[cisco-voip] CUCM 8.6 hardware

Wed Jan 18 17:40:15 EST 2012

http://docwiki.cisco.com/wiki/Unified_Communications_Virtualization_Supported_Applications

The Intel Xeon E7-xxxx @ 2.4+ GHz is now starting to be supported by many of the apps.  These are way better, because they are 10 core so a C260 is now a 20 core box instead of 12.

-Nate

From: cisco-voip-bounces at puck.nether.net [mailto:cisco-voip-bounces at puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Nick Matthews
Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2012 3:31 PM
To: Matthew Saskin
Cc: cisco-voip-bounces at puck.nether.net; cisco-voip; Ruben Montes (Europe)
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] CUCM 8.6 hardware

I think they're up to 20:1 or 40:1 with the C460 now.

Also on the HP/IBM remember it's only for certain Intel procs.  One restriction is the ones that are 2.53 GHz+, and there's no oversubscription of CPU or memory, and the IOPS need to be available.  Still no roadmap for Dell.  If you go the specs-based route you're responsible for guaranteeing the appropriate bandwidth and resources to the blade.  If it comes in question, it's up to you to prove the bandwidth/resources are correct.  It's this portion of the specs-based support that has made me hesitant to advise this direction.

-nick

On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 1:53 PM, Matthew Saskin <msaskin at gmail.com<mailto:msaskin at gmail.com>> wrote:
Spot-on.  You can mix and match most of the Cisco UC apps on the same blade without issues.  Things get a bit trickier with UCCE co-residency, but you're good for the "standard" UC apps (CUCM, UCXN, CUPS, UCCX, etc.)

On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 11:13 AM, Lelio Fulgenzi <lelio at uoguelph.ca<mailto:lelio at uoguelph.ca>> wrote:
cool. that explains it well.

from this, if we have a supported blade based VM infrastructure, then we just have to keep UC on separate blades than other third party app VMs.

does that sound 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)

________________________________
From: "Ruben Montes (Europe)" <ruben.montes at dimensiondata.com<mailto:ruben.montes at dimensiondata.com>>
To: "Lelio Fulgenzi" <lelio at uoguelph.ca<mailto:lelio at uoguelph.ca>>
Cc: cisco-voip-bounces at puck.nether.net<mailto:cisco-voip-bounces at puck.nether.net>, "cisco-voip" <cisco-voip at puck.nether.net<mailto:cisco-voip at puck.nether.net>>, "Matthew Loraditch" <MLoraditch at heliontechnologies.com<mailto:MLoraditch at heliontechnologies.com>>, "Scott Voll" <svoll.voip at gmail.com<mailto:svoll.voip at gmail.com>>, "gr11" <grccie at gmail.com<mailto:grccie at gmail.com>>
Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2012 11:09:57 AM

Subject: RE: [cisco-voip] CUCM 8.6 hardware
>From this link:

http://docwiki.cisco.com/wiki/Unified_Communications_Virtualization_Sizing_Guidelines
To determine which applications may share a physical server, use the following guidelines:

  *   Application mix on same physical server / vSphere ESXi host limited to "UC with UC only".

     *   Same rules for UC on UCS TRC, or UC on UCS specs-based, or HP/IBM specs-based.
     *   Co-residency of UC with 3rd-party application VMs (such as TFTP/SFTP/DNS/DHCP servers, Directories, Groupware, File/print, CRM, VMware vCenter, etc.) is not supported at this time. These applications may be placed on a separate physical server from UC. For UCS B-series, this can be an adjacent blade in the same chassis.
     *   Co-residency of UC with non-UC Cisco VMs (such as Cisco Nexus 1000V VSM) is not supported at this time. These VMs may be placed on a separate physical server from UC. For UCS B-series, this can be an adjacent blade
Regards,

Ruben

From: Lelio Fulgenzi [mailto:lelio at uoguelph.ca<mailto:lelio at uoguelph.ca>]
Sent: miércoles, 18 de enero de 2012 16:29
To: Ruben Montes (Europe)
Cc: cisco-voip-bounces at puck.nether.net<mailto:cisco-voip-bounces at puck.nether.net>; cisco-voip; Matthew Loraditch; Scott Voll; gr11
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] CUCM 8.6 hardware

where does it say they do not support co-residency with other applications?

not that I don't believe you, I just can't see this in the doc and need to refer to it.

---
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: "Ruben Montes (Europe)" <ruben.montes at dimensiondata.com<mailto:ruben.montes at dimensiondata.com>>
To: "Matthew Loraditch" <MLoraditch at heliontechnologies.com<mailto:MLoraditch at heliontechnologies.com>>, "Scott Voll" <svoll.voip at gmail.com<mailto:svoll.voip at gmail.com>>, "gr11" <grccie at gmail.com<mailto:grccie at gmail.com>>
Cc: cisco-voip-bounces at puck.nether.net<mailto:cisco-voip-bounces at puck.nether.net>, "cisco-voip" <cisco-voip at puck.nether.net<mailto:cisco-voip at puck.nether.net>>
Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2012 9:58:25 AM
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] CUCM 8.6 hardware

Yes, but they do not support co-residency with other applications, which leads the customer to having to buy at least two additional IBM/HP servers...

I agree with Scott, I'd like to see soon "true" 3rd party hardware on VMWare support.

... ah, and also a decent consolidation ratio would be nice, not just 1:1...

From: 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 Matthew Loraditch
Sent: miércoles, 18 de enero de 2012 15:54
To: Scott Voll; gr11
Cc: cisco-voip-bounces at puck.nether.net<mailto:cisco-voip-bounces at puck.nether.net>; cisco-voip
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] CUCM 8.6 hardware

They support 3rd Party VMWare as of a few months ago:
http://docwiki.cisco.com/wiki/Specification-Based_Hardware_Support

Matthew G. Loraditch - CCVP, CCNA, CCDA

1965 Greenspring Drive
Timonium, MD 21093

voice. 410.252.8830<tel:410.252.8830>
fax.  410.252.9284<tel:410.252.9284>

Twitter<http://twitter.com/heliontech>  |  Facebook<http://www.facebook.com/#%21/pages/Helion/252157915296>  | Website<http://www.heliontechnologies.com/>  |  Email Support<mailto:support at heliontechnologies.com?subject=Technical%20Support%20Request>

From: 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 Scott Voll
Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2012 9:51 AM
To: gr11
Cc: cisco-voip-bounces at puck.nether.net<mailto:cisco-voip-bounces at puck.nether.net>; cisco-voip
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] CUCM 8.6 hardware

my question is how long is cisco going to mandate the UCS stuff before they start supporting 3rd party hardware on VMWare....  we have a huge VM deployment of HP but I have to tell our server team we have to buy Cisco UCS products...... Doesn't make people very happy :-(

Scott
On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 7:35 PM, gr11 <grccie at gmail.com<mailto:grccie at gmail.com>> wrote:
On C class you can use local as well as remote storage, it supports SAN boot installation.  I have done a mixed one on C series - VMware installation on internal disks but CUCM is installed on the SAN disks.

On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 12:03 PM, <John.VanLaecke at ghd.com<mailto:John.VanLaecke at ghd.com>> wrote:
C class internal storage, the b class external storage

C class can support 4 UC apps per server
From:

Lelio Fulgenzi <lelio at uoguelph.ca<mailto:lelio at uoguelph.ca>>

To:

Matthew Saskin <msaskin at gmail.com<mailto:msaskin at gmail.com>>

Cc:

"John.VanLaecke at ghd.com<mailto:John.VanLaecke at ghd.com>" <John.VanLaecke at ghd.com<mailto:John.VanLaecke at ghd.com>>, "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>>, cisco-voip <cisco-voip at puck.nether.net<mailto:cisco-voip at puck.nether.net>>

Date:

18/01/2012 11:00 AM

Subject:

Re: [cisco-voip] CUCM 8.6 hardware

________________________________

Quick question re: UCS, do you have to use remote storage or can you use local storage?

Sent from my iPhone

On Jan 17, 2012, at 7:44 PM, Matthew Saskin <msaskin at gmail.com<mailto:msaskin at gmail.com>> wrote:

Depends on your discount, whether you purchase bare-metal from Cisco or direct from HP/IBM, etc.  You've also got to factor in VMware costs plus added operational complexity for UCS.  That said, ongoing operational costs (eg; smartnet) are much lower for UCS than for bare-metal servers (and on-par with direct manufacturer support for HP/IBM hardware)

That said, I'm a huge proponent of deploying on UCS, b or c-series as appropriate.  Of the 20-30 designs I've put together for customers over the past 12-18 months (ranging from <500 phones to 10K+ phones and 1K+ UCCE agents) that actually became deployed projects, all but 1 are deployed on UCS with an exception for a customer that has a rigorous hardware qualification process and won't qualify UCS for use in their data centers.

-matthew

On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 7:33 PM, <John.VanLaecke at ghd.com<mailto:John.VanLaecke at ghd.com>> wrote:
The C Class UCS server is cheaper than the bare metal box.
From:

Lelio Fulgenzi <lelio at uoguelph.ca<mailto:lelio at uoguelph.ca>>

To:

Erick Wellnitz <ewellnitzvoip at gmail.com<mailto:ewellnitzvoip at gmail.com>>

Cc:

cisco-voip <cisco-voip at puck.nether.net<mailto:cisco-voip at puck.nether.net>>

Date:

18/01/2012 07:16 AM

Subject:

Re: [cisco-voip] CUCM 8.6 hardware

Sent by:

cisco-voip-bounces at puck.nether.net<mailto:cisco-voip-bounces at puck.nether.net>

________________________________

Ah - well, supported and sold are two different things I guess.

The supported platforms will help if you have the platforms already, but not if you are looking to buy new. I do recall quite a few of them being EOL'ed, especially the H series, but you'd have to check the price list and your account team for availability.

There is always the SWONLY option (which is much cheaper). As far as I know, they are MCS equivalents so they are supported.

Lelio

---
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: "Erick Wellnitz" <ewellnitzvoip at gmail.com<mailto:ewellnitzvoip at gmail.com>>
To: "Lelio Fulgenzi" <lelio at uoguelph.ca<mailto:lelio at uoguelph.ca>>
Cc: "cisco-voip" <cisco-voip at puck.nether.net<mailto:cisco-voip at puck.nether.net>>
Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2012 4:08:01 PM
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] CUCM 8.6 hardware

I'm getting conflicting information from someone at Cisco is all.
They told me they aren't selling MCS servers any longer.

On 1/17/12, Lelio Fulgenzi <lelio at uoguelph.ca<mailto:lelio at uoguelph.ca>> wrote:
> did it not provide the answers you were looking for? is it not up to date?
>
> ---
> 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: "Erick Wellnitz" <ewellnitzvoip at gmail.com<mailto:ewellnitzvoip at gmail.com>>
> To: "Lelio Fulgenzi" <lelio at uoguelph.ca<mailto:lelio at uoguelph.ca>>
> Cc: "cisco-voip" <cisco-voip at puck.nether.net<mailto:cisco-voip at puck.nether.net>>
> Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2012 3:46:32 PM
> Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] CUCM 8.6 hardware
>
> I've spent more time looking at that document than I care to think about.
>
>
>
> On 1/17/12, Lelio Fulgenzi <lelio at uoguelph.ca<mailto:lelio at uoguelph.ca>> wrote:
>> Pretty sure they are. Here are some ref docs
>>
>> http://www.cisco.com/en/US/prod/collateral/voicesw/ps6790/ps5748/ps378/prod_brochure0900aecd8062a4f9.html
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ---
>> 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: "Erick Wellnitz" <ewellnitzvoip at gmail.com<mailto:ewellnitzvoip at gmail.com>>
>> To: "cisco-voip" <cisco-voip at puck.nether.net<mailto:cisco-voip at puck.nether.net>>
>> Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2012 3:30:38 PM
>> Subject: [cisco-voip] CUCM 8.6 hardware
>>
>> Quick question as I think I've gone and confused myself.
>>
>> Are tehre still options wit hCM 8.6 for non-virtualized environments?
>> _______________________________________________
>> cisco-voip mailing list
>> cisco-voip at puck.nether.net<mailto:cisco-voip at puck.nether.net>
>> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
>>
>

_____________________
This e-mail has been scanned for viruses by MessageLabs._______________________________________________
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip at puck.nether.net<mailto:cisco-voip at puck.nether.net>
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip

_____________________
This email and all attachments are confidential. For further important information about emails sent to or from GHD or if you have received this email in error, please refer to http://www.ghd.com/emaildisclaimer.html .
_____________________
This e-mail has been scanned for viruses by MessageLabs.

_______________________________________________
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip at puck.nether.net<mailto:cisco-voip at puck.nether.net>
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip

_____________________
This e-mail has been scanned for viruses by MessageLabs.

_____________________
This email and all attachments are confidential. For further important information about emails sent to or from GHD or if you have received this email in error, please refer to http://www.ghd.com/emaildisclaimer.html .
_____________________
This e-mail has been scanned for viruses by MessageLabs.

_______________________________________________
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip at puck.nether.net<mailto:cisco-voip at puck.nether.net>
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip

_______________________________________________
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip at puck.nether.net<mailto:cisco-voip at puck.nether.net>
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip

itevomcid

_______________________________________________
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip at puck.nether.net<mailto:cisco-voip at puck.nether.net>
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip

_______________________________________________
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip at puck.nether.net<mailto:cisco-voip at puck.nether.net>
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip

_______________________________________________
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip at puck.nether.net<mailto:cisco-voip at puck.nether.net>
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip

 NOTICE: This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-voip/attachments/20120118/52391aa9/attachment.html>