Login | Register For Free | Help
Search for: (Advanced)

Mailing List Archive: Cisco: VOIP

Cisco MCS vs UCS Servers

 

 

Cisco voip RSS feed   Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded


george.hendrix at l-3com

Sep 22, 2010, 6:41 AM

Post #1 of 16 (4084 views)
Permalink
Cisco MCS vs UCS Servers

Hi everyone,



I noticed Cisco has the new UCS C and B series servers. Does anyone
have any thoughts as to whether these are the way to go or not? Do they
perform better than the MCS H or I series? Also since these are out
now, does anyone know if there are plans to put the remainder of the MCS
servers EOL? BTW, this would be for a new CUCM 8 installation.



Thanks,

Bill Hendrix


jbuchanan at ctiusa

Sep 22, 2010, 6:48 AM

Post #2 of 16 (4272 views)
Permalink
Re: Cisco MCS vs UCS Servers [In reply to]

I don't know about the EOL, but these servers have a ton of horsepower.
Go to www.cisco.com/go/uc-virtualized to get more details.



It seems that the best positioning of this is either when you'll have a
significant number of 7835 or 7845 servers. Here's an example. I had a
customer wanting to add Unity Connection for around 5000 users. So, a
7845 would be in order, at $24000 list price. The UCS C-series came in
at $23000 list plus some support stuff and VMWare license which put it
at around $25,000 list. The difference? The C-series could run not just
the Unity Connection but can run UCM as well on that box. It turned out
to be a good deal. Now, eventually they'll buy another C-series for full
redundancy, but when considering the 7845 versus the C-series, the
C-series made more sense.



James Buchanan | Senior Network Engineer | South Region | Presidio
Networked Solutions
12 Cadillac Dr, Suite 130, Brentwood, TN 37027 | jbuchanan [at] presidio
<mailto:jbuchanan [at] ctiusa>
D: 615-866-5729 | F: 615-866-5781 | www.presidio.com
<http://www.presidio.com>

CCIE #25863, Voice





From: cisco-voip-bounces [at] puck
[mailto:cisco-voip-bounces [at] puck] On Behalf Of
george.hendrix [at] l-3com
Sent: Wednesday, September 22, 2010 8:41 AM
To: cisco-voip [at] puck
Subject: [cisco-voip] Cisco MCS vs UCS Servers



Hi everyone,



I noticed Cisco has the new UCS C and B series servers. Does anyone
have any thoughts as to whether these are the way to go or not? Do they
perform better than the MCS H or I series? Also since these are out
now, does anyone know if there are plans to put the remainder of the MCS
servers EOL? BTW, this would be for a new CUCM 8 installation.



Thanks,

Bill Hendrix


Michael.Balasko at cityofhenderson

Sep 22, 2010, 9:11 AM

Post #3 of 16 (4044 views)
Permalink
Re: Cisco MCS vs UCS Servers [In reply to]

Bill,
They are great servers, but when it came down to it we rolled our HP servers to run Callmanager. Only cause our entire datacenter is filled with HP server and thus spare parts.:)

http://www.cisco.com/en/US/prod/collateral/voicesw/ps6790/ps5748/ps378/product_solution_overview09186a0080107d79.html

Mike

From: cisco-voip-bounces [at] puck [mailto:cisco-voip-bounces [at] puck] On Behalf Of george.hendrix [at] l-3com
Sent: Wednesday, September 22, 2010 6:41 AM
To: cisco-voip [at] puck
Subject: [cisco-voip] Cisco MCS vs UCS Servers

Hi everyone,

I noticed Cisco has the new UCS C and B series servers. Does anyone have any thoughts as to whether these are the way to go or not? Do they perform better than the MCS H or I series? Also since these are out now, does anyone know if there are plans to put the remainder of the MCS servers EOL? BTW, this would be for a new CUCM 8 installation.

Thanks,
Bill Hendrix


matthnick at gmail

Sep 22, 2010, 9:17 AM

Post #4 of 16 (4034 views)
Permalink
Re: Cisco MCS vs UCS Servers [In reply to]

I think they will be the way to go. Some of the reasons:
-VMware features add a lot to the management flexibility
-Hardware will last longer since you will be able to size more dynamically
-Hardware will be more efficient running multiple applications at once
-Being able to bring in some of the SAN features makes failure scenarios
easier to work around
-One number to call for support is nice
-The budgeting, ROI/TCO, will work out for them quite nicely

Right now there isn't a plan to EOL the MCS servers. Cisco hasn't gotten
all the features and applications onto UCS, so there are still products
being sold with MCS. As well, sometimes the scale doesn't justify something
like a B-series or C-series and MCS makes more sense; this reason is going
away fairly quickly though. Right now Cisco is only OEM'ing IBM servers.
HP are still supported but you can't OEM them through a Cisco SKU/smartnet.

Hope this helps.

-nick

On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 9:41 AM, <george.hendrix [at] l-3com> wrote:

> Hi everyone,
>
>
>
> I noticed Cisco has the new UCS C and B series servers. Does anyone have
> any thoughts as to whether these are the way to go or not? Do they perform
> better than the MCS H or I series? Also since these are out now, does
> anyone know if there are plans to put the remainder of the MCS servers EOL?
> BTW, this would be for a new CUCM 8 installation.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Bill Hendrix
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> cisco-voip mailing list
> cisco-voip [at] puck
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
>
>


ahmed_elnagar at rayacorp

Sep 23, 2010, 4:01 PM

Post #5 of 16 (4019 views)
Permalink
Re: Cisco MCS vs UCS Servers [In reply to]

Cisco SEs is pushing on the virtualization for new customers and
customers considering upgrading to version 8.x...be aware that all H
series is already EOS due to the bad relationship between Cisco and HP
"obviuolsy the UCS was part of the fight" IBM servers has a lot of
problems "this is from my own personal point of view".



UCS is great C series configuration is to support 4 X 7945 server and
the cost is significantly less than hardware server...plus the added
benefits like hardware efficiency and DC sizing for large
customers...etc.



The drawbacks would be that you will need experience not only in UC part
but add to it the VMware and UCS itself...if you are going to B series
it is more complicated than the C series.



A great advantage for UCS is that you are able to have a sort of a
"redundant Publisher server" as the database is stored in SAN and if the
engineer fails it switches over to another own automatically so as if
you have a redundant server "but I think this is supported with the B
series" I am not very aware of deep technical info in this part.



If I were you I would go with UCS C series "for easier management"



And remember; all the world is going virtual J



Best Regards;

Ahmed Elnagar

Senior Network PS Engineer

Mob: +2019-0016211

CCIE#24697 (Voice)





From: cisco-voip-bounces [at] puck
[mailto:cisco-voip-bounces [at] puck] On Behalf Of
george.hendrix [at] l-3com
Sent: Wednesday, September 22, 2010 4:41 PM
To: cisco-voip [at] puck
Subject: [cisco-voip] Cisco MCS vs UCS Servers



Hi everyone,



I noticed Cisco has the new UCS C and B series servers. Does anyone
have any thoughts as to whether these are the way to go or not? Do they
perform better than the MCS H or I series? Also since these are out
now, does anyone know if there are plans to put the remainder of the MCS
servers EOL? BTW, this would be for a new CUCM 8 installation.



Thanks,

Bill Hendrix



Disclaimer: NOTICE The information contained in this message is confidential and is intended for the addressee(s) only. If you have received this message in error or there are any problems please notify the originator immediately. The unauthorized use, disclosure, copying or alteration of this message is strictly forbidden. Raya will not be liable for direct, special, indirect or consequential damages arising from alteration of the contents of this message by a third party or as a result of any malicious code or virus being passed on. Views expressed in this communication are not necessarily those of Raya.If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately by email, facsimile or telephone and return and/or destroy the original message.
Attachments: image001.jpg (1.76 KB)


SCASPER at mtb

Sep 23, 2010, 5:19 PM

Post #6 of 16 (4057 views)
Permalink
Re: Cisco MCS vs UCS Servers [In reply to]

Interesting.... For me to upgrade to 8.x I need to replace 4 of my subscribers and my publisher next year however I just purchased some HP G6 servers to replace my 7835 servers. Can you mix virtual subscribers and a publisher with MCS type subscriber and TFTP servers?

Steve

>>> Ahmed Elnagar <ahmed_elnagar [at] rayacorp> 9/23/2010 7:01 PM >>>

Cisco SEs is pushing on the virtualization for new customers and customers considering upgrading to version 8.x…be aware that all H series is already EOS due to the bad relationship between Cisco and HP “obviuolsy the UCS was part of the fight” IBM servers has a lot of problems “this is from my own personal point of view”.

UCS is great C series configuration is to support 4 X 7945 server and the cost is significantly less than hardware server…plus the added benefits like hardware efficiency and DC sizing for large customers…etc.

The drawbacks would be that you will need experience not only in UC part but add to it the VMware and UCS itself…if you are going to B series it is more complicated than the C series.

A great advantage for UCS is that you are able to have a sort of a “redundant Publisher server” as the database is stored in SAN and if the engineer fails it switches over to another own automatically so as if you have a redundant server “but I think this is supported with the B series” I am not very aware of deep technical info in this part.

If I were you I would go with UCS C series “for easier management”

And remember; all the world is going virtual J

Best Regards;
Ahmed Elnagar
Senior Network PS Engineer
Mob: +2019-0016211
CCIE#24697 (Voice)


From: cisco-voip-bounces [at] puck [mailto:cisco-voip-bounces [at] puck] On Behalf Of george.hendrix [at] l-3com
Sent: Wednesday, September 22, 2010 4:41 PM
To: cisco-voip [at] puck
Subject: [cisco-voip] Cisco MCS vs UCS Servers

Hi everyone,

I noticed Cisco has the new UCS C and B series servers. Does anyone have any thoughts as to whether these are the way to go or not? Do they perform better than the MCS H or I series? Also since these are out now, does anyone know if there are plans to put the remainder of the MCS servers EOL? BTW, this would be for a new CUCM 8 installation.

Thanks,
Bill Hendrix


Disclaimer: NOTICE The information contained in this message is confidential and is intended for the addressee(s) only. If you have received this message in error or there are any problems please notify the originator immediately. The unauthorized use, disclosure, copying or alteration of this message is strictly forbidden. Raya will not be liable for direct, special, indirect or consequential damages arising from alteration of the contents of this message by a third party or as a result of any malicious code or virus being passed on. Views expressed in this communication are not necessarily those of Raya.If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately by email, facsimile or telephone and return and/or destroy the original message.
************************************
This email may contain privileged and/or confidential information that is intended solely for the use of the addressee. If you are not the intended recipient or entity, you are strictly prohibited from disclosing, copying, distributing or using any of the information contained in the transmission. If you received this communication in error, please contact the sender immediately and destroy the material in its entirety, whether electronic or hard copy. This communication may contain nonpublic personal information about consumers subject to the restrictions of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act and the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. You may not directly or indirectly reuse or disclose such information for any purpose other than to provide the services for which you are receiving the information.
There are risks associated with the use of electronic transmission. The sender of this information does not control the method of transmittal or service providers and assumes no duty or obligation for the security, receipt, or third party interception of this transmission.
************************************


phanivoip at gmail

Sep 23, 2010, 5:56 PM

Post #7 of 16 (3995 views)
Permalink
Re: Cisco MCS vs UCS Servers [In reply to]

Steve,

Yes , Mixing virtual Subscribers and MCS are supported.

Phani kanuri

On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 5:49 AM, STEVEN CASPER <SCASPER [at] mtb> wrote:

> Interesting.... For me to upgrade to 8.x I need to replace 4 of my
> subscribers and my publisher next year however I just purchased some HP G6
> servers to replace my 7835 servers. Can you mix virtual subscribers and a
> publisher with MCS type subscriber and TFTP servers?
>
> Steve
>
> >>> Ahmed Elnagar <ahmed_elnagar [at] rayacorp> 9/23/2010 7:01 PM >>>
>
> Cisco SEs is pushing on the virtualization for new customers and customers
> considering upgrading to version 8.xbe aware that all H series is already
> EOS due to the bad relationship between Cisco and HP obviuolsy the UCS was
> part of the fight IBM servers has a lot of problems this is from my own
> personal point of view.
>
>
>
> UCS is great C series configuration is to support 4 X 7945 server and the
> cost is significantly less than hardware serverplus the added benefits like
> hardware efficiency and DC sizing for large customersetc.
>
>
>
> The drawbacks would be that you will need experience not only in UC part
> but add to it the VMware and UCS itselfif you are going to B series it is
> more complicated than the C series.
>
>
>
> A great advantage for UCS is that you are able to have a sort of a
> redundant Publisher server as the database is stored in SAN and if the
> engineer fails it switches over to another own automatically so as if you
> have a redundant server but I think this is supported with the B series I
> am not very aware of deep technical info in this part.
>
>
>
> If I were you I would go with UCS C series for easier management
>
>
>
> And remember; all the world is going virtual J
>
>
>
> Best Regards;
>
> Ahmed Elnagar
>
> Senior Network PS Engineer
>
> Mob: +2019-0016211
>
> CCIE#24697 (Voice)
>
> [image: ccie_voice_large.gif]
>
>
>
> *From:* cisco-voip-bounces [at] puck [mailto:
> cisco-voip-bounces [at] puck] *On Behalf Of *
> george.hendrix [at] l-3com
> *Sent:* Wednesday, September 22, 2010 4:41 PM
> *To:* cisco-voip [at] puck
> *Subject:* [cisco-voip] Cisco MCS vs UCS Servers
>
>
>
> Hi everyone,
>
>
>
> I noticed Cisco has the new UCS C and B series servers. Does anyone have
> any thoughts as to whether these are the way to go or not? Do they perform
> better than the MCS H or I series? Also since these are out now, does
> anyone know if there are plans to put the remainder of the MCS servers EOL?
> BTW, this would be for a new CUCM 8 installation.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Bill Hendrix
>
>
>
> Disclaimer: NOTICE The information contained in this message is
> confidential and is intended for the addressee(s) only. If you have received
> this message in error or there are any problems please notify the originator
> immediately. The unauthorized use, disclosure, copying or alteration of this
> message is strictly forbidden. Raya will not be liable for direct, special,
> indirect or consequential damages arising from alteration of the contents of
> this message by a third party or as a result of any malicious code or virus
> being passed on. Views expressed in this communication are not necessarily
> those of Raya.If you have received this message in error, please notify the
> sender immediately by email, facsimile or telephone and return and/or
> destroy the original message.
>
> ************************************
> This email may contain privileged and/or confidential information that is intended solely for the use of the addressee. If you are not the intended recipient or entity, you are strictly prohibited from disclosing, copying, distributing or using any of the information contained in the transmission. If you received this communication in error, please contact the sender immediately and destroy the material in its entirety, whether electronic or hard copy. This communication may contain nonpublic personal information about consumers subject to the restrictions of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act and the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. You may not directly or indirectly reuse or disclose such information for any purpose other than to provide the services for which you are receiving the information.
> There are risks associated with the use of electronic transmission. The sender of this information does not control the method of transmittal or service providers and assumes no duty or obligation for the security, receipt, or third party interception of this transmission.
> ************************************
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> cisco-voip mailing list
> cisco-voip [at] puck
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
>
>


matthnick at gmail

Sep 23, 2010, 5:58 PM

Post #8 of 16 (3980 views)
Permalink
Re: Cisco MCS vs UCS Servers [In reply to]

Yes. Some of the limitations of the hardware are things like MoH live
feeds, your console dumps now go somewhere else, RTMT hardware stats are
replaced with some VMware/UCS equivalents, etc. But from an application
layer it's the same. It does however know how much CPU/disk/memory you've
given it and shows on the about screen.

-nick

On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 8:19 PM, STEVEN CASPER <SCASPER [at] mtb> wrote:

> Interesting.... For me to upgrade to 8.x I need to replace 4 of my
> subscribers and my publisher next year however I just purchased some HP G6
> servers to replace my 7835 servers. Can you mix virtual subscribers and a
> publisher with MCS type subscriber and TFTP servers?
>
> Steve
>
> >>> Ahmed Elnagar <ahmed_elnagar [at] rayacorp> 9/23/2010 7:01 PM >>>
>
> Cisco SEs is pushing on the virtualization for new customers and customers
> considering upgrading to version 8.xbe aware that all H series is already
> EOS due to the bad relationship between Cisco and HP obviuolsy the UCS was
> part of the fight IBM servers has a lot of problems this is from my own
> personal point of view.
>
>
>
> UCS is great C series configuration is to support 4 X 7945 server and the
> cost is significantly less than hardware serverplus the added benefits like
> hardware efficiency and DC sizing for large customersetc.
>
>
>
> The drawbacks would be that you will need experience not only in UC part
> but add to it the VMware and UCS itselfif you are going to B series it is
> more complicated than the C series.
>
>
>
> A great advantage for UCS is that you are able to have a sort of a
> redundant Publisher server as the database is stored in SAN and if the
> engineer fails it switches over to another own automatically so as if you
> have a redundant server but I think this is supported with the B series I
> am not very aware of deep technical info in this part.
>
>
>
> If I were you I would go with UCS C series for easier management
>
>
>
> And remember; all the world is going virtual J
>
>
>
> Best Regards;
>
> Ahmed Elnagar
>
> Senior Network PS Engineer
>
> Mob: +2019-0016211
>
> CCIE#24697 (Voice)
>
> [image: ccie_voice_large.gif]
>
>
>
> *From:* cisco-voip-bounces [at] puck [mailto:
> cisco-voip-bounces [at] puck] *On Behalf Of *
> george.hendrix [at] l-3com
> *Sent:* Wednesday, September 22, 2010 4:41 PM
> *To:* cisco-voip [at] puck
> *Subject:* [cisco-voip] Cisco MCS vs UCS Servers
>
>
>
> Hi everyone,
>
>
>
> I noticed Cisco has the new UCS C and B series servers. Does anyone have
> any thoughts as to whether these are the way to go or not? Do they perform
> better than the MCS H or I series? Also since these are out now, does
> anyone know if there are plans to put the remainder of the MCS servers EOL?
> BTW, this would be for a new CUCM 8 installation.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Bill Hendrix
>
>
>
> Disclaimer: NOTICE The information contained in this message is
> confidential and is intended for the addressee(s) only. If you have received
> this message in error or there are any problems please notify the originator
> immediately. The unauthorized use, disclosure, copying or alteration of this
> message is strictly forbidden. Raya will not be liable for direct, special,
> indirect or consequential damages arising from alteration of the contents of
> this message by a third party or as a result of any malicious code or virus
> being passed on. Views expressed in this communication are not necessarily
> those of Raya.If you have received this message in error, please notify the
> sender immediately by email, facsimile or telephone and return and/or
> destroy the original message.
>
> ************************************
> This email may contain privileged and/or confidential information that is intended solely for the use of the addressee. If you are not the intended recipient or entity, you are strictly prohibited from disclosing, copying, distributing or using any of the information contained in the transmission. If you received this communication in error, please contact the sender immediately and destroy the material in its entirety, whether electronic or hard copy. This communication may contain nonpublic personal information about consumers subject to the restrictions of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act and the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. You may not directly or indirectly reuse or disclose such information for any purpose other than to provide the services for which you are receiving the information.
> There are risks associated with the use of electronic transmission. The sender of this information does not control the method of transmittal or service providers and assumes no duty or obligation for the security, receipt, or third party interception of this transmission.
> ************************************
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> cisco-voip mailing list
> cisco-voip [at] puck
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
>
>


matthnick at gmail

Sep 23, 2010, 5:58 PM

Post #9 of 16 (4016 views)
Permalink
Re: Cisco MCS vs UCS Servers [In reply to]

Yes. Some of the limitations of the hardware are things like MoH live
feeds, your console dumps now go somewhere else, RTMT hardware stats are
replaced with some VMware/UCS equivalents, etc. But from an application
layer it's the same. It does however know how much CPU/disk/memory you've
given it and shows on the about screen.

-nick

On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 8:19 PM, STEVEN CASPER <SCASPER [at] mtb> wrote:

> Interesting.... For me to upgrade to 8.x I need to replace 4 of my
> subscribers and my publisher next year however I just purchased some HP G6
> servers to replace my 7835 servers. Can you mix virtual subscribers and a
> publisher with MCS type subscriber and TFTP servers?
>
> Steve
>
> >>> Ahmed Elnagar <ahmed_elnagar [at] rayacorp> 9/23/2010 7:01 PM >>>
>
> Cisco SEs is pushing on the virtualization for new customers and customers
> considering upgrading to version 8.xbe aware that all H series is already
> EOS due to the bad relationship between Cisco and HP obviuolsy the UCS was
> part of the fight IBM servers has a lot of problems this is from my own
> personal point of view.
>
>
>
> UCS is great C series configuration is to support 4 X 7945 server and the
> cost is significantly less than hardware serverplus the added benefits like
> hardware efficiency and DC sizing for large customersetc.
>
>
>
> The drawbacks would be that you will need experience not only in UC part
> but add to it the VMware and UCS itselfif you are going to B series it is
> more complicated than the C series.
>
>
>
> A great advantage for UCS is that you are able to have a sort of a
> redundant Publisher server as the database is stored in SAN and if the
> engineer fails it switches over to another own automatically so as if you
> have a redundant server but I think this is supported with the B series I
> am not very aware of deep technical info in this part.
>
>
>
> If I were you I would go with UCS C series for easier management
>
>
>
> And remember; all the world is going virtual J
>
>
>
> Best Regards;
>
> Ahmed Elnagar
>
> Senior Network PS Engineer
>
> Mob: +2019-0016211
>
> CCIE#24697 (Voice)
>
> [image: ccie_voice_large.gif]
>
>
>
> *From:* cisco-voip-bounces [at] puck [mailto:
> cisco-voip-bounces [at] puck] *On Behalf Of *
> george.hendrix [at] l-3com
> *Sent:* Wednesday, September 22, 2010 4:41 PM
> *To:* cisco-voip [at] puck
> *Subject:* [cisco-voip] Cisco MCS vs UCS Servers
>
>
>
> Hi everyone,
>
>
>
> I noticed Cisco has the new UCS C and B series servers. Does anyone have
> any thoughts as to whether these are the way to go or not? Do they perform
> better than the MCS H or I series? Also since these are out now, does
> anyone know if there are plans to put the remainder of the MCS servers EOL?
> BTW, this would be for a new CUCM 8 installation.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Bill Hendrix
>
>
>
> Disclaimer: NOTICE The information contained in this message is
> confidential and is intended for the addressee(s) only. If you have received
> this message in error or there are any problems please notify the originator
> immediately. The unauthorized use, disclosure, copying or alteration of this
> message is strictly forbidden. Raya will not be liable for direct, special,
> indirect or consequential damages arising from alteration of the contents of
> this message by a third party or as a result of any malicious code or virus
> being passed on. Views expressed in this communication are not necessarily
> those of Raya.If you have received this message in error, please notify the
> sender immediately by email, facsimile or telephone and return and/or
> destroy the original message.
>
> ************************************
> This email may contain privileged and/or confidential information that is intended solely for the use of the addressee. If you are not the intended recipient or entity, you are strictly prohibited from disclosing, copying, distributing or using any of the information contained in the transmission. If you received this communication in error, please contact the sender immediately and destroy the material in its entirety, whether electronic or hard copy. This communication may contain nonpublic personal information about consumers subject to the restrictions of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act and the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. You may not directly or indirectly reuse or disclose such information for any purpose other than to provide the services for which you are receiving the information.
> There are risks associated with the use of electronic transmission. The sender of this information does not control the method of transmittal or service providers and assumes no duty or obligation for the security, receipt, or third party interception of this transmission.
> ************************************
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> cisco-voip mailing list
> cisco-voip [at] puck
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
>
>


wokka at justfamily

Sep 24, 2010, 11:10 PM

Post #10 of 16 (4224 views)
Permalink
Re: Cisco MCS vs UCS Servers [In reply to]

Interesting, I was told by TAC that it was not supported. To burn in
hardware and to do some lab work before I put a subscriber into production,
I paired it with a virtual publisher, upgrade on them failed miserably (they
would run at the default version off the DVD), but I couldn't upgrade from
whatever 8.x I had on DVD to current.

If anyone wants details on this, I can dig it up, I had posted on here with
the upgrade errors, when no response was had, opened a case on it and was
told no.

BTW, my subscriber was an IBM server, 7835 series.

YMMV
Charles


On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 7:58 PM, Nick Matthews <matthnick [at] gmail> wrote:

> Yes. Some of the limitations of the hardware are things like MoH live
> feeds, your console dumps now go somewhere else, RTMT hardware stats are
> replaced with some VMware/UCS equivalents, etc. But from an application
> layer it's the same. It does however know how much CPU/disk/memory you've
> given it and shows on the about screen.
>
> -nick
>
> On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 8:19 PM, STEVEN CASPER <SCASPER [at] mtb> wrote:
>
>> Interesting.... For me to upgrade to 8.x I need to replace 4 of my
>> subscribers and my publisher next year however I just purchased some HP G6
>> servers to replace my 7835 servers. Can you mix virtual subscribers and a
>> publisher with MCS type subscriber and TFTP servers?
>>
>> Steve
>>
>> >>> Ahmed Elnagar <ahmed_elnagar [at] rayacorp> 9/23/2010 7:01 PM >>>
>>
>> Cisco SEs is pushing on the virtualization for new customers and customers
>> considering upgrading to version 8.xbe aware that all H series is already
>> EOS due to the bad relationship between Cisco and HP obviuolsy the UCS was
>> part of the fight IBM servers has a lot of problems this is from my own
>> personal point of view.
>>
>>
>>
>> UCS is great C series configuration is to support 4 X 7945 server and the
>> cost is significantly less than hardware serverplus the added benefits like
>> hardware efficiency and DC sizing for large customersetc.
>>
>>
>>
>> The drawbacks would be that you will need experience not only in UC part
>> but add to it the VMware and UCS itselfif you are going to B series it is
>> more complicated than the C series.
>>
>>
>>
>> A great advantage for UCS is that you are able to have a sort of a
>> redundant Publisher server as the database is stored in SAN and if the
>> engineer fails it switches over to another own automatically so as if you
>> have a redundant server but I think this is supported with the B series I
>> am not very aware of deep technical info in this part.
>>
>>
>>
>> If I were you I would go with UCS C series for easier management
>>
>>
>>
>> And remember; all the world is going virtual J
>>
>>
>>
>> Best Regards;
>>
>> Ahmed Elnagar
>>
>> Senior Network PS Engineer
>>
>> Mob: +2019-0016211
>>
>> CCIE#24697 (Voice)
>>
>> [image: ccie_voice_large.gif]
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* cisco-voip-bounces [at] puck [mailto:
>> cisco-voip-bounces [at] puck] *On Behalf Of *
>> george.hendrix [at] l-3com
>> *Sent:* Wednesday, September 22, 2010 4:41 PM
>> *To:* cisco-voip [at] puck
>> *Subject:* [cisco-voip] Cisco MCS vs UCS Servers
>>
>>
>>
>> Hi everyone,
>>
>>
>>
>> I noticed Cisco has the new UCS C and B series servers. Does anyone
>> have any thoughts as to whether these are the way to go or not? Do they
>> perform better than the MCS H or I series? Also since these are out now,
>> does anyone know if there are plans to put the remainder of the MCS servers
>> EOL? BTW, this would be for a new CUCM 8 installation.
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Bill Hendrix
>>
>>
>>
>> Disclaimer: NOTICE The information contained in this message is
>> confidential and is intended for the addressee(s) only. If you have received
>> this message in error or there are any problems please notify the originator
>> immediately. The unauthorized use, disclosure, copying or alteration of this
>> message is strictly forbidden. Raya will not be liable for direct, special,
>> indirect or consequential damages arising from alteration of the contents of
>> this message by a third party or as a result of any malicious code or virus
>> being passed on. Views expressed in this communication are not necessarily
>> those of Raya.If you have received this message in error, please notify the
>> sender immediately by email, facsimile or telephone and return and/or
>> destroy the original message.
>>
>> ************************************
>> This email may contain privileged and/or confidential information that is intended solely for the use of the addressee. If you are not the intended recipient or entity, you are strictly prohibited from disclosing, copying, distributing or using any of the information contained in the transmission. If you received this communication in error, please contact the sender immediately and destroy the material in its entirety, whether electronic or hard copy. This communication may contain nonpublic personal information about consumers subject to the restrictions of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act and the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. You may not directly or indirectly reuse or disclose such information for any purpose other than to provide the services for which you are receiving the information.
>> There are risks associated with the use of electronic transmission. The sender of this information does not control the method of transmittal or service providers and assumes no duty or obligation for the security, receipt, or third party interception of this transmission.
>> ************************************
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> cisco-voip mailing list
>>
>> cisco-voip [at] puck
>> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> cisco-voip mailing list
> cisco-voip [at] puck
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
>
>


matthnick at gmail

Sep 25, 2010, 9:37 AM

Post #11 of 16 (3993 views)
Permalink
Re: Cisco MCS vs UCS Servers [In reply to]

If your VMware publisher wasn't on a UCS server, then it isn't supported.
3rd party hardware isn't supported yet, except for Unity.

-nick

On Sat, Sep 25, 2010 at 2:10 AM, Charles Goldsmith <wokka [at] justfamily>wrote:

> Interesting, I was told by TAC that it was not supported. To burn in
> hardware and to do some lab work before I put a subscriber into production,
> I paired it with a virtual publisher, upgrade on them failed miserably (they
> would run at the default version off the DVD), but I couldn't upgrade from
> whatever 8.x I had on DVD to current.
>
> If anyone wants details on this, I can dig it up, I had posted on here with
> the upgrade errors, when no response was had, opened a case on it and was
> told no.
>
> BTW, my subscriber was an IBM server, 7835 series.
>
> YMMV
> Charles
>
>
> On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 7:58 PM, Nick Matthews <matthnick [at] gmail>wrote:
>
>> Yes. Some of the limitations of the hardware are things like MoH live
>> feeds, your console dumps now go somewhere else, RTMT hardware stats are
>> replaced with some VMware/UCS equivalents, etc. But from an application
>> layer it's the same. It does however know how much CPU/disk/memory you've
>> given it and shows on the about screen.
>>
>> -nick
>>
>> On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 8:19 PM, STEVEN CASPER <SCASPER [at] mtb> wrote:
>>
>>> Interesting.... For me to upgrade to 8.x I need to replace 4 of my
>>> subscribers and my publisher next year however I just purchased some HP G6
>>> servers to replace my 7835 servers. Can you mix virtual subscribers and a
>>> publisher with MCS type subscriber and TFTP servers?
>>>
>>> Steve
>>>
>>> >>> Ahmed Elnagar <ahmed_elnagar [at] rayacorp> 9/23/2010 7:01 PM >>>
>>>
>>> Cisco SEs is pushing on the virtualization for new customers and
>>> customers considering upgrading to version 8.xbe aware that all H series is
>>> already EOS due to the bad relationship between Cisco and HP obviuolsy the
>>> UCS was part of the fight IBM servers has a lot of problems this is from
>>> my own personal point of view.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> UCS is great C series configuration is to support 4 X 7945 server and the
>>> cost is significantly less than hardware serverplus the added benefits like
>>> hardware efficiency and DC sizing for large customersetc.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The drawbacks would be that you will need experience not only in UC part
>>> but add to it the VMware and UCS itselfif you are going to B series it is
>>> more complicated than the C series.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> A great advantage for UCS is that you are able to have a sort of a
>>> redundant Publisher server as the database is stored in SAN and if the
>>> engineer fails it switches over to another own automatically so as if you
>>> have a redundant server but I think this is supported with the B series I
>>> am not very aware of deep technical info in this part.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> If I were you I would go with UCS C series for easier management
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> And remember; all the world is going virtual J
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Best Regards;
>>>
>>> Ahmed Elnagar
>>>
>>> Senior Network PS Engineer
>>>
>>> Mob: +2019-0016211
>>>
>>> CCIE#24697 (Voice)
>>>
>>> [image: ccie_voice_large.gif]
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *From:* cisco-voip-bounces [at] puck [mailto:
>>> cisco-voip-bounces [at] puck] *On Behalf Of *
>>> george.hendrix [at] l-3com
>>> *Sent:* Wednesday, September 22, 2010 4:41 PM
>>> *To:* cisco-voip [at] puck
>>> *Subject:* [cisco-voip] Cisco MCS vs UCS Servers
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Hi everyone,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I noticed Cisco has the new UCS C and B series servers. Does anyone
>>> have any thoughts as to whether these are the way to go or not? Do they
>>> perform better than the MCS H or I series? Also since these are out now,
>>> does anyone know if there are plans to put the remainder of the MCS servers
>>> EOL? BTW, this would be for a new CUCM 8 installation.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> Bill Hendrix
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Disclaimer: NOTICE The information contained in this message is
>>> confidential and is intended for the addressee(s) only. If you have received
>>> this message in error or there are any problems please notify the originator
>>> immediately. The unauthorized use, disclosure, copying or alteration of this
>>> message is strictly forbidden. Raya will not be liable for direct, special,
>>> indirect or consequential damages arising from alteration of the contents of
>>> this message by a third party or as a result of any malicious code or virus
>>> being passed on. Views expressed in this communication are not necessarily
>>> those of Raya.If you have received this message in error, please notify the
>>> sender immediately by email, facsimile or telephone and return and/or
>>> destroy the original message.
>>>
>>> ************************************
>>> This email may contain privileged and/or confidential information that is intended solely for the use of the addressee. If you are not the intended recipient or entity, you are strictly prohibited from disclosing, copying, distributing or using any of the information contained in the transmission. If you received this communication in error, please contact the sender immediately and destroy the material in its entirety, whether electronic or hard copy. This communication may contain nonpublic personal information about consumers subject to the restrictions of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act and the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. You may not directly or indirectly reuse or disclose such information for any purpose other than to provide the services for which you are receiving the information.
>>> There are risks associated with the use of electronic transmission. The sender of this information does not control the method of transmittal or service providers and assumes no duty or obligation for the security, receipt, or third party interception of this transmission.
>>> ************************************
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> cisco-voip mailing list
>>>
>>> cisco-voip [at] puck
>>> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
>>>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> cisco-voip mailing list
>> cisco-voip [at] puck
>> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
>>
>>
>


wokka at justfamily

Sep 25, 2010, 6:13 PM

Post #12 of 16 (4271 views)
Permalink
Re: Cisco MCS vs UCS Servers [In reply to]

This is the log from my TAC case, when trying to upgrade the Subscriber
(hardware) to match the version on the Publisher (VM), I had the following
error:

---
21 July 2010 23:39:03: PHONE LOG
I did a utils system upgrade status and found this:

DEBUG: Mismatch Manufacturer: expected VMware found IBM

Customer is running the Publisher in VMWare and the Subscriber in a 7835-I3.

According to previous cases this cannot be done and customer has to install
all servers in VMWare or all in MCS servers.
---

Now, this TAC engineer might have been wrong, but he clearly states that
these cannot be mismatched. I wasn't necesarily looking for a supported
setup, I was merely trying to test hardware in a lab before deploying out to
a remote site, and do a bit of lab work prior. I ran across an error during
the upgrade and the resultant debug turned up the above mentioned message.

I didn't do an exhaustive search, but I don't see anywhere in the docs where
you can mix and match between VM (on UCS) and hardware, nor did I find
anything mentioning that you can't.

FWIW, I hope it works out for the people trying it..
Charles

On Sat, Sep 25, 2010 at 11:37 AM, Nick Matthews <matthnick [at] gmail> wrote:

> If your VMware publisher wasn't on a UCS server, then it isn't supported.
> 3rd party hardware isn't supported yet, except for Unity.
>
> -nick
>
>
> On Sat, Sep 25, 2010 at 2:10 AM, Charles Goldsmith <wokka [at] justfamily>wrote:
>
>> Interesting, I was told by TAC that it was not supported. To burn in
>> hardware and to do some lab work before I put a subscriber into production,
>> I paired it with a virtual publisher, upgrade on them failed miserably (they
>> would run at the default version off the DVD), but I couldn't upgrade from
>> whatever 8.x I had on DVD to current.
>>
>> If anyone wants details on this, I can dig it up, I had posted on here
>> with the upgrade errors, when no response was had, opened a case on it and
>> was told no.
>>
>> BTW, my subscriber was an IBM server, 7835 series.
>>
>> YMMV
>> Charles
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 7:58 PM, Nick Matthews <matthnick [at] gmail>wrote:
>>
>>> Yes. Some of the limitations of the hardware are things like MoH live
>>> feeds, your console dumps now go somewhere else, RTMT hardware stats are
>>> replaced with some VMware/UCS equivalents, etc. But from an application
>>> layer it's the same. It does however know how much CPU/disk/memory you've
>>> given it and shows on the about screen.
>>>
>>> -nick
>>>
>>> On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 8:19 PM, STEVEN CASPER <SCASPER [at] mtb> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Interesting.... For me to upgrade to 8.x I need to replace 4 of my
>>>> subscribers and my publisher next year however I just purchased some HP G6
>>>> servers to replace my 7835 servers. Can you mix virtual subscribers and a
>>>> publisher with MCS type subscriber and TFTP servers?
>>>>
>>>> Steve
>>>>
>>>> >>> Ahmed Elnagar <ahmed_elnagar [at] rayacorp> 9/23/2010 7:01 PM >>>
>>>>
>>>> Cisco SEs is pushing on the virtualization for new customers and
>>>> customers considering upgrading to version 8.xbe aware that all H series is
>>>> already EOS due to the bad relationship between Cisco and HP obviuolsy the
>>>> UCS was part of the fight IBM servers has a lot of problems this is from
>>>> my own personal point of view.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> UCS is great C series configuration is to support 4 X 7945 server and
>>>> the cost is significantly less than hardware serverplus the added benefits
>>>> like hardware efficiency and DC sizing for large customersetc.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The drawbacks would be that you will need experience not only in UC part
>>>> but add to it the VMware and UCS itselfif you are going to B series it is
>>>> more complicated than the C series.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> A great advantage for UCS is that you are able to have a sort of a
>>>> redundant Publisher server as the database is stored in SAN and if the
>>>> engineer fails it switches over to another own automatically so as if you
>>>> have a redundant server but I think this is supported with the B series I
>>>> am not very aware of deep technical info in this part.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> If I were you I would go with UCS C series for easier management
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> And remember; all the world is going virtual J
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Best Regards;
>>>>
>>>> Ahmed Elnagar
>>>>
>>>> Senior Network PS Engineer
>>>>
>>>> Mob: +2019-0016211
>>>>
>>>> CCIE#24697 (Voice)
>>>>
>>>> [image: ccie_voice_large.gif]
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *From:* cisco-voip-bounces [at] puck [mailto:
>>>> cisco-voip-bounces [at] puck] *On Behalf Of *
>>>> george.hendrix [at] l-3com
>>>> *Sent:* Wednesday, September 22, 2010 4:41 PM
>>>> *To:* cisco-voip [at] puck
>>>> *Subject:* [cisco-voip] Cisco MCS vs UCS Servers
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Hi everyone,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I noticed Cisco has the new UCS C and B series servers. Does anyone
>>>> have any thoughts as to whether these are the way to go or not? Do they
>>>> perform better than the MCS H or I series? Also since these are out now,
>>>> does anyone know if there are plans to put the remainder of the MCS servers
>>>> EOL? BTW, this would be for a new CUCM 8 installation.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>>
>>>> Bill Hendrix
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Disclaimer: NOTICE The information contained in this message is
>>>> confidential and is intended for the addressee(s) only. If you have received
>>>> this message in error or there are any problems please notify the originator
>>>> immediately. The unauthorized use, disclosure, copying or alteration of this
>>>> message is strictly forbidden. Raya will not be liable for direct, special,
>>>> indirect or consequential damages arising from alteration of the contents of
>>>> this message by a third party or as a result of any malicious code or virus
>>>> being passed on. Views expressed in this communication are not necessarily
>>>> those of Raya.If you have received this message in error, please notify the
>>>> sender immediately by email, facsimile or telephone and return and/or
>>>> destroy the original message.
>>>>
>>>> ************************************
>>>> This email may contain privileged and/or confidential information that is intended solely for the use of the addressee. If you are not the intended recipient or entity, you are strictly prohibited from disclosing, copying, distributing or using any of the information contained in the transmission. If you received this communication in error, please contact the sender immediately and destroy the material in its entirety, whether electronic or hard copy. This communication may contain nonpublic personal information about consumers subject to the restrictions of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act and the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. You may not directly or indirectly reuse or disclose such information for any purpose other than to provide the services for which you are receiving the information.
>>>> There are risks associated with the use of electronic transmission. The sender of this information does not control the method of transmittal or service providers and assumes no duty or obligation for the security, receipt, or third party interception of this transmission.
>>>> ************************************
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> cisco-voip mailing list
>>>>
>>>> cisco-voip [at] puck
>>>> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> cisco-voip mailing list
>>> cisco-voip [at] puck
>>> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
>>>
>>>
>>
>


matthnick at gmail

Sep 25, 2010, 8:19 PM

Post #13 of 16 (4011 views)
Permalink
Re: Cisco MCS vs UCS Servers [In reply to]

You can throw this at the TAC engineer if needed:

"You can also run a mix of virtual and nonvirtual machines, including the
servers in a backup or failover pair. Also note that to virtualize Cisco
Unified Communications applications, there is an additional support burden.
Customers provide the hardware, VMware ESXi software, and are responsible
for coordinating support for these components, including provisioning and
performance troubleshooting. Customers who are unwilling to take on such
support may be better candidates for deploying Cisco Unified Communication
applications on physical servers. "

http://docwiki.cisco.com/wiki/Unified_Computing_System_Hardware

I know the PM for this has specifically stated this multiple times. If your
publisher in the lab was not on UCS then the engineer was correct that it's
not supported.

-nick

On Sat, Sep 25, 2010 at 9:13 PM, Charles Goldsmith <wokka [at] justfamily>wrote:

> This is the log from my TAC case, when trying to upgrade the Subscriber
> (hardware) to match the version on the Publisher (VM), I had the following
> error:
>
> ---
> 21 July 2010 23:39:03: PHONE LOG
> I did a utils system upgrade status and found this:
>
> DEBUG: Mismatch Manufacturer: expected VMware found IBM
>
> Customer is running the Publisher in VMWare and the Subscriber in a
> 7835-I3.
>
> According to previous cases this cannot be done and customer has to install
> all servers in VMWare or all in MCS servers.
> ---
>
> Now, this TAC engineer might have been wrong, but he clearly states that
> these cannot be mismatched. I wasn't necesarily looking for a supported
> setup, I was merely trying to test hardware in a lab before deploying out to
> a remote site, and do a bit of lab work prior. I ran across an error during
> the upgrade and the resultant debug turned up the above mentioned message.
>
> I didn't do an exhaustive search, but I don't see anywhere in the docs
> where you can mix and match between VM (on UCS) and hardware, nor did I find
> anything mentioning that you can't.
>
> FWIW, I hope it works out for the people trying it..
> Charles
>
> On Sat, Sep 25, 2010 at 11:37 AM, Nick Matthews <matthnick [at] gmail>wrote:
>
>> If your VMware publisher wasn't on a UCS server, then it isn't supported.
>> 3rd party hardware isn't supported yet, except for Unity.
>>
>> -nick
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Sep 25, 2010 at 2:10 AM, Charles Goldsmith <wokka [at] justfamily>wrote:
>>
>>> Interesting, I was told by TAC that it was not supported. To burn in
>>> hardware and to do some lab work before I put a subscriber into production,
>>> I paired it with a virtual publisher, upgrade on them failed miserably (they
>>> would run at the default version off the DVD), but I couldn't upgrade from
>>> whatever 8.x I had on DVD to current.
>>>
>>> If anyone wants details on this, I can dig it up, I had posted on here
>>> with the upgrade errors, when no response was had, opened a case on it and
>>> was told no.
>>>
>>> BTW, my subscriber was an IBM server, 7835 series.
>>>
>>> YMMV
>>> Charles
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 7:58 PM, Nick Matthews <matthnick [at] gmail>wrote:
>>>
>>>> Yes. Some of the limitations of the hardware are things like MoH live
>>>> feeds, your console dumps now go somewhere else, RTMT hardware stats are
>>>> replaced with some VMware/UCS equivalents, etc. But from an application
>>>> layer it's the same. It does however know how much CPU/disk/memory you've
>>>> given it and shows on the about screen.
>>>>
>>>> -nick
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 8:19 PM, STEVEN CASPER <SCASPER [at] mtb> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Interesting.... For me to upgrade to 8.x I need to replace 4 of my
>>>>> subscribers and my publisher next year however I just purchased some HP G6
>>>>> servers to replace my 7835 servers. Can you mix virtual subscribers and a
>>>>> publisher with MCS type subscriber and TFTP servers?
>>>>>
>>>>> Steve
>>>>>
>>>>> >>> Ahmed Elnagar <ahmed_elnagar [at] rayacorp> 9/23/2010 7:01 PM >>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Cisco SEs is pushing on the virtualization for new customers and
>>>>> customers considering upgrading to version 8.xbe aware that all H series is
>>>>> already EOS due to the bad relationship between Cisco and HP obviuolsy the
>>>>> UCS was part of the fight IBM servers has a lot of problems this is from
>>>>> my own personal point of view.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> UCS is great C series configuration is to support 4 X 7945 server and
>>>>> the cost is significantly less than hardware serverplus the added benefits
>>>>> like hardware efficiency and DC sizing for large customersetc.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The drawbacks would be that you will need experience not only in UC
>>>>> part but add to it the VMware and UCS itselfif you are going to B series it
>>>>> is more complicated than the C series.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> A great advantage for UCS is that you are able to have a sort of a
>>>>> redundant Publisher server as the database is stored in SAN and if the
>>>>> engineer fails it switches over to another own automatically so as if you
>>>>> have a redundant server but I think this is supported with the B series I
>>>>> am not very aware of deep technical info in this part.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> If I were you I would go with UCS C series for easier management
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> And remember; all the world is going virtual J
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Best Regards;
>>>>>
>>>>> Ahmed Elnagar
>>>>>
>>>>> Senior Network PS Engineer
>>>>>
>>>>> Mob: +2019-0016211
>>>>>
>>>>> CCIE#24697 (Voice)
>>>>>
>>>>> [image: ccie_voice_large.gif]
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> *From:* cisco-voip-bounces [at] puck [mailto:
>>>>> cisco-voip-bounces [at] puck] *On Behalf Of *
>>>>> george.hendrix [at] l-3com
>>>>> *Sent:* Wednesday, September 22, 2010 4:41 PM
>>>>> *To:* cisco-voip [at] puck
>>>>> *Subject:* [cisco-voip] Cisco MCS vs UCS Servers
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi everyone,
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I noticed Cisco has the new UCS C and B series servers. Does anyone
>>>>> have any thoughts as to whether these are the way to go or not? Do they
>>>>> perform better than the MCS H or I series? Also since these are out now,
>>>>> does anyone know if there are plans to put the remainder of the MCS servers
>>>>> EOL? BTW, this would be for a new CUCM 8 installation.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>
>>>>> Bill Hendrix
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Disclaimer: NOTICE The information contained in this message is
>>>>> confidential and is intended for the addressee(s) only. If you have received
>>>>> this message in error or there are any problems please notify the originator
>>>>> immediately. The unauthorized use, disclosure, copying or alteration of this
>>>>> message is strictly forbidden. Raya will not be liable for direct, special,
>>>>> indirect or consequential damages arising from alteration of the contents of
>>>>> this message by a third party or as a result of any malicious code or virus
>>>>> being passed on. Views expressed in this communication are not necessarily
>>>>> those of Raya.If you have received this message in error, please notify the
>>>>> sender immediately by email, facsimile or telephone and return and/or
>>>>> destroy the original message.
>>>>>
>>>>> ************************************
>>>>> This email may contain privileged and/or confidential information that is intended solely for the use of the addressee. If you are not the intended recipient or entity, you are strictly prohibited from disclosing, copying, distributing or using any of the information contained in the transmission. If you received this communication in error, please contact the sender immediately and destroy the material in its entirety, whether electronic or hard copy. This communication may contain nonpublic personal information about consumers subject to the restrictions of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act and the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. You may not directly or indirectly reuse or disclose such information for any purpose other than to provide the services for which you are receiving the information.
>>>>> There are risks associated with the use of electronic transmission. The sender of this information does not control the method of transmittal or service providers and assumes no duty or obligation for the security, receipt, or third party interception of this transmission.
>>>>> ************************************
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> cisco-voip mailing list
>>>>>
>>>>> cisco-voip [at] puck
>>>>> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> cisco-voip mailing list
>>>> cisco-voip [at] puck
>>>> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>


rratliff at cisco

Sep 27, 2010, 6:59 AM

Post #14 of 16 (3902 views)
Permalink
Re: Cisco MCS vs UCS Servers [In reply to]

From what I can tell the error you got is thrown when the hardware detection fails for whatever reason and can be simply cosmetic. I would not put that as the cause of your upgrade failure.

-Ryan

On Sep 25, 2010, at 11:19 PM, Nick Matthews wrote:

You can throw this at the TAC engineer if needed:

"You can also run a mix of virtual and nonvirtual machines, including the servers in a backup or failover pair. Also note that to virtualize Cisco Unified Communications applications, there is an additional support burden. Customers provide the hardware, VMware ESXi software, and are responsible for coordinating support for these components, including provisioning and performance troubleshooting. Customers who are unwilling to take on such support may be better candidates for deploying Cisco Unified Communication applications on physical servers. "

http://docwiki.cisco.com/wiki/Unified_Computing_System_Hardware

I know the PM for this has specifically stated this multiple times. If your publisher in the lab was not on UCS then the engineer was correct that it's not supported.

-nick

On Sat, Sep 25, 2010 at 9:13 PM, Charles Goldsmith <wokka [at] justfamily> wrote:
This is the log from my TAC case, when trying to upgrade the Subscriber (hardware) to match the version on the Publisher (VM), I had the following error:

---
21 July 2010 23:39:03: PHONE LOG
I did a utils system upgrade status and found this:

DEBUG: Mismatch Manufacturer: expected VMware found IBM

Customer is running the Publisher in VMWare and the Subscriber in a 7835-I3.

According to previous cases this cannot be done and customer has to install all servers in VMWare or all in MCS servers.
---

Now, this TAC engineer might have been wrong, but he clearly states that these cannot be mismatched. I wasn't necesarily looking for a supported setup, I was merely trying to test hardware in a lab before deploying out to a remote site, and do a bit of lab work prior. I ran across an error during the upgrade and the resultant debug turned up the above mentioned message.

I didn't do an exhaustive search, but I don't see anywhere in the docs where you can mix and match between VM (on UCS) and hardware, nor did I find anything mentioning that you can't.

FWIW, I hope it works out for the people trying it..
Charles

On Sat, Sep 25, 2010 at 11:37 AM, Nick Matthews <matthnick [at] gmail> wrote:
If your VMware publisher wasn't on a UCS server, then it isn't supported. 3rd party hardware isn't supported yet, except for Unity.

-nick


On Sat, Sep 25, 2010 at 2:10 AM, Charles Goldsmith <wokka [at] justfamily> wrote:
Interesting, I was told by TAC that it was not supported. To burn in hardware and to do some lab work before I put a subscriber into production, I paired it with a virtual publisher, upgrade on them failed miserably (they would run at the default version off the DVD), but I couldn't upgrade from whatever 8.x I had on DVD to current.

If anyone wants details on this, I can dig it up, I had posted on here with the upgrade errors, when no response was had, opened a case on it and was told no.

BTW, my subscriber was an IBM server, 7835 series.

YMMV
Charles


On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 7:58 PM, Nick Matthews <matthnick [at] gmail> wrote:
Yes. Some of the limitations of the hardware are things like MoH live feeds, your console dumps now go somewhere else, RTMT hardware stats are replaced with some VMware/UCS equivalents, etc. But from an application layer it's the same. It does however know how much CPU/disk/memory you've given it and shows on the about screen.

-nick

On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 8:19 PM, STEVEN CASPER <SCASPER [at] mtb> wrote:
Interesting.... For me to upgrade to 8.x I need to replace 4 of my subscribers and my publisher next year however I just purchased some HP G6 servers to replace my 7835 servers. Can you mix virtual subscribers and a publisher with MCS type subscriber and TFTP servers?

Steve

>>> Ahmed Elnagar <ahmed_elnagar [at] rayacorp> 9/23/2010 7:01 PM >>>
Cisco SEs is pushing on the virtualization for new customers and customers considering upgrading to version 8.xbe aware that all H series is already EOS due to the bad relationship between Cisco and HP obviuolsy the UCS was part of the fight IBM servers has a lot of problems this is from my own personal point of view.


UCS is great C series configuration is to support 4 X 7945 server and the cost is significantly less than hardware serverplus the added benefits like hardware efficiency and DC sizing for large customersetc.


The drawbacks would be that you will need experience not only in UC part but add to it the VMware and UCS itselfif you are going to B series it is more complicated than the C series.


A great advantage for UCS is that you are able to have a sort of a redundant Publisher server as the database is stored in SAN and if the engineer fails it switches over to another own automatically so as if you have a redundant server but I think this is supported with the B series I am not very aware of deep technical info in this part.


If I were you I would go with UCS C series for easier management


And remember; all the world is going virtual J


Best Regards;

Ahmed Elnagar

Senior Network PS Engineer

Mob: +2019-0016211

CCIE#24697 (Voice)




From: cisco-voip-bounces [at] puck [mailto:cisco-voip-bounces [at] puck] On Behalf Of george.hendrix [at] l-3com
Sent: Wednesday, September 22, 2010 4:41 PM
To: cisco-voip [at] puck
Subject: [cisco-voip] Cisco MCS vs UCS Servers


Hi everyone,


I noticed Cisco has the new UCS C and B series servers. Does anyone have any thoughts as to whether these are the way to go or not? Do they perform better than the MCS H or I series? Also since these are out now, does anyone know if there are plans to put the remainder of the MCS servers EOL? BTW, this would be for a new CUCM 8 installation.


Thanks,

Bill Hendrix



Disclaimer: NOTICE The information contained in this message is confidential and is intended for the addressee(s) only. If you have received this message in error or there are any problems please notify the originator immediately. The unauthorized use, disclosure, copying or alteration of this message is strictly forbidden. Raya will not be liable for direct, special, indirect or consequential damages arising from alteration of the contents of this message by a third party or as a result of any malicious code or virus being passed on. Views expressed in this communication are not necessarily those of Raya.If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately by email, facsimile or telephone and return and/or destroy the original message.
************************************
This email may contain privileged and/or confidential information that is intended solely for the use of the addressee. If you are not the intended recipient or entity, you are strictly prohibited from disclosing, copying, distributing or using any of the information contained in the transmission. If you received this communication in error, please contact the sender immediately and destroy the material in its entirety, whether electronic or hard copy. This communication may contain nonpublic personal information about consumers subject to the restrictions of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act and the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. You may not directly or indirectly reuse or disclose such information for any purpose other than to provide the services for which you are receiving the information.
There are risks associated with the use of electronic transmission. The sender of this information does not control the method of transmittal or service providers and assumes no duty or obligation for the security, receipt, or third party interception of this transmission.
************************************

_______________________________________________
cisco-voip mailing list

cisco-voip [at] puck
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip



_______________________________________________
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip [at] puck
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip





_______________________________________________
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip [at] puck
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip


wokka at justfamily

Sep 27, 2010, 9:33 AM

Post #15 of 16 (3908 views)
Permalink
Re: Cisco MCS vs UCS Servers [In reply to]

Interesting, a few weeks later after that issue, I did mate this hardware
with my production, hardware CUCM and had no problems doing the upgrade.

Thanks for the insight.
Charles

On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 8:59 AM, Ryan Ratliff <rratliff [at] cisco> wrote:

> From what I can tell the error you got is thrown when the hardware
> detection fails for whatever reason and can be simply cosmetic. I would not
> put that as the cause of your upgrade failure.
>
> -Ryan
>
> On Sep 25, 2010, at 11:19 PM, Nick Matthews wrote:
>
> You can throw this at the TAC engineer if needed:
>
> "You can also run a mix of virtual and nonvirtual machines, including the
> servers in a backup or failover pair. Also note that to virtualize Cisco
> Unified Communications applications, there is an additional support burden.
> Customers provide the hardware, VMware ESXi software, and are responsible
> for coordinating support for these components, including provisioning and
> performance troubleshooting. Customers who are unwilling to take on such
> support may be better candidates for deploying Cisco Unified Communication
> applications on physical servers. "
>
> http://docwiki.cisco.com/wiki/Unified_Computing_System_Hardware
>
> I know the PM for this has specifically stated this multiple times. If
> your publisher in the lab was not on UCS then the engineer was correct that
> it's not supported.
>
> -nick
>
> On Sat, Sep 25, 2010 at 9:13 PM, Charles Goldsmith <wokka [at] justfamily>wrote:
>
>> This is the log from my TAC case, when trying to upgrade the Subscriber
>> (hardware) to match the version on the Publisher (VM), I had the following
>> error:
>>
>> ---
>> 21 July 2010 23:39:03: PHONE LOG
>> I did a utils system upgrade status and found this:
>>
>> DEBUG: Mismatch Manufacturer: expected VMware found IBM
>>
>> Customer is running the Publisher in VMWare and the Subscriber in a
>> 7835-I3.
>>
>> According to previous cases this cannot be done and customer has to
>> install all servers in VMWare or all in MCS servers.
>> ---
>>
>> Now, this TAC engineer might have been wrong, but he clearly states that
>> these cannot be mismatched. I wasn't necesarily looking for a supported
>> setup, I was merely trying to test hardware in a lab before deploying out to
>> a remote site, and do a bit of lab work prior. I ran across an error during
>> the upgrade and the resultant debug turned up the above mentioned message.
>>
>> I didn't do an exhaustive search, but I don't see anywhere in the docs
>> where you can mix and match between VM (on UCS) and hardware, nor did I find
>> anything mentioning that you can't.
>>
>> FWIW, I hope it works out for the people trying it..
>> Charles
>>
>> On Sat, Sep 25, 2010 at 11:37 AM, Nick Matthews <matthnick [at] gmail>wrote:
>>
>>> If your VMware publisher wasn't on a UCS server, then it isn't
>>> supported. 3rd party hardware isn't supported yet, except for Unity.
>>>
>>> -nick
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sat, Sep 25, 2010 at 2:10 AM, Charles Goldsmith <wokka [at] justfamily
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>> Interesting, I was told by TAC that it was not supported. To burn in
>>>> hardware and to do some lab work before I put a subscriber into production,
>>>> I paired it with a virtual publisher, upgrade on them failed miserably (they
>>>> would run at the default version off the DVD), but I couldn't upgrade from
>>>> whatever 8.x I had on DVD to current.
>>>>
>>>> If anyone wants details on this, I can dig it up, I had posted on here
>>>> with the upgrade errors, when no response was had, opened a case on it and
>>>> was told no.
>>>>
>>>> BTW, my subscriber was an IBM server, 7835 series.
>>>>
>>>> YMMV
>>>> Charles
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 7:58 PM, Nick Matthews <matthnick [at] gmail>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Yes. Some of the limitations of the hardware are things like MoH live
>>>>> feeds, your console dumps now go somewhere else, RTMT hardware stats are
>>>>> replaced with some VMware/UCS equivalents, etc. But from an application
>>>>> layer it's the same. It does however know how much CPU/disk/memory you've
>>>>> given it and shows on the about screen.
>>>>>
>>>>> -nick
>>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 8:19 PM, STEVEN CASPER <SCASPER [at] mtb>wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Interesting.... For me to upgrade to 8.x I need to replace 4 of my
>>>>>> subscribers and my publisher next year however I just purchased some HP G6
>>>>>> servers to replace my 7835 servers. Can you mix virtual subscribers and a
>>>>>> publisher with MCS type subscriber and TFTP servers?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Steve
>>>>>>
>>>>>> >>> Ahmed Elnagar <ahmed_elnagar [at] rayacorp> 9/23/2010 7:01 PM >>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Cisco SEs is pushing on the virtualization for new customers and
>>>>>> customers considering upgrading to version 8.xbe aware that all H series is
>>>>>> already EOS due to the bad relationship between Cisco and HP obviuolsy the
>>>>>> UCS was part of the fight IBM servers has a lot of problems this is from
>>>>>> my own personal point of view.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> UCS is great C series configuration is to support 4 X 7945 server and
>>>>>> the cost is significantly less than hardware serverplus the added benefits
>>>>>> like hardware efficiency and DC sizing for large customersetc.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The drawbacks would be that you will need experience not only in UC
>>>>>> part but add to it the VMware and UCS itselfif you are going to B series it
>>>>>> is more complicated than the C series.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A great advantage for UCS is that you are able to have a sort of a
>>>>>> redundant Publisher server as the database is stored in SAN and if the
>>>>>> engineer fails it switches over to another own automatically so as if you
>>>>>> have a redundant server but I think this is supported with the B series I
>>>>>> am not very aware of deep technical info in this part.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If I were you I would go with UCS C series for easier management
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And remember; all the world is going virtual J
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Best Regards;
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ahmed Elnagar
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Senior Network PS Engineer
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Mob: +2019-0016211
>>>>>>
>>>>>> CCIE#24697 (Voice)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [image: ccie_voice_large.gif]
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *From:* cisco-voip-bounces [at] puck [mailto:
>>>>>> cisco-voip-bounces [at] puck] *On Behalf Of *
>>>>>> george.hendrix [at] l-3com
>>>>>> *Sent:* Wednesday, September 22, 2010 4:41 PM
>>>>>> *To:* cisco-voip [at] puck
>>>>>> *Subject:* [cisco-voip] Cisco MCS vs UCS Servers
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi everyone,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I noticed Cisco has the new UCS C and B series servers. Does anyone
>>>>>> have any thoughts as to whether these are the way to go or not? Do they
>>>>>> perform better than the MCS H or I series? Also since these are out now,
>>>>>> does anyone know if there are plans to put the remainder of the MCS servers
>>>>>> EOL? BTW, this would be for a new CUCM 8 installation.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Bill Hendrix
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Disclaimer: NOTICE The information contained in this message is
>>>>>> confidential and is intended for the addressee(s) only. If you have received
>>>>>> this message in error or there are any problems please notify the originator
>>>>>> immediately. The unauthorized use, disclosure, copying or alteration of this
>>>>>> message is strictly forbidden. Raya will not be liable for direct, special,
>>>>>> indirect or consequential damages arising from alteration of the contents of
>>>>>> this message by a third party or as a result of any malicious code or virus
>>>>>> being passed on. Views expressed in this communication are not necessarily
>>>>>> those of Raya.If you have received this message in error, please notify the
>>>>>> sender immediately by email, facsimile or telephone and return and/or
>>>>>> destroy the original message.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ************************************
>>>>>> This email may contain privileged and/or confidential information that is intended solely for the use of the addressee. If you are not the intended recipient or entity, you are strictly prohibited from disclosing, copying, distributing or using any of the information contained in the transmission. If you received this communication in error, please contact the sender immediately and destroy the material in its entirety, whether electronic or hard copy. This communication may contain nonpublic personal information about consumers subject to the restrictions of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act and the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. You may not directly or indirectly reuse or disclose such information for any purpose other than to provide the services for which you are receiving the information.
>>>>>> There are risks associated with the use of electronic transmission. The sender of this information does not control the method of transmittal or service providers and assumes no duty or obligation for the security, receipt, or third party interception of this transmission.
>>>>>> ************************************
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> cisco-voip mailing list
>>>>>>
>>>>>> cisco-voip [at] puck
>>>>>> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> cisco-voip mailing list
>>>>> cisco-voip [at] puck
>>>>> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> cisco-voip mailing list
> cisco-voip [at] puck
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
>
>


wsisk at cisco

Sep 27, 2010, 9:33 AM

Post #16 of 16 (3986 views)
Permalink
Re: Cisco MCS vs UCS Servers [In reply to]

I'd love to have the case number for this. There is a known issue where
platform can be reported incorrectly.

MCS-7845-I3 running CUCM 6.1.5/7.1.5 reporting wrong SysObjectID , Open
CSCti88692
Physical Servers checking virtual model changes during system boot ,
Fixed CSCtd34630

<and another one i can't find right now where a backup of a vmware is
restored on physical server but the platform is still detected as
vmware. I previously posted it to the cisco-voip list>

/Wes


Charles Goldsmith wrote:
> This is the log from my TAC case, when trying to upgrade the
> Subscriber (hardware) to match the version on the Publisher (VM), I
> had the following error:
>
> ---
> 21 July 2010 23:39:03: PHONE LOG
> I did a utils system upgrade status and found this:
>
> DEBUG: Mismatch Manufacturer: expected VMware found IBM
>
> Customer is running the Publisher in VMWare and the Subscriber in a
> 7835-I3.
>
> According to previous cases this cannot be done and customer has to
> install all servers in VMWare or all in MCS servers.
> ---
>
> Now, this TAC engineer might have been wrong, but he clearly states
> that these cannot be mismatched. I wasn't necesarily looking for a
> supported setup, I was merely trying to test hardware in a lab before
> deploying out to a remote site, and do a bit of lab work prior. I ran
> across an error during the upgrade and the resultant debug turned up
> the above mentioned message.
>
> I didn't do an exhaustive search, but I don't see anywhere in the docs
> where you can mix and match between VM (on UCS) and hardware, nor did
> I find anything mentioning that you can't.
>
> FWIW, I hope it works out for the people trying it..
> Charles
>
> On Sat, Sep 25, 2010 at 11:37 AM, Nick Matthews <matthnick [at] gmail
> <mailto:matthnick [at] gmail>> wrote:
>
> If your VMware publisher wasn't on a UCS server, then it isn't
> supported. 3rd party hardware isn't supported yet, except for Unity.
>
> -nick
>
>
> On Sat, Sep 25, 2010 at 2:10 AM, Charles Goldsmith
> <wokka [at] justfamily <mailto:wokka [at] justfamily>> wrote:
>
> Interesting, I was told by TAC that it was not supported. To
> burn in hardware and to do some lab work before I put a
> subscriber into production, I paired it with a virtual
> publisher, upgrade on them failed miserably (they would run at
> the default version off the DVD), but I couldn't upgrade from
> whatever 8.x I had on DVD to current.
>
> If anyone wants details on this, I can dig it up, I had posted
> on here with the upgrade errors, when no response was had,
> opened a case on it and was told no.
>
> BTW, my subscriber was an IBM server, 7835 series.
>
> YMMV
> Charles
>
>
> On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 7:58 PM, Nick Matthews
> <matthnick [at] gmail <mailto:matthnick [at] gmail>> wrote:
>
> Yes. Some of the limitations of the hardware are things
> like MoH live feeds, your console dumps now go somewhere
> else, RTMT hardware stats are replaced with some
> VMware/UCS equivalents, etc. But from an application
> layer it's the same. It does however know how much
> CPU/disk/memory you've given it and shows on the about screen.
>
> -nick
>
> On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 8:19 PM, STEVEN CASPER
> <SCASPER [at] mtb <mailto:SCASPER [at] mtb>> wrote:
>
> Interesting.... For me to upgrade to 8.x I need to
> replace 4 of my subscribers and my publisher next year
> however I just purchased some HP G6 servers to replace
> my 7835 servers. Can you mix virtual subscribers and a
> publisher with MCS type subscriber and TFTP servers?
>
> Steve
>
> >>> Ahmed Elnagar <ahmed_elnagar [at] rayacorp
> <mailto:ahmed_elnagar [at] rayacorp>> 9/23/2010 7:01 PM >>>
>
> Cisco SEs is pushing on the virtualization for new
> customers and customers considering upgrading to
> version 8.xbe aware that all H series is already EOS
> due to the bad relationship between Cisco and HP
> obviuolsy the UCS was part of the fight IBM servers
> has a lot of problems this is from my own personal
> point of view.
>
>
>
> UCS is great C series configuration is to support 4 X
> 7945 server and the cost is significantly less than
> hardware serverplus the added benefits like hardware
> efficiency and DC sizing for large customersetc.
>
>
>
> The drawbacks would be that you will need experience
> not only in UC part but add to it the VMware and UCS
> itselfif you are going to B series it is more
> complicated than the C series.
>
>
>
> A great advantage for UCS is that you are able to have
> a sort of a redundant Publisher server as the
> database is stored in SAN and if the engineer fails it
> switches over to another own automatically so as if
> you have a redundant server but I think this is
> supported with the B series I am not very aware of
> deep technical info in this part.
>
>
>
> If I were you I would go with UCS C series for easier
> management
>
>
>
> And remember; all the world is going virtual J
>
>
>
> Best Regards;
>
> Ahmed Elnagar
>
> Senior Network PS Engineer
>
> Mob: +2019-0016211
>
> CCIE#24697 (Voice)
>
> ccie_voice_large.gif
>
>
>
> *From:* cisco-voip-bounces [at] puck
> <mailto:cisco-voip-bounces [at] puck>
> [mailto:cisco-voip-bounces [at] puck
> <mailto:cisco-voip-bounces [at] puck>] *On
> Behalf Of *george.hendrix [at] l-3com
> <mailto:george.hendrix [at] l-3com>
> *Sent:* Wednesday, September 22, 2010 4:41 PM
> *To:* cisco-voip [at] puck
> <mailto:cisco-voip [at] puck>
> *Subject:* [cisco-voip] Cisco MCS vs UCS Servers
>
>
>
> Hi everyone,
>
>
>
> I noticed Cisco has the new UCS C and B series
> servers. Does anyone have any thoughts as to whether
> these are the way to go or not? Do they perform
> better than the MCS H or I series? Also since these
> are out now, does anyone know if there are plans to
> put the remainder of the MCS servers EOL? BTW, this
> would be for a new CUCM 8 installation.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Bill Hendrix
>
>
>
>
> Disclaimer: NOTICE The information contained in this
> message is confidential and is intended for the
> addressee(s) only. If you have received this message
> in error or there are any problems please notify the
> originator immediately. The unauthorized use,
> disclosure, copying or alteration of this message is
> strictly forbidden. Raya will not be liable for
> direct, special, indirect or consequential damages
> arising from alteration of the contents of this
> message by a third party or as a result of any
> malicious code or virus being passed on. Views
> expressed in this communication are not necessarily
> those of Raya.If you have received this message in
> error, please notify the sender immediately by email,
> facsimile or telephone and return and/or destroy the
> original message.
>
> ************************************
> This email may contain privileged and/or confidential information that is intended solely for the use of the addressee. If you are not the intended recipient or entity, you are strictly prohibited from disclosing, copying, distributing or using any of the information contained in the transmission. If you received this communication in error, please contact the sender immediately and destroy the material in its entirety, whether electronic or hard copy. This communication may contain nonpublic personal information about consumers subject to the restrictions of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act and the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. You may not directly or indirectly reuse or disclose such information for any purpose other than to provide the services for which you are receiving the information.
> There are risks associated with the use of electronic transmission. The sender of this information does not control the method of transmittal or service providers and assumes no duty or obligation for the security, receipt, or third party interception of this transmission.
> ************************************
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> cisco-voip mailing list
>
> cisco-voip [at] puck
> <mailto:cisco-voip [at] puck>
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> cisco-voip mailing list
> cisco-voip [at] puck <mailto:cisco-voip [at] puck>
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> cisco-voip mailing list
> cisco-voip [at] puck
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
>

Cisco voip RSS feed   Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded
 
 


Interested in having your list archived? Contact Gossamer Threads
 
  Web Applications & Managed Hosting Powered by Gossamer Threads Inc.