[cisco-voip] CUCM on 3rd party hardware (CPU question)

[Madziarczyk, Jonathan]

Thanks Matthew,

 

Yeah, I'll need to whitebox at some point, once I can get some media.

 

>From the CPU side, it's almost $3k to upgrade a single server that isn't
even 3 months old.

 

Ah well, I'll try at the SE/AM level and see what I get.

 

Jon

 

 

 

From: Matthew Loraditch [mailto:MLoraditch at heliontechnologies.com] 
Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2013 3:50 PM
To: Madziarczyk, Jonathan; cisco-voip at puck.nether.net
Subject: RE: CUCM on 3rd party hardware (CPU question)

 

Those specs are carved in proverbial stone. You can see in the not
supported column your scenario is specifically denied. While I believe
you are right about actual performance, the test teams only have so many
resources and there have to be some rules. I think it's pretty fair as
is right now, they only thing they really care about any more is the CPU
you can build a white box at this point if you want. You still need
enough RAM and such but no requirements as to brand, speed, etc.

 

You can certainly talk to your AM and SE and provide the feedback, but
I'm 99% sure there is no such thing as a dispensation. Why don't you
just get new CPUs if everything else is ok with your servers?

 

 

Matthew G. Loraditch - CCNP-Voice, CCNA, CCDA

1965 Greenspring Drive
Timonium, MD 21093

voice. 410.252.8830
fax.  410.252.9284    

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

 

 

From: cisco-voip-bounces at puck.nether.net
[mailto:cisco-voip-bounces at puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Madziarczyk,
Jonathan
Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2013 4:28 PM
To: cisco-voip at puck.nether.net
Subject: [cisco-voip] CUCM on 3rd party hardware (CPU question)

 

So I'm trying to figure this one out.  Maybe some Cisco gurus can chime
in?

 

I started by going off of this document:
http://docwiki.cisco.com/wiki/UC_Virtualization_Supported_Hardware#Proce
ssors_.2F_CPUs

My brand new Dells have Intel Xeon E5-2660s in them which qualifies, but
they're running at 2.2GHz instead of the requested 2.5GHz.  

 

However when I look at this:
http://docwiki.cisco.com/wiki/OVA_Template_Details_for_Unified_CM_Releas
e_9.0

I see that both the 1000 and 2500 user servers are based off of the
E5500 series chips which is significantly slower than my processors, as
based on the following: http://ark.intel.com/compare/37104,37096,64584  

 

Technically, the 1000user server model doesn't even qualify as a valid
hardware config based off of the first docuwiki link, and both models
are using 4yr old CPUs while I'm trying to use a <1yr old cpu that's 2
generations ahead of Cisco's recommendations (2x threads, 2x cache, 2x
bus speed, 2x memory bandwidth, more memory channels, faster Max Turbo
Freq, etc).  And secondly the reservation is only for 800MHz, which
means if there's any contention, having a 2.5GHz chip means nothing,
right?

 

I get that Cisco is trying to pad their stats to eliminate any sort of a
hardware issue, but from my perspective using a brand new server I
already own vs. spending another $8k.  Especially, when I believe
existing will run even better than the OVA requirements.

 

Obviously I want to be TAC supported on the software, do I need to ask
for special dispensation to run on existing hardware (would that even
have a chance)?  

 

Thoughts?

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-voip/attachments/20130329/5c76f12b/attachment.html>