Virtual Servers and Exchange 2007

[kungpo]

I'm considering using VMs for a Server 2003 R2 / Exchange 2007 deployment. Has anyone any experience of this, and what VM software would be recommended. I guess I'm looking at VMWare or MS Virtual Server.

Server hardware will be DL380G5s with QC Xeons and 8GB RAM. Storage will (probably) be a fibre connected array. Base operating system will be Windows Server 2003 R2 x64 Enterprise Edition. Exchange will also be Enterprise edition.

Why VMs? I want to split the storage across two sites and using virtual disks, have virtual disk mirroring across the two sites (connected via Gigabit fibre). I know Exchange 2007 can have protected storage an another location, but we want to protect all the data. Another consideration is using something like DoubleTake, but the cost is a little high and adds some complexity I don't think we need or want.

Unless this is not the best way to go about this?

[Splash]

Erm... If you're doing something like this I'd strongly recommend you look into VMWare Infrastructure - it'll cost you but you'd want a decent commercial support package behind it.

[kungpo]

It's an educational environment, so I'm guessing they might get decent discounting (they do with MS anyway).

I'll take a look at VMWare Infrastructure - it's been a long time since I looked at a VMWare product.

[Moby-Dick]

ESX can* do this - you could also look at running an SCC cluster with a geographically dispersed cluster. One node attached to what is effectivley a common SAN. However you still need a seperate server for your HT/CAS role

How many mailboxes are you running ?

I have a hunch that MS will says its a non supported config though.

cluster the mailboxes and use NLB for CAS/HT

High Availability


* Can doesn't always mean 'will do and happy about it'

[kungpo]

Mailboxes - not many - up to 80. I just want to provide a solid, robust and scalable environment whilst removing as much hardware dependancy as possible.

They are moving from NetWare 6, so essentially a clean sheet installation. I figured with Virtualisation we could minimise kit count.

[Moby-Dick]

hmmm a tricky one , and one I dont think Exchange 2007 addresses very well due to its extreeme seperation of server roles.

I think the train of thought is that if you can afford not to have a single , multi role server , then you should do it properly.

just did a bit more hunting , and its not looking great - it may still work , but it looks like MS will reserve the right to ask you to replicate a problem in a non virtual environment.

VMworld: Exchange 2007 on Vi3 ...

I also think you've underspeced the memory quite a lot , you'll need some 64 Bit Domain dontrollers too , which I wouldn't virtualise.

As far as using MS Virtual Server goes , it doesn't currently support 64 bit guests , hence you can't install Exchange 2007 ( which is 64 bit only in production environment )

[kungpo]

Hmmmm........I think some thinking to do then. Maybe Exchange 2003 might be a better option as well.

[Moby-Dick]

Exchange 2003 would probably suit you better.

How many concurrent users are you expecting ?

[kungpo]

80 users or so. To be honest, I was just thining about Exchange 2007 as it is newer and therefore will have a longer shelf life. As their needs are fairly simple, I guess Exchange 2003 will be more than good enough.

[Moby-Dick]

2007 is a good product , but I think theres going to be a lot of life left in 2003 as at the moment 2007 requires a lot of hardware investment - its also seems much more suited to larger deployments.

you could build a regular 2003 Mail cluster if you wanted some hardware resilience , but its *almost* overkill

Generally it seems that costs rise exponentially with uptime requirements

[ikonia]

I don't see the need in virtualisation on this ?

Keep it simple and keep MS support

Why not purhcase two servers, one for each site and make them multi function, such as an SBS setup.

make a domain master / slave, and exchange master / slave, but a proxy service on both, etc etc etc.

That way each site has a genuine local server to query and you keep reslliance.

your not doing a big setup (80 users) so why go over the top with design.

[Moby-Dick]

Sadly you can't have 2 SBS servers in the same domain ( or more than 75 licences )

You'd have to purchase 'real' copies of the OS

if you have good connectivity between the 2 sites , its not a huge problem if your mailbox is on the other site , specially with outlook 2003 mailbox caching.

You might not even need a second domain controller/global catalog ( other than for resilience )

Right, off to the pub , I'll leave you to argue amongst yourselves

[kungpo]

ha ha ha ha.

75 users isn't the problem (although academic doesn't cover sbs), but the 75gb limit!

[ikonia]

sorry, I wasn't saying use "sbs" I was saying utilise the servers like SBS - eg: domain master/slave exchange master/slave, proxy services, backup the remote server from the opposite local etc etc.

Provides performance and resiliance.

[kungpo]

My reasoning behind virtualisation is that powerful hardware is fairly cheap, and as an academic body, software is extremely cheap.

So I see a need for:

2 Domain controllers
1 Exchange Server
1 File and Print Server

Of course all these roles can be combined on to one or two servers, but my next thought was why not be clever and take advantage of the gigabit fibre connection beween two of the buildings

So my next thought was, why not use virtual machines, with one physical server on each site. One each physical server, run one VM as a DC, one one location one VM as the Exchange server, and on the other one VM as the F+P server. Using software based disk-mirroring, hold each virtual disk on either location.

Of course this may be making this far more complicated than it needs to be, but the idea was more for resilience than it was for virtulisation.

[Lucio]

Surely though, if you use two physical boxes still, you aren't getting around any hardware issues and are increasing your hardware requirements by having one box run multiple copies of Server2003, all for very little gain.

Given you have a very high bandwidth connection available, couldn't you put all the physical boxes on one site, and connect through to them from the other?