<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle18
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
span.EmailStyle19
{mso-style-type:personal-compose;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D">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.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D">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?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="color:#1F497D">Matthew G. Loraditch – CCNP-Voice, CCNA, CCDA<br>
</span><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><br>
1965 Greenspring Drive</span><span style="color:#1F497D"><br>
</span><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Timonium, MD 21093</span><span style="color:#1F497D"><br>
</span><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><br>
voice. 410.252.8830<br>
fax. 410.252.9284 <br>
<br>
<a href="http://twitter.com/heliontech">Twitter</a> | <a href="http://www.facebook.com/#!/pages/Helion/252157915296">
Facebook</a> | <a href="http://www.heliontechnologies.com/">Website</a> | <a href="mailto:support@heliontechnologies.com?subject=Technical%20Support%20Request">
Email Support</a></span><span style="font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;margin-bottom:12.0pt"><span style="color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>From:</b> cisco-voip-bounces@puck.nether.net [mailto:cisco-voip-bounces@puck.nether.net]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Madziarczyk, Jonathan<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Thursday, March 28, 2013 4:28 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> cisco-voip@puck.nether.net<br>
<b>Subject:</b> [cisco-voip] CUCM on 3rd party hardware (CPU question)<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">So I’m trying to figure this one out. Maybe some Cisco gurus can chime in?<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I started by going off of this document: <a href="http://docwiki.cisco.com/wiki/UC_Virtualization_Supported_Hardware#Processors_.2F_CPUs">
http://docwiki.cisco.com/wiki/UC_Virtualization_Supported_Hardware#Processors_.2F_CPUs</a><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">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.
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">However when I look at this: <a href="http://docwiki.cisco.com/wiki/OVA_Template_Details_for_Unified_CM_Release_9.0">
http://docwiki.cisco.com/wiki/OVA_Template_Details_for_Unified_CM_Release_9.0</a><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">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:
<a href="http://ark.intel.com/compare/37104,37096,64584">http://ark.intel.com/compare/37104,37096,64584</a>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">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?<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">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.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">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)?
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Thoughts?<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</body>
</html>