[ngw] GroupWise, VMWare ESXi, ZCM, etc...

Fri Apr 16 21:24:20 UTC 2010

Yes 15K drives -- much better performance and worth the cost.

16GB of ram would be pretty thin for todays standards, but it depends on the
load you want to put on the servers -- 32 is a sort of functional minimum
that I spec these days.

If you are not going to have shared storage, then be sure to look into
something like vRanger, so that you can capture disaster recovery images and
then restore them quickly to the other server, should one host fail. It's a
really nice to have, and if you have a physical backup server, just stick a
few big sata drives in it for use as the b2d staging area.

p
------------------------------------------------------------
"The Supreme Court is dead wrong. Money is not speech. Corporations are not
people. Public offices are not commodities. And elections are not mere
marketplaces where these public offices are bought and sold."
Wisconsin Democracy Campaign

If you agree, go (http://www.wisdc.org/wdc_petition.php) to sign the
petition and send a message to the Supreme Court and elected officials.

http://www.the-brights.net
http://xkcd.com/167

On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 4:16 PM, Kenneth Etter <kle at msktd.com> wrote:

>  I don't have the budget for the SAN yet.  So everything will be on the
> servers.  I was planning on SAS drives...but I'm wondering about 10K vs 15K
> drives.  HP 15K drives are a bit more expensive than 10K drives.  Is it
> recommended to go with 15K drives?
>
> Ken
>
> >>> "Joshua Pitlick" <JPitlick at acog.org> 4/16/2010 5:04 PM >>>
> That sounds like a good plan.  We have three DL380 G5s with dual quad core
> Xeons and 16 GB RAM each and an MSA2312i SAN.  The reason for three servers
> as opposed to two is for VMware's DRS technology.  That's basically adaptive
> load balancing.  If you only have two servers, one server would have to be
> capable of running all the VMs.  If you aren't concerned about that, two
> servers should server your purposes.
>
> I'm not sure if the logic has changed, but it used to be that you should
> plan for 3-5 VMs per server core.  Really the biggest bottleneck is disk and
> network I/O.  Spec your servers with SAS drives and extra NICs.
>
> Josh
>
> >>> "Kenneth Etter" <kle at msktd.com> 4/16/2010 3:39 PM >>>
> Joshua,
>
> The stuff I was planning to put on the third server all have fairly low
> hardware requirements...so maybe I'll just combine those with ZCM on ESXi.
> Thanks for the reply!
>
> Regards,
> Ken
>
>
> >>> "Joshua Pitlick" <JPitlick at acog.org> 4/16/2010 3:26 PM >>>
> Ken,
>
> That sounds reasonable.  We ran VMware Server for over a year with a bunch
> of VMs including GMS.  You don't really need a whole server for ZCM.  We
> virtualized ours on ESXi and it works perfectly well.  You might also
> consider virtualizing GroupWise and just running ESXi on all three new
> servers.  That way if the need ever arises for a more robust virtualization
> environment, you could just get an iSCSI SAN and vSphere and migrate your
> existing VMs to the SAN.  That's what we are in the process of doing.  We
> haven't fully virtualized GW yet, just the secondary domain, GWIA, and
> WebAccess.  We have a slightly bigger PO than you do.
>
> Joshua Pitlick
> Lead Systems Engineer
> American College of Ob-Gyn
> 409 12th Street, SW
> Washington, DC 20024
>
> >>> "Kenneth Etter" <kle at msktd.com> 4/16/2010 3:11 PM >>>
> We are a small business - 65 employees.  I currently have one NetWare 6.5
> server running GW8(MTA, POA, and GWIA) and ZfD 7.  I'm getting ready to
> purchase some new server hardware.  My original thought was to get three new
> servers.  Move the GW8 stuff onto the first running SLES or OES.  Setup ZCM
> 10 on the second (I assume SLES).  And setup ESXi on a third to host some
> VMs so I could replace a few auxilliary PCs doing individual tasks in my
> server room.  Due to lack of hardware, I haven't had a chance to play with
> ESXi yet.  I'm also fairly new to Linux, although I do have GMS and Reload
> running on SLES.  Does this sound reasonable?  Or does anyone have a better
> suggestion?  Thanks!
>
> Regards,
> Ken Etter
>
>
>
>
> ___________________________________________________________________________________
> The American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and The American
> College
> of Obstetricians and Gynecologists respect your email privacy. To remove
> this email
> address from future email messages, please email us at
> Unsubscribe at acog.org. You
> may also send a written request to 409 12th Street, SW, Washington, DC
> 20024-2188,
> ATTENTION: Information Systems.
>
>
>
>
> ___________________________________________________________________________________
> The American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and The American
> College
> of Obstetricians and Gynecologists respect your email privacy. To remove
> this email
> address from future email messages, please email us at
> Unsubscribe at acog.org. You
> may also send a written request to 409 12th Street, SW, Washington, DC
> 20024-2188,
> ATTENTION: Information Systems.
>
> _______________________________________________
> ngw mailing list
> ngw at ngwlist.com
> http://ngwlist.com/mailman/listinfo/ngw
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://ngwlist.com/pipermail/ngw/attachments/20100416/a64352ba/attachment.html 