[cisco-voip] UC on UCS

Thu Sep 5 12:27:03 EDT 2013

When doing the UC on UCS designs you basically need to make sure:
-The processor family is support (Intel E7-XXXX, no AMD, etc)
-The processor speed is high enough
-No memory over subscription
-No CPU over subscription (can't use hyperthreading to cheat)
-All VMs meet co-residency and lowest common denominator on hardware
specs/VMware version
-Correct VMware version for VM specs and application requirements
-IOPS availability for SAN/Local disk
-Storage space available

Generally on the C-series it's IOPS that is the bottleneck. For B-series
it's usually the CPU count. For instance, just because you can get enough
space on the C-series it doesn't mean it's supported. Plus, getting exact
IOPS counts for your drive types/speeds/RAID levels isn't a simple task so
there is usually a level of engineering tolerance built in; on top of using
worst-case simultaneous IOPS for all applications for the determined size.

So it's gotten a lot more flexible in the last few years, but after doing
this sizing and support exercise, the TRCs are still a pretty valuable
play. If anything, configure the same thing as the TRC and drop down the
memory as most UC on UCS VM's are usually 64GB of RAM but probably only 20%
utilized.

-nick

On Thu, Sep 5, 2013 at 11:04 AM, Lelio Fulgenzi <lelio at uoguelph.ca> wrote:

> yes, i tried that tool as well. got the same answer (on my side, and the
> other side).
>
> i have a sneaking suspicion, they didn't like my answer because I was
> using two C260-M2s. they came back and told me to use 4 C240-M3s. i really
> liked the C260 and only having to deal with two boxes, one in each data
> centre. plus, it was a bit cheaper, and when i asked at Live 2012, I was
> told (with obvious caveats) that a C260-M3 would likely come down the line
> as well.
>
> i believe the bigger boxes like the C260 are off the TRC roadmap and there
> will only be mid-size boxes like the C240, everything else is pushing
> towards the blade infrastructure.
>
> so they were likely trying to do me a favour. ;)
>
> salt, grain, etc.
>
>
>
>
> ---
> Lelio Fulgenzi, B.A.
> Senior Analyst, Data Centre and Communications Facilities
> Computing and Communications Services (CCS)
> University of Guelph
>
> 519‐824‐4120 Ext 56354
> lelio at uoguelph.ca
> www.uoguelph.ca/ccs
> Room 037, Animal Science and Nutrition Building
> Guelph, Ontario, N1G 2W1
>
> ------------------------------
> *From: *"Matthew Loraditch" <MLoraditch at heliontechnologies.com>
> *To: *"Lelio Fulgenzi" <lelio at uoguelph.ca>, "Scott Voll" <
> svoll.voip at gmail.com>
> *Cc: *cisco-voip at puck.nether.net
> *Sent: *Thursday, September 5, 2013 10:56:05 AM
> *Subject: *RE: [cisco-voip] UC on UCS
>
>
>  The docwiki is described as authoritative by the various partner
> resources who participate in our partner online community.
>
> I also recommend looking at the new sizing tool:
> http://tools.cisco.com/ucs/
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Matthew G. Loraditch – CCNP-Voice, CCNA-R&S, 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<support at heliontechnologies.com?subject=Technical%20Support%20Request>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* cisco-voip [mailto:cisco-voip-bounces at puck.nether.net] *On Behalf
> Of *Lelio Fulgenzi
> *Sent:* Thursday, September 05, 2013 10:41 AM
> *To:* Scott Voll
> *Cc:* cisco-voip at puck.nether.net
> *Subject:* Re: [cisco-voip] UC on UCS
>
>
>
>
> I think you'll find the proverbial, "it depends" is the answer.
>
> The wiki doc starts here:
>
>
> http://docwiki.cisco.com/wiki/Unified_Communications_Virtualization_Sizing_Guidelines#General_Rules_for_Co-residency_and_Physical.2FVirtual_Hardware_Sizing
>
> You'll have to get your apps lined up and see which ones have what rules.
>
> But I have a feeling, that this doc wiki, as updated as it may be,
> sometimes is not "authoritative". I had an interesting discussion with my
> SE as far as how many VMs I could run on one UCS chassis. I read the doc,
> came up with a plan, and word came back, both from the SE and from his
> support team that my design was over provisioned. I'm pushing back, asking
> them why if all I did was read the documentation and sized it accordingly.
> Never got a good explanation as to why the conflict.
>
> Good luck.
>
> Lelio
>
> ---
> Lelio Fulgenzi, B.A.
> Senior Analyst, Data Centre and Communications Facilities
> Computing and Communications Services (CCS)
> University of Guelph
>
> 519‐824‐4120 Ext 56354
> lelio at uoguelph.ca
> www.uoguelph.ca/ccs
> Room 037, Animal Science and Nutrition Building
> Guelph, Ontario, N1G 2W1
>
>
>  ------------------------------
>
> *From: *"Scott Voll" <svoll.voip at gmail.com>
> *To: *cisco-voip at puck.nether.net
> *Sent: *Thursday, September 5, 2013 10:27:08 AM
> *Subject: *[cisco-voip] UC on UCS
>
> Can someone point me to the correct documentation that says that either I
> CAN or I CAN'T run other 3rd party apps on the same blade as my UC stuff?
>
>
>
> I've had conflicting reports but have no solid information on the support
> of this configuration.
>
>
>
> One report I got said I could if I was using Nexus 1000v to support QoS.
>
>
>
> Yet others have been it's not supported due to CPU and Ram concerns.
>
>
>
> ultimately I want a TAC supported system, but need to factor in cost.
>
>
>
> TIA
>
>
>
> Scott
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20130905/4045c5d2/attachment.html>