Comments on: VMotion and Exchange 2010, not supported http://virtualkenneth.com/2009/11/20/vmotion-and-exchange-2010/ Virtualization Blog focused on VMware Environments Wed, 02 May 2012 22:16:54 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Kenneth van Ditmarsch http://virtualkenneth.com/2009/11/20/vmotion-and-exchange-2010/comment-page-1/#comment-3346 Kenneth van Ditmarsch Fri, 10 Jun 2011 07:04:15 +0000 http://kennethvanditmarsch.wordpress.com/?p=194#comment-3346 Hi Mister Singapore! ha, good stuff, thanks :) Hi Mister Singapore!

ha, good stuff, thanks :)

]]> By: Greg Davis http://virtualkenneth.com/2009/11/20/vmotion-and-exchange-2010/comment-page-1/#comment-3345 Greg Davis Fri, 10 Jun 2011 07:03:02 +0000 http://kennethvanditmarsch.wordpress.com/?p=194#comment-3345 Hi Kenneth, Nice article, this has been very useful to me today in clearing up some support queries about E2K10 DAG with vMotion. And I hope all is well! Greg Davis Hi Kenneth,

Nice article, this has been very useful to me today in clearing up some support queries about E2K10 DAG with vMotion. And I hope all is well!

Greg Davis

]]> By: Totie http://virtualkenneth.com/2009/11/20/vmotion-and-exchange-2010/comment-page-1/#comment-3243 Totie Wed, 25 May 2011 03:33:50 +0000 http://kennethvanditmarsch.wordpress.com/?p=194#comment-3243 Kenneth, Exchange 2010 SP1 now support Vmotion with DAG... UM role as well... here's the source: http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa996719.aspx http://justincockrell.com/?p=166 Kenneth, Exchange 2010 SP1 now support Vmotion with DAG… UM role as well… here’s the source:
http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa996719.aspx
http://justincockrell.com/?p=166

]]> By: Be careful with VM snapshots of Exchange 2010 servers | Thoughtsofanidlemind's Blog http://virtualkenneth.com/2009/11/20/vmotion-and-exchange-2010/comment-page-1/#comment-2719 Be careful with VM snapshots of Exchange 2010 servers | Thoughtsofanidlemind's Blog Fri, 18 Mar 2011 23:47:06 +0000 http://kennethvanditmarsch.wordpress.com/?p=194#comment-2719 [...] not attempt to change the underlying platform when the DAG will not be aware of the change. This post provides a good overview of the issues involved with [...] [...] not attempt to change the underlying platform when the DAG will not be aware of the change. This post provides a good overview of the issues involved with [...]

]]> By: VMotion and Exchange 2010 DAG Not supported! « Scott Feltmann's Blog http://virtualkenneth.com/2009/11/20/vmotion-and-exchange-2010/comment-page-1/#comment-537 VMotion and Exchange 2010 DAG Not supported! « Scott Feltmann's Blog Mon, 26 Jul 2010 22:24:43 +0000 http://kennethvanditmarsch.wordpress.com/?p=194#comment-537 [...] Anyway, I came across an interesting article that I thought I would share.  Apparently, as it stands right now, VMotion and Exchange with DAGs is not supported!  I actually felt this problem about two weeks ago on a Wednesday night when a client called with problems in their Exchange 2010 environment.  Mail wasn’t routing and I thought, hey, this will be a quick fix.  Well, it turned out there were more issues in the environment then what they had thought.  The biggest problems was DAG replication was not occuring.  The Exchange 2010 DAG member could not be brought back on line on the cluster, and the Windows Cluster had kicked it out.  The way I resolved the issue was to evict the node via ConfigurationOnly and Remove it from Windows Clustering.  When I tried to bring the node back into the cluster the cluster would be joined and then evicted.  The problem?  The Witness!  It appears the Witness was locked and the new (old) node could not access it.  As it turns out the client vmotioned the server to another node and that’s when all the problems began. I came across this article which talks about the problem I had above and I thought I would share.  Link: http://virtualkenneth.com/2009/11/20/vmotion-and-exchange-2010/ [...] [...] Anyway, I came across an interesting article that I thought I would share.  Apparently, as it stands right now, VMotion and Exchange with DAGs is not supported!  I actually felt this problem about two weeks ago on a Wednesday night when a client called with problems in their Exchange 2010 environment.  Mail wasn’t routing and I thought, hey, this will be a quick fix.  Well, it turned out there were more issues in the environment then what they had thought.  The biggest problems was DAG replication was not occuring.  The Exchange 2010 DAG member could not be brought back on line on the cluster, and the Windows Cluster had kicked it out.  The way I resolved the issue was to evict the node via ConfigurationOnly and Remove it from Windows Clustering.  When I tried to bring the node back into the cluster the cluster would be joined and then evicted.  The problem?  The Witness!  It appears the Witness was locked and the new (old) node could not access it.  As it turns out the client vmotioned the server to another node and that’s when all the problems began. I came across this article which talks about the problem I had above and I thought I would share.  Link: http://virtualkenneth.com/2009/11/20/vmotion-and-exchange-2010/ [...]

]]> By: Kenneth van Ditmarsch http://virtualkenneth.com/2009/11/20/vmotion-and-exchange-2010/comment-page-1/#comment-505 Kenneth van Ditmarsch Tue, 20 Jul 2010 09:19:30 +0000 http://kennethvanditmarsch.wordpress.com/?p=194#comment-505 Hi Eamonn, The procedure we had in-place was to remove the VM (that we needed to VMotion) from the DAG, VMotion the VM and re-enable the DAG so that the VM would again participate in the replication. Why is your procedure stating to completely power-down the VM? Kenneth Hi Eamonn,

The procedure we had in-place was to remove the VM (that we needed to VMotion) from the DAG, VMotion the VM and re-enable the DAG so that the VM would again participate in the replication.
Why is your procedure stating to completely power-down the VM?

Kenneth

]]> By: Eamonn Deering http://virtualkenneth.com/2009/11/20/vmotion-and-exchange-2010/comment-page-1/#comment-471 Eamonn Deering Thu, 08 Jul 2010 14:07:04 +0000 http://kennethvanditmarsch.wordpress.com/?p=194#comment-471 Hi Kenneth Would this work without breaking DAD (using vMotion). I want the freedom to move EXC1 to another host while live. User mailbox count is under 80. I don’t have a test environment to do testing but an IT policy like this might work (after some refinement). EXC1-08 = H,C,M EXC2-08 =M (DAG) Using vSphere U1 disable DSR and HA on the Two exchange servers. I’m assuming vMotion will still work at this point. IT policy for vMotion of Exchange servers. Any IT person wishing to vMotion Exchange 2010 must follow these steps. First check that the Live Exchange database are on EXC1-08 (needs to know Exchange DAG). Power down the backup server EXC2-08. If EXC2-08 needs to move to another Host then move it now while offline. vMotion EXC1-08 while online (Not sure what affect this will have). Power back on EXC2-08. Check that database replication if functioning. Hi Kenneth
Would this work without breaking DAD (using vMotion).
I want the freedom to move EXC1 to another host while live. User mailbox count is under 80.

I don’t have a test environment to do testing but an IT policy like this might work (after some refinement).

EXC1-08 = H,C,M EXC2-08 =M (DAG)
Using vSphere U1 disable DSR and HA on the Two exchange servers. I’m assuming vMotion will still work at this point.

IT policy for vMotion of Exchange servers.
Any IT person wishing to vMotion Exchange 2010 must follow these steps.
First check that the Live Exchange database are on EXC1-08 (needs to know Exchange DAG).
Power down the backup server EXC2-08.
If EXC2-08 needs to move to another Host then move it now while offline.
vMotion EXC1-08 while online (Not sure what affect this will have).
Power back on EXC2-08.
Check that database replication if functioning.

]]> By: Nick http://virtualkenneth.com/2009/11/20/vmotion-and-exchange-2010/comment-page-1/#comment-349 Nick Wed, 19 May 2010 11:37:32 +0000 http://kennethvanditmarsch.wordpress.com/?p=194#comment-349 This policy from MS really needs to be thought through. This is not a direct overlap of functionality. If there are specific technical concerns then MS should state them and allow the 3rd party vendors to come up with solutions. DAGs are going to be used for backups as well as a HA option so this could impact a large number of deployment scenarios. On the hypervisor side, clearly you might cluster for a host of reasons that again do not touch on HA. I might want to move other servers off box to allow the mailbox server to have more cycles, you may be doing a general hardware refresh, you may be wanting to deploy exchange onto some form of virtual DC where the choice of hypervisor and it's configuration are out of your hands. If Exchange continues to demand specific "hardware" in the DC and thus become a support island, then it will contribute to people evaluating other solutions. This policy from MS really needs to be thought through. This is not a direct overlap of functionality. If there are specific technical concerns then MS should state them and allow the 3rd party vendors to come up with solutions.

DAGs are going to be used for backups as well as a HA option so this could impact a large number of deployment scenarios.
On the hypervisor side, clearly you might cluster for a host of reasons that again do not touch on HA. I might want to move other servers off box to allow the mailbox server to have more cycles, you may be doing a general hardware refresh, you may be wanting to deploy exchange onto some form of virtual DC where the choice of hypervisor and it’s configuration are out of your hands.
If Exchange continues to demand specific “hardware” in the DC and thus become a support island, then it will contribute to people evaluating other solutions.

]]> By: Kenneth van Ditmarsch http://virtualkenneth.com/2009/11/20/vmotion-and-exchange-2010/comment-page-1/#comment-342 Kenneth van Ditmarsch Mon, 17 May 2010 08:31:29 +0000 http://kennethvanditmarsch.wordpress.com/?p=194#comment-342 Hi Scott, This is exactly the way I did it with the customer, we however initially did have 2 virtual CAS servers that were loadbalanced because of the big environment that would be migrated (20.000+ mailboxes) Only thing that you have to keep into account is that it isn't supported to disable HA/DRS for a MSCS VM prior to vSphere Update 1 vSphere Update 1 states: <em>Enhanced Clustering Support for Microsoft Windows – Microsoft Cluster Server (MSCS) for Windows 2000 and 2003 and Windows Server 2008 Failover Clustering is now supported on an VMware High Availability (HA) and Dynamic Resource Scheduler (DRS) cluster in a limited configuration. HA and DRS functionality can be effectively disabled for individual MSCS virtual machines as opposed to disabling HA and DRS on the entire ESX/ESXi host</em> Further I assume that you are using a FC environment? Kenneth Hi Scott,

This is exactly the way I did it with the customer, we however initially did have 2 virtual CAS servers that were loadbalanced because of the big environment that would be migrated (20.000+ mailboxes)
Only thing that you have to keep into account is that it isn’t supported to disable HA/DRS for a MSCS VM prior to vSphere Update 1

vSphere Update 1 states:
Enhanced Clustering Support for Microsoft Windows – Microsoft Cluster Server (MSCS) for Windows 2000 and 2003 and Windows Server 2008 Failover Clustering is now supported on an VMware High Availability (HA) and Dynamic Resource Scheduler (DRS) cluster in a limited configuration. HA and DRS functionality can be effectively disabled for individual MSCS virtual machines as opposed to disabling HA and DRS on the entire ESX/ESXi host

Further I assume that you are using a FC environment?

Kenneth

]]> By: Scott Lowe http://virtualkenneth.com/2009/11/20/vmotion-and-exchange-2010/comment-page-1/#comment-336 Scott Lowe Wed, 12 May 2010 18:07:41 +0000 http://kennethvanditmarsch.wordpress.com/?p=194#comment-336 I'm researching this right now as a part of our migration to Exchange 2010. We're small - 1600 or so mailboxes - and I'd like to do this as virtual as possible. Our only physical component will be the UM server. We have availability needs, but do not yet have a DR site. Is there anything, other than MS' official support policy, that would keep us from setting up two mailbox servers in a DAG and disabling HA/DRS/etc (two virtual servers) and then using a single CAS/Hub virtual machine that does have HA enabled? That would mean I'd need three virtual machines, wouldn't need load balancing at all and, in my head at least, I'd have the availability that I need by virtue of the DAG for the Mailbox servers and HA/Vmotion for the Hub/CAS. Scott I’m researching this right now as a part of our migration to Exchange 2010. We’re small – 1600 or so mailboxes – and I’d like to do this as virtual as possible. Our only physical component will be the UM server.

We have availability needs, but do not yet have a DR site.

Is there anything, other than MS’ official support policy, that would keep us from setting up two mailbox servers in a DAG and disabling HA/DRS/etc (two virtual servers) and then using a single CAS/Hub virtual machine that does have HA enabled? That would mean I’d need three virtual machines, wouldn’t need load balancing at all and, in my head at least, I’d have the availability that I need by virtue of the DAG for the Mailbox servers and HA/Vmotion for the Hub/CAS.

Scott

]]>