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
In all seriousness, did the writer even take the time to read the VMware document he is critiquing in this post?
Because I did, and I came across this not-so-hidden gem from the said document:
--------
Note VMware does not currently support VMware VMotion or VMware DRS for Microsoft Cluster nodes; however, a cold migration is possible after the guest OS is shut down properly.
With VMware High Availability (HA), Exchange virtual machines on a failed ESX host can be restarted on another ESX host. This feature provides a cost-effective failover alternative to expensive third-party clustering and replication solutions. If you use VMware HA, be aware that:
• VMware HA handles ESX host hardware failure and does not monitor the status of the Exchange services—these must be monitored separately.
-----------
with that caveat, why is the writer resorting to such histrionics. Is the writer claim that there configuring DAG in a clustered-Host environment is technically impossible? No. All the writer screams about is the fact that MS does not "Support" it. Well, why EXACTLY does MS not support it? Because your virtualization product is inferior and, therefore, lacks the intelligence to support such configurations? Or because MS just haven't gotten around to conducting the necessary test to "pass" or "fail" such configuration? In either case, is it not to the customer's benefits to make the options known to the customer and let the customer make an informed decision, after doing the due diligence and testing? Is it MS' objective to HIDE technical possibilities from its customers and threaten them with "sanctions" or scream "unsupported!" at them as if we are engaged in a game of "peek-a-boo!"?
Does the writer even know that, with VMware's virtualization technologies, it is possible to EXEMPT clustered guests from the effects of clustered hosts, even if such guests reside on the hosts so clustered.
The writer should have presented his/her argument against guest and host clustering combination by specifically telling his/her (ostensibly) matured audience WHAT it is that will break in a cluster-guests-and-hosts configuration instead of engaging in a hyperventilating episode of FUD.
Because I did, and I came across this not-so-hidden gem from the said document:
--------
Note VMware does not currently support VMware VMotion or VMware DRS for Microsoft Cluster nodes; however, a cold migration is possible after the guest OS is shut down properly.
With VMware High Availability (HA), Exchange virtual machines on a failed ESX host can be restarted on another ESX host. This feature provides a cost-effective failover alternative to expensive third-party clustering and replication solutions. If you use VMware HA, be aware that:
• VMware HA handles ESX host hardware failure and does not monitor the status of the Exchange services—these must be monitored separately.
-----------
with that caveat, why is the writer resorting to such histrionics. Is the writer claim that there configuring DAG in a clustered-Host environment is technically impossible? No. All the writer screams about is the fact that MS does not "Support" it. Well, why EXACTLY does MS not support it? Because your virtualization product is inferior and, therefore, lacks the intelligence to support such configurations? Or because MS just haven't gotten around to conducting the necessary test to "pass" or "fail" such configuration? In either case, is it not to the customer's benefits to make the options known to the customer and let the customer make an informed decision, after doing the due diligence and testing? Is it MS' objective to HIDE technical possibilities from its customers and threaten them with "sanctions" or scream "unsupported!" at them as if we are engaged in a game of "peek-a-boo!"?
Does the writer even know that, with VMware's virtualization technologies, it is possible to EXEMPT clustered guests from the effects of clustered hosts, even if such guests reside on the hosts so clustered.
The writer should have presented his/her argument against guest and host clustering combination by specifically telling his/her (ostensibly) matured audience WHAT it is that will break in a cluster-guests-and-hosts configuration instead of engaging in a hyperventilating episode of FUD.