VPN tunnel between AD and offsite backup?
in [Windows Servers]
|
From: Ace Fekay [MVP-DS, MCT] on 23 Feb 2010 12:48 "Phillip Windell" <philwindell(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:OkrY$XJtKHA.4024(a)TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl... > "Ace Fekay [MVP-DS, MCT]" <aceman(a)mvps.RemoveThisPart.org> wrote in > message news:eNYwk2BtKHA.4636(a)TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl... >> Hi Phillip, >> >> FYI, IMHO, I usually shy away from running Exchange or SQL in a VM due to >> heavy processing and I/Os. DCs, etc, are fine. >> >> Ace > > That's true. MS used to be really "down" on doing that, but it was mainly > when everyone was using Virtual Server on 2003. They used to say the same > about ISA Server as a VM, but now they don't have a problem with it. > Hyper-V on 2008 should be providing better performance than Virtual Server > anyway. With VMware virutalization I've actually had a VM outperform the > previous physical machine they were on just because the hardware on the > parent machine was so much more powerful than the original machine that > was being used,..of course it was not an I/O intensive machine. > > But I still think it is better than running those things directly on the > DC itself. Looking back at the original post he said there were only > "three or so" users,...so the Exchange and the SQL are not going to be hit > hard. > > > -- > Phillip Windell > > The views expressed, are my own and not those of my employer, or > Microsoft, > or anyone else associated with me, including my cats. > ----------------------------------------------------- > > True, for that minimal number of users, it seems negligent and should be ok virtualizing it. I had one customer 2 years ago running Exchange 2003 using MS Virtual Server, and he told me there were numerous complaints about Outlook performance. After suggesting to move it out of the VM and make it physical, performance increased 10 fold. That was a 125 user shop in a child domain, with Exchange also installed at the corp location with 300 users. There were also DSAccess issues that also disappeared after making it physical. Ace
From: Ed Crowley [MVP] on 26 Feb 2010 20:33 Virtualization is the trend and more and more are virtualizing Exchange, even mailbox servers. I don't see any problem with virtualizing anything as long as one knows what one is doing. -- Ed Crowley MVP "There are seldom good technological solutions to behavioral problems." .. "Ace Fekay [MVP-DS, MCT]" <aceman(a)mvps.RemoveThisPart.org> wrote in message news:%23G8wcBLtKHA.1796(a)TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl... > "Phillip Windell" <philwindell(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:OkrY$XJtKHA.4024(a)TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl... >> "Ace Fekay [MVP-DS, MCT]" <aceman(a)mvps.RemoveThisPart.org> wrote in >> message news:eNYwk2BtKHA.4636(a)TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl... >>> Hi Phillip, >>> >>> FYI, IMHO, I usually shy away from running Exchange or SQL in a VM due >>> to heavy processing and I/Os. DCs, etc, are fine. >>> >>> Ace >> >> That's true. MS used to be really "down" on doing that, but it was mainly >> when everyone was using Virtual Server on 2003. They used to say the >> same about ISA Server as a VM, but now they don't have a problem with it. >> Hyper-V on 2008 should be providing better performance than Virtual >> Server anyway. With VMware virutalization I've actually had a VM >> outperform the previous physical machine they were on just because the >> hardware on the parent machine was so much more powerful than the >> original machine that was being used,..of course it was not an I/O >> intensive machine. >> >> But I still think it is better than running those things directly on the >> DC itself. Looking back at the original post he said there were only >> "three or so" users,...so the Exchange and the SQL are not going to be >> hit hard. >> >> >> -- >> Phillip Windell >> >> The views expressed, are my own and not those of my employer, or >> Microsoft, >> or anyone else associated with me, including my cats. >> ----------------------------------------------------- >> >> > > > True, for that minimal number of users, it seems negligent and should be > ok virtualizing it. I had one customer 2 years ago running Exchange 2003 > using MS Virtual Server, and he told me there were numerous complaints > about Outlook performance. After suggesting to move it out of the VM and > make it physical, performance increased 10 fold. That was a 125 user shop > in a child domain, with Exchange also installed at the corp location with > 300 users. There were also DSAccess issues that also disappeared after > making it physical. > > Ace >
From: Ace Fekay [MVP-DS, MCT] on 26 Feb 2010 23:08 "Ed Crowley [MVP]" <curspice(a)nospam.net> wrote in message news:%23jIkVz0tKHA.732(a)TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl... > Virtualization is the trend and more and more are virtualizing Exchange, > even mailbox servers. I don't see any problem with virtualizing anything > as long as one knows what one is doing. > -- > Ed Crowley MVP > "There are seldom good technological solutions to behavioral problems." I guess one of the ingredients is the horsepower, which that customer I mentioned, lacked. That was a couple of years ago, come to think of it, it was in Nov, 2006. I think hardware has changed to support virtualization better than the past. I haven't virtualized Exchange 2007 yet, but I may give it a shot on my own private system to evaluate it. Thanks, Ed. Ace
From: Ed Crowley [MVP] on 27 Feb 2010 02:20 Everything has changed since 2006. -- Ed Crowley MVP "There are seldom good technological solutions to behavioral problems." .. "Ace Fekay [MVP-DS, MCT]" <aceman(a)mvps.RemoveThisPart.org> wrote in message news:%23f5nXK2tKHA.4796(a)TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl... > "Ed Crowley [MVP]" <curspice(a)nospam.net> wrote in message > news:%23jIkVz0tKHA.732(a)TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl... >> Virtualization is the trend and more and more are virtualizing Exchange, >> even mailbox servers. I don't see any problem with virtualizing anything >> as long as one knows what one is doing. >> -- >> Ed Crowley MVP >> "There are seldom good technological solutions to behavioral problems." > > > I guess one of the ingredients is the horsepower, which that customer I > mentioned, lacked. That was a couple of years ago, come to think of it, it > was in Nov, 2006. I think hardware has changed to support virtualization > better than the past. I haven't virtualized Exchange 2007 yet, but I may > give it a shot on my own private system to evaluate it. > > Thanks, Ed. > > Ace >
From: Ace Fekay [MVP-DS, MCT] on 27 Feb 2010 10:27 "Ed Crowley [MVP]" <curspice(a)nospam.net> wrote in message news:%23LvpW13tKHA.928(a)TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl... Apparently. Server hardware power has dramatically increased, especially with the 6-core cpus. Along with 15k spindles, and 1GB interfaces, I guess that should be plenty to virtualize just about anything. Ace > Everything has changed since 2006. > -- > Ed Crowley MVP > "There are seldom good technological solutions to behavioral problems." > . > > "Ace Fekay [MVP-DS, MCT]" <aceman(a)mvps.RemoveThisPart.org> wrote in > message news:%23f5nXK2tKHA.4796(a)TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl... >> "Ed Crowley [MVP]" <curspice(a)nospam.net> wrote in message >> news:%23jIkVz0tKHA.732(a)TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl... >>> Virtualization is the trend and more and more are virtualizing Exchange, >>> even mailbox servers. I don't see any problem with virtualizing >>> anything as long as one knows what one is doing. >>> -- >>> Ed Crowley MVP >>> "There are seldom good technological solutions to behavioral problems." >> >> >> I guess one of the ingredients is the horsepower, which that customer I >> mentioned, lacked. That was a couple of years ago, come to think of it, >> it was in Nov, 2006. I think hardware has changed to support >> virtualization better than the past. I haven't virtualized Exchange 2007 >> yet, but I may give it a shot on my own private system to evaluate it. >> >> Thanks, Ed. >> >> Ace >> >
First
|
Prev
|
Pages: 1 2 3 Prev: windows server 2003 SP2 failed with error 0x800703e7. Next: FSMT Error |