennis Heim <Dennis.Heim at cdw.com>, Lelio Fulgenzi <lelio at uoguelph.ca>, Nick Matthews <matthnick at gmail.com>
> Cc: "cisco-voip at puck.nether.net" <cisco-voip at puck.nether.net>
> Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] UCS chassis redundancy
> 
> We already do it with standard server hardware.  Database replication is a non-issue.  Bandwidth is cheap.  Upgrades aren’t a problem  seeing as they can be staged and run the ‘switch version’ command at a later time.
>  
> Lower bandwidth situations would be a no go.
>  
> From: cisco-voip-bounces at puck.nether.net [mailto:cisco-voip-bounces at puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Dennis Heim
> Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2011 11:54 AM
> To: Lelio Fulgenzi; Nick Matthews
> Cc: cisco-voip at puck.nether.net
> Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] UCS chassis redundancy
>  
> I am going to go with “NO” on that. Imagine database replication across all sites? Imagine doing major version upgrades.
>  
> Dennis Heim
> Network Voice Engineer
> CDW  Advanced Technology Services
> 10610 9th Place
> Bellevue, WA 98004
> 
> 317.569.4255 Single Number Reach
> 317.569.4201 Fax
> dennis.heim at cdw.com
> cdw.com/content/solutions/unified-communications/
>  
> From: cisco-voip-bounces at puck.nether.net [mailto:cisco-voip-bounces at puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Lelio Fulgenzi
> Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2011 8:51 AM
> To: Nick Matthews
> Cc: cisco-voip at puck.nether.net
> Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] UCS chassis redundancy
>  
> won't it be great when the VMware service modules on the ISR G2s support installing CUCM on it? a full subscriber at each remote site. ;)
> 
> ---
> Lelio Fulgenzi, B.A.
> Senior Analyst (CCS) * University of Guelph * Guelph, Ontario N1G 2W1
> (519) 824-4120 x56354 (519) 767-1060 FAX (JNHN)
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> Cooking with unix is easy. You just sed it and forget it. 
>                               - LFJ (with apologies to Mr. Popeil)
> From: "Nick Matthews" <matthnick at gmail.com>
> To: "Erick A. Wellnitz" <erick.wellnitz at kattenlaw.com>
> Cc: cisco-voip at puck.nether.net
> Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2011 11:42:59 AM
> Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] UCS chassis redundancy
> 
> I'm seeing a lot of B-series at the data center and a C-series at a remote site or DR.  Otherwise, a second chassis isn't *too* expensive.  The bulk of the cost is in the blades and the 6100s.  You still need power supplies, IO, chassis, but it's not too bad.  Seeing a decent amount of 2nd chassis as well.  A lot of the DC types that are putting their blades in there as well help offset the cost.
> 
> -nick
> On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 9:46 AM, Wellnitz, Erick A. <erick.wellnitz at kattenlaw.com> wrote:
> Has anyone had issues with the UCS blade chassis being a single point of failure?    What happens if the chassis itself fails?  DO people have redundant chassis installed?  A C series UCS for disaster situations? 
>  
> I don’t like having all my eggs in one basket.
>  
> ERICK A. WELLNITZ 
> Network Engineer
> Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP
>  
> ===========================================================
> CIRCULAR 230 DISCLOSURE: Pursuant to Regulations Governing Practice Before the Internal Revenue
> Service, any tax advice contained herein is not intended or written to be used and cannot be used
> by a taxpayer for the purpose of avoiding tax penalties that may be imposed on the taxpayer.
> ===========================================================
> CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE:
> This electronic mail message and any attached files contain information intended for the exclusive
> use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed and may contain information that is
> proprietary, privileged, confidential and/or exempt from disclosure under applicable law.  If you
> are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any viewing, copying, disclosure or 
> distribution of this information may be subject to legal restriction or sanction.  Please notify
> the sender, by electronic mail or telephone, of any unintended recipients and delete the original 
> message without making any copies.
> ===========================================================
> NOTIFICATION:  Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP is an Illinois limited liability partnership that has
> elected to be governed by the Illinois Uniform Partnership Act (1997).
> ===========================================================
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20110902/7cb3728f/attachment.html>