[cisco-voip] Hardware for UC

[Brian Palmer]

I can tell you it is a lot easier to get through A2Q when you aren’t dealing with network attached storage.  The costs will be higher for a ucs C series chassis because it is an all in one server unlike the blades.  I prefer UCS-C series typically because I don’t have to depend on a network team that might or might not know what they are doing.  On the other hand if you already have a SAN setup and running the old environment it could be more cost effective to upgrade that than put in a  new C series setup.  In the B environments I have worked with I usually have a lot more communication going on between the various teams that support it as in many cases the network storage is used for all kinds of things within an environment.

This can go either way ultimately it is about requirements.




Thank you,
Brian



From: cisco-voip [mailto:cisco-voip-bounces at puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Scott Voll
Sent: Monday, March 30, 2015 11:43 AM
To: cisco-voip at puck.nether.net
Subject: [cisco-voip] Hardware for UC

What hardware is everyone using to upgrade there UC enviroment to?

We have UCS Blades with netapp storage, but have had some limitations on IO (prior to the upgraded controllers) that I'm a little concerned about.

I like the idea of vmotion.  But I'm thinking if it's my back side on the line with my UC environment, Maybe the rack mount UCS might be a better bet?  We (UC Team) have also been thinking about the UCS mini with storage blade.

What our others doing?  What is Cisco suggesting these days?

Thanks

Scott


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-voip/attachments/20150330/2a12aceb/attachment.html>