[cisco-voip] UCS chassis redundancy

Ki Wi kiwi.voice at gmail.com
Fri Sep 2 10:08:37 EDT 2011 

I think the main diff will be all your hunt group, corp directory, etc for your site will be maintain. How many people is so hardworking to make sure their cucm and cme (srst) behaves exactly the same when wan link fails? 

If I'm not wrong, avaya have similar features for their branch site long time ago. Only if cucm can generate a XML file for each branch site for srst purpose then this module is not useful. =]

Sent from my iPhone
Pls pardon my fat fingers.

On Sep 2, 2011, at 9:00 PM, "Wellnitz, Erick A." <erick.wellnitz at kattenlaw.com> wrote:

> I was thinking more on this.  Wouldn't really be any different than running CME in a remote site and having that fail.  Or even having your srst device go down.
> 
> On Sep 2, 2011, at 3:41 AM, "Lelio Fulgenzi" <lelio at uoguelph.ca<mailto:lelio at uoguelph.ca>> wrote:
> 
> I knew it!!!!
> 
> Sent from my iPhone
> 
> On Sep 2, 2011, at 12:32 AM, Paul <<mailto:asobihoudai at yahoo.com>asobihoudai at yahoo.com<mailto: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 <<mailto:matthew.berry at cdw.com>matthew.berry at cdw.com<mailto:matthew.berry at cdw.com>>
> To: "Wellnitz, Erick A." <<mailto:erick.wellnitz at kattenlaw.com>erick.wellnitz at kattenlaw.com<mailto:erick.wellnitz at kattenlaw.com>>; Dennis Heim <<mailto:Dennis.Heim at cdw.com>Dennis.Heim at cdw.com<mailto:Dennis.Heim at cdw.com>>; Lelio Fulgenzi <<mailto:lelio at uoguelph.ca>lelio at uoguelph.ca<mailto:lelio at uoguelph.ca>>; Nick Matthews <<mailto:matthnick at gmail.com>matthnick at gmail.com<mailto:matthnick at gmail.com>>
> Cc: "<mailto:cisco-voip at puck.nether.net>cisco-voip at puck.nether.net<mailto:cisco-voip at puck.nether.net>" <<mailto:cisco-voip at puck.nether.net>cisco-voip at puck.nether.net<mailto: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:  <mailto:matthew.berry at cdw.com> <mailto:matthew.berry at cdw.com> matthew.berry at cdw.com<mailto:matthew.berry at cdw.com>
> 
> 
> From: "Wellnitz, Erick A." <<mailto:erick.wellnitz at kattenlaw.com><mailto:erick.wellnitz at kattenlaw.com>erick.wellnitz at kattenlaw.com<mailto:erick.wellnitz at kattenlaw.com>>
> Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2011 16:59:50 +0000
> To: Dennis Heim <<mailto:Dennis.Heim at cdw.com><mailto:Dennis.Heim at cdw.com>Dennis.Heim at cdw.com<mailto:Dennis.Heim at cdw.com>>, Lelio Fulgenzi <<mailto:lelio at uoguelph.ca><mailto:lelio at uoguelph.ca>lelio at uoguelph.ca<mailto:lelio at uoguelph.ca>>, Nick Matthews <<mailto:matthnick at gmail.com><mailto:matthnick at gmail.com>matthnick at gmail.com<mailto:matthnick at gmail.com>>
> Cc: "<mailto:cisco-voip at puck.nether.net><mailto:cisco-voip at puck.nether.net>cisco-voip at puck.nether.net<mailto:cisco-voip at puck.nether.net>" <<mailto:cisco-voip at puck.nether.net><mailto:cisco-voip at puck.nether.net>cisco-voip at puck.nether.net<mailto: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: <mailto:cisco-voip-bounces at puck.nether.net> <mailto:cisco-voip-bounces at puck.nether.net> cisco-voip-bounces at puck.nether.net<mailto:cisco-voip-bounces at puck.nether.net> [<mailto:cisco-voip-bounces at puck.nether.net><mailto: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: <mailto:cisco-voip at puck.nether.net> <mailto:cisco-voip at puck.nether.net> cisco-voip at puck.nether.net<mailto: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<mailto:dennis.heim at cdw.com>
> <http://www.cdw.com/content/solutions/unified-communications/><http://cdw.com/content/solutions/unified-communications/>cdw.com/content/solutions/unified-communications/<http://cdw.com/content/solutions/unified-communications/>
> 
> From: <mailto:cisco-voip-bounces at puck.nether.net> <mailto:cisco-voip-bounces at puck.nether.net> cisco-voip-bounces at puck.nether.net<mailto:cisco-voip-bounces at puck.nether.net> [<mailto:cisco-voip-bounces at puck.nether.net><mailto: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: <mailto:cisco-voip at puck.nether.net> <mailto:cisco-voip at puck.nether.net> cisco-voip at puck.nether.net<mailto: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" <<mailto:matthnick at gmail.com><mailto:matthnick at gmail.com>matthnick at gmail.com<mailto:matthnick at gmail.com>>
> To: "Erick A. Wellnitz" <<mailto:erick.wellnitz at kattenlaw.com><mailto:erick.wellnitz at kattenlaw.com>erick.wellnitz at kattenlaw.com<mailto:erick.wellnitz at kattenlaw.com>>
> Cc: <mailto:cisco-voip at puck.nether.net> <mailto:cisco-voip at puck.nether.net> cisco-voip at puck.nether.net<mailto: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. <<mailto:erick.wellnitz at kattenlaw.com><mailto:erick.wellnitz at kattenlaw.com>erick.wellnitz at kattenlaw.com<mailto: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
> <mailto:cisco-voip at puck.nether.net><mailto:cisco-voip at puck.nether.net>cisco-voip at puck.nether.net<mailto:cisco-voip at puck.nether.net>
> <https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip><https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip>https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> cisco-voip mailing list
> <mailto:cisco-voip at puck.nether.net><mailto:cisco-voip at puck.nether.net>cisco-voip at puck.nether.net<mailto:cisco-voip at puck.nether.net>
> <https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip><https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip>https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
> _______________________________________________ cisco-voip mailing list <mailto:cisco-voip at puck.nether.net> <mailto:cisco-voip at puck.nether.net> cisco-voip at puck.nether.net<mailto:cisco-voip at puck.nether.net> <https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip> <https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
> 
> _______________________________________________
> cisco-voip mailing list
> <mailto:cisco-voip at puck.nether.net><mailto:cisco-voip at puck.nether.net>cisco-voip at puck.nether.net<mailto:cisco-voip at puck.nether.net>
> <https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip><https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip>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

More information about the cisco-voip mailing list