Introduction
With the release of Microsoft Windows Server 2008 with Hyper-V and Microsoft Hyper-V Server 2008, a virtualized Exchange 2007 SP1 server is no longer restricted to the realm of t...
Updated Jul 01, 2019
Version 2.0
Blog Post
Pepe,
I think what your seeing is the fact that the samples are very Microsoft centric (for obvious reasons).
First off, there is no real HA equivelant in Hyper-V so a CCR is mandetory for high availability, unless you want to exponenitally increase your Hyper-V complexity with clustering and annoying levels of LUN partitioning.
Once you go down the CCR road Exchange forces you to seperate CAS and HT roles off of the mailbox server as they dont support micrsoft clustering, only NLB.
See how we got to the end conclusion?
So I dont htink this aritcle is intentionally off base at all, simply working within the limitations of an all-Microsoft offering, limitations that will be gone in R2 to be clear.
On that note: I've seen massive virtualized Exchange farms (hosting norht of 20,000 seats) so it's still a very real option for larger scale deployments. It really compes down to what inestments have been made already (in this case said corp already heavily invsted in VMware so the choice to use VMware for HA instead of Microsoft Clustering as actually a cost savings). Based on that I expect to see more VIrtualization based HA in the future as it gains mainstream acceptance.
I think what your seeing is the fact that the samples are very Microsoft centric (for obvious reasons).
First off, there is no real HA equivelant in Hyper-V so a CCR is mandetory for high availability, unless you want to exponenitally increase your Hyper-V complexity with clustering and annoying levels of LUN partitioning.
Once you go down the CCR road Exchange forces you to seperate CAS and HT roles off of the mailbox server as they dont support micrsoft clustering, only NLB.
See how we got to the end conclusion?
So I dont htink this aritcle is intentionally off base at all, simply working within the limitations of an all-Microsoft offering, limitations that will be gone in R2 to be clear.
On that note: I've seen massive virtualized Exchange farms (hosting norht of 20,000 seats) so it's still a very real option for larger scale deployments. It really compes down to what inestments have been made already (in this case said corp already heavily invsted in VMware so the choice to use VMware for HA instead of Microsoft Clustering as actually a cost savings). Based on that I expect to see more VIrtualization based HA in the future as it gains mainstream acceptance.