We've had a number of customers ask us whether or not we support virtualized Exchange Server 2010 deployments. The answer is firmly, YES! We know there are many customers running on under-utilize...
Updated Jul 01, 2019
Version 2.0
Blog Post
3 MIN READ
Answering Exchange Virtualization Questions and Addressing Misleading VMware Guidance
"Paul G
I'm also confused by how that VMHA/parent clustering increase storage cost. One copy costs less than two copies in this instance of our universe. You can argue that DAG is more robust in some respect, but you can't argue that it's cheaper."
The arugment that it's cheaper comes from the fact that you're not buying a SAN.
I have gotten quotes for customers and shown how they could buy four 1TB hard disks for less money than it takes them to buy two fiber controllers .... and that's assuming they already invested in the fabic, SAN switches, and the SAN itself. If not .... there's another 5 figures heading thier way.
The new JBOD scenario is much much MUCH cheaper than any SAN configuration unless your company already has the infrastructure lying around.
Remember: Just becuase you virtualize doens't mean you need a SAN. Though I will admit it does make things nicer.
So back to the cost arguement: MS is actually right here. A SAN solution will always be more expensive than a JBOD/copy model. HA will force a SAN into the mix .... therefore will drive up costs.
To be clear: I'm not saying i am against using HA/DRS with Exchange. Just clarifying thier stance.
I'm also confused by how that VMHA/parent clustering increase storage cost. One copy costs less than two copies in this instance of our universe. You can argue that DAG is more robust in some respect, but you can't argue that it's cheaper."
The arugment that it's cheaper comes from the fact that you're not buying a SAN.
I have gotten quotes for customers and shown how they could buy four 1TB hard disks for less money than it takes them to buy two fiber controllers .... and that's assuming they already invested in the fabic, SAN switches, and the SAN itself. If not .... there's another 5 figures heading thier way.
The new JBOD scenario is much much MUCH cheaper than any SAN configuration unless your company already has the infrastructure lying around.
Remember: Just becuase you virtualize doens't mean you need a SAN. Though I will admit it does make things nicer.
So back to the cost arguement: MS is actually right here. A SAN solution will always be more expensive than a JBOD/copy model. HA will force a SAN into the mix .... therefore will drive up costs.
To be clear: I'm not saying i am against using HA/DRS with Exchange. Just clarifying thier stance.