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
The reason it's unsupported is much less nefarious than most people want to admit... mostly because we all love a good conspiracy theory.
It really comes down to this: Microsoft has made a very simple argument that "stacking" High Availability scenarios compounds complexity and will therefore be unsupported.
Now lets be clear on what that means: In Microsoft terms it means that if you call their Tech Support up _they_will_still_help_you_. It simply means they will use "best effort" and wont guarantee success or stay with the call for more than a specific length of time (I forget he exact terms of best effort, but it's defined out there somewhere).
At the same time Ill be first to agree that taking the hard stance when it comes to VMware HA is a little silly ... but let's also be clear on what kind of a market Microsoft plays with: the entire market. No one comes close to the market penetraion Microsoft has, and the can of worms that get opened when you "support these two HA solutions stacked even tough they are from two completely seperate vendors" is a can of worms I dont think anyone is giving nearly enough credit to.
Why doesn't VMware step up with their own Exchange team that will back the solution? Why is the responsibility squarely on MS's shoulders? This is VMware's solution and recommendation after all .... shouldn't THEY back it up?
I may disagree with MS taking the hard no stance here .... but I completely understand it. I said it was ironic that I felt this stance made things harder, no easier in the long run. I also find it ironic that no one has gotten upset at VMware for suggesting something completely unsupported (and documented as unsupported sense 2010's release a year ago) .. instead willing to take all said as gospel.
It really comes down to this: Microsoft has made a very simple argument that "stacking" High Availability scenarios compounds complexity and will therefore be unsupported.
Now lets be clear on what that means: In Microsoft terms it means that if you call their Tech Support up _they_will_still_help_you_. It simply means they will use "best effort" and wont guarantee success or stay with the call for more than a specific length of time (I forget he exact terms of best effort, but it's defined out there somewhere).
At the same time Ill be first to agree that taking the hard stance when it comes to VMware HA is a little silly ... but let's also be clear on what kind of a market Microsoft plays with: the entire market. No one comes close to the market penetraion Microsoft has, and the can of worms that get opened when you "support these two HA solutions stacked even tough they are from two completely seperate vendors" is a can of worms I dont think anyone is giving nearly enough credit to.
Why doesn't VMware step up with their own Exchange team that will back the solution? Why is the responsibility squarely on MS's shoulders? This is VMware's solution and recommendation after all .... shouldn't THEY back it up?
I may disagree with MS taking the hard no stance here .... but I completely understand it. I said it was ironic that I felt this stance made things harder, no easier in the long run. I also find it ironic that no one has gotten upset at VMware for suggesting something completely unsupported (and documented as unsupported sense 2010's release a year ago) .. instead willing to take all said as gospel.