<html><head><style type='text/css'>p { margin: 0; }</style></head><body><div style='font-family: Verdana; font-size: 10pt; color: #000000'>I definitely think there are advantages to a vm deployment. I guess it will take some time to familiarize ourselves with those advantages and how we can ensure the stability of a voice deployment on our vm infrastructure. <br><br>To answer your question though, right now, we have spare hardware as well as a 24x7x4 HP maintenance contract, so the publisher can be up and running in a short time. As long as the subscriber keep running, then services should continue running. Right? ;)<br><span><br><span name="x"></span>---<br>Lelio Fulgenzi, B.A.<br>Senior Analyst (CCS) * University of Guelph * Guelph, Ontario N1G 2W1<br>(519) 824-4120 x56354 (519) 767-1060 FAX (ANNU)<br>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^<br>Cooking with unix is easy. You just sed it and forget it. <br> - LFJ (with apologies to Mr. Popeil)<br><span name="x"></span><br></span><br><hr id="zwchr"><b>From: </b>"Nick Matthews" <matthnick@gmail.com><br><b>To: </b>"Erick" <ewellnitzvoip@gmail.com><br><b>Cc: </b>"Lelio Fulgenzi" <lelio@uoguelph.ca>, cisco-voip@puck.nether.net<br><b>Sent: </b>Monday, December 19, 2011 9:22:48 PM<br><b>Subject: </b>Re: [cisco-voip] Virtualized subscriber<br><br>It's worth considering the opposite:<br>If your publisher hardware dies how much pain are you going through to<br>restore it? How long? Depending on your Vmware and UCS environment<br>this could be as low as a few minutes.<br>If you have a site outage, how much of your voice<br>infrastructure/publisher is out of service? If you're already doing<br>SAN replication you can start the VM up elsewhere.<br><br>You can clone the VM before a big upgrade, and roll back to the clone<br>if things don't go well, etc. Vmotion has limited support, etc.<br><br>IMO there are enough advantages to outweigh the complexities. A lot<br>of people are doing C210/C200 with local disk as a starter, but the<br>b-series is where the cool kicks in. FWIW, I haven't seen an upgrade<br>or new deployment use MCS for about 1 year now. Cisco has also seen<br>no major deployment problems due to virtualization - which is pretty<br>impressive.<br><br>-nick<br><br>On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 8:33 PM, Erick <ewellnitzvoip@gmail.com> wrote:<br>> I understand the virtualization and NAS fears but at my last gig we ran<br>> 100%virtual for over a year with minimal issues related to VM (vm guys<br>> didn't listen to requirements) and no storage issues.<br>><br>> Current gig we're deploying something like 270 voice VMs on B series blades.<br>><br>><br>><br>> On Dec 19, 2011, at 6:54 PM, Lelio Fulgenzi <lelio@uoguelph.ca> wrote:<br>><br>> I'm less concerned with stability than I am with too many hands in the pot.<br>> Our VM infrastructure is shared by many services and groups, and I'm not<br>> sure I can maintain 100% uptime either due to unforeseen issues or for<br>> maintenance. The last thing I want to do is restore a publisher due to<br>> corrupt data because a SAN/NAS (or whatever they call it nowadays) was not<br>> staying up during a maintenance window. ;)<br>><br>> But that's just me.<br>><br>> ---<br>> Lelio Fulgenzi, B.A.<br>> Senior Analyst (CCS) * University of Guelph * Guelph, Ontario N1G 2W1<br>> (519) 824-4120 x56354 (519) 767-1060 FAX (ANNU)<br>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^<br>> Cooking with unix is easy. You just sed it and forget it.<br>> - LFJ (with apologies to Mr. Popeil)<br>><br>><br>> ________________________________<br>> From: "Matthew Saskin" <msaskin@gmail.com><br>> To: "Lelio Fulgenzi" <lelio@uoguelph.ca><br>> Cc: "Jorge L. Rodriguez Aguila" <jorge.rodriguez@netxar.com>,<br>> cisco-voip@puck.nether.net<br>> Sent: Monday, December 19, 2011 6:02:05 PM<br>> Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] Virtualized subscriber<br>><br>> Truth be told, the stability is there to just virtualize 100% and forget<br>> about it. I'm at the point with my client base where essentially 100% of<br>> new projects are either greenfield on VMware/UCS or technology refreshes.<br>> This is clients across all verticals and sizes, ranging from ~200 seat<br>> retail call centers to 10K+ seat IPT and 5K+ seat UCCE implementations in<br>> the finance/insurance space.<br>><br>> -matthew<br>><br>><br>> On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 5:47 PM, Lelio Fulgenzi <lelio@uoguelph.ca> wrote:<br>>><br>>> I would probably consider this so that my publisher is on real hardware<br>>> and subscribers are on VMware sessions. The reason I say this is because of<br>>> so many dependencies with VMware, network device and storage device, if<br>>> anything happens to the shared storage, worse comes to worse, I just restore<br>>> a pub and wait for a sync to complete.<br>>><br>>> Sent from my iPhone<br>>><br>>> On Dec 19, 2011, at 5:44 PM, "Jorge L. Rodriguez Aguila"<br>>> <jorge.rodriguez@netxar.com> wrote:<br>>><br>>> Thanks to everyone, sound like this is something worth exploring.<br>>><br>>> ________________________________<br>>> From: Mike Wilusz (miwilusz) <miwilusz@cisco.com><br>>> To: Jorge L. Rodriguez Aguila; cisco-voip@puck.nether.net<br>>> <cisco-voip@puck.nether.net><br>>> Sent: Mon Dec 19 18:42:19 2011<br>>> Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] Virtualized subscriber<br>>><br>>> Having a single CUCM cluster split between virtualized on UCS and running<br>>> on MCS servers is supported. As long as CUCM is installed on supported<br>>> platforms, it can run in a hybrid appliance and virtualized configuration.<br>>><br>>> -mike<br>>><br>>> From: "Jorge L. Rodriguez Aguila" <jorge.rodriguez@netxar.com><br>>> Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2011 16:32:01 -0400<br>>> To: "cisco-voip@puck.nether.net" <cisco-voip@puck.nether.net><br>>> Subject: [cisco-voip] Virtualized subscriber<br>>><br>>> We have a customer where we recently deployed a CUCM solution, They are<br>>> running CUCM 8.5.1 on two MCS7825 I4 servers. This deployment is no more<br>>> than a year old, 14 months tops. Now they are looking to virtualize their DC<br>>> servers and deploy a DRS DC on one of their remote locations, It is too soon<br>>> to change out those servers but I was wondering if it is possible to deploy<br>>> a second subscriber which would run on one of the UCS servers or chassis<br>>> they acquire. Can you have such a hybrid layout. I’m sure TAC will probably<br>>> won’t support but this would be a better option than having them split the<br>>> SUB/PUB via a 10MB WAN link that they have to the site.<br>>><br>>><br>>><br>>> Jorge<br>>><br>>><br>>><br>>> Jorge L. Rodriguez Aguila<br>>><br>>> CCNA, CCNP-VOICE<br>>><br>>> Senior Voice/Data Consultant<br>>><br>>> Netxar Technologies<br>>><br>>> Tel-787-765-0058<br>>><br>>> Cel 787-688-8530<br>>><br>>> jorge.rodriguez@netxar.com<br>>><br>>><br>>><br>>> _______________________________________________ cisco-voip mailing list<br>>> cisco-voip@puck.nether.net<br>>> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip<br>>><br>>> _______________________________________________<br>>> cisco-voip mailing list<br>>> cisco-voip@puck.nether.net<br>>> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip<br>>><br>>><br>>> _______________________________________________<br>>> cisco-voip mailing list<br>>> cisco-voip@puck.nether.net<br>>> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip<br>>><br>><br>> _______________________________________________<br>> cisco-voip mailing list<br>> cisco-voip@puck.nether.net<br>> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip<br>><br>><br>> _______________________________________________<br>> cisco-voip mailing list<br>> cisco-voip@puck.nether.net<br>> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip<br>><br></div></body></html>