OCS 2007 R2 and Server Role Virtualization

I get asked in every engagement, “…can we virtualize OCS R2?”  This is a great question.  Using virtualization has clear benefits - and also clear drawbacks.  On the benefit side, using virtualization offers more efficient hardware utilization; on the drawback side, applications that are time sensitive or are CPU sensitive may suffer degraded performance.  OCS 2007 R2 falls into both categories.  OCS has some roles that lend themselves to virtualization, but OCS also has server roles that Microsoft does not support in a VM environment (presumably because of the performance degradation).  Specifically, any server role that handles media (read A/V) is not supported in a virtualized environment.

For reference see the Office Communications Server team blog on this subject.  Also, I encourage you to read this document that lays out the situation in more detail.

Now that we know what is supported, what is practical and not practical?  We know that some organizations will weigh support issues against the advantages of an unsupported deployment and decide the benefits outweigh the risks. The documents I just pointed you to are definitive, yet the scale numbers in the second document are for large environments.  What about the smaller enterprises with only a few hundred users?  How about a company with less than 5000 users (the implied limit for a Standard Edition server)?  What about the ancillary OCS server roles (archiving, monitoring, directors)? What follows is purely my opinion and experience.  If you are concerned with being in a supported status (from the Microsoft CSS viewpoint), stop here and follow the guidance in the references to the letter.

Let’s look at the VM host environment and then see what we can do. When you plan your VM host server, make sure it has PLENTY of CPU cycles - read many fast cores.  RAM is an important item on your VM host server.  Do not scrimp on RAM.  The guest VM must have at LEAST the minimum number of CPU cores and amount RAM as that server role is required to have on a physical server.  If the recommended minimum is 2 CPU cores and 4GB RAM, then that is the minimum for the guest VM instance also.  As to drive speed on the VM host, resist using SATA and go with 15k RPM SCSI.  And do not try to cram too many guests VM’s onto one host.  As always, leave enough RAM and CPU for the host OS to function properly.

Plan your VM host server network support carefully.  Good resources for this critical task when using Microsoft's Hyper-V are here and here.  I highly recommend using at least two physical Network Interface Cards - one for the host server and one for the guests. Resist the urge to get fancy and do NOT use wireless.  The combination of VM, OCS, and wireless creates performance issues.  Another item of note is that you can adjust the performance of both the VM host and the VM guest to maximize performance.  Face it, GUI is nice, bells and whistles are cool, but do you really need that stuff on your servers?  You will never miss these fancy features…they are just fluff. In a virtualized environment, where cost reduction through hardware consolidation is generally a main goal, performance is king.This is what I do for every VM host and guest I touch - the performance gain is noticeable:

Now that we have looked at the VM host and guest environment we can consider which OCS roles are candidates for virtualization, and in my experience, what is practical. The following table outlines the OCS 2007 R2 servers roles and their respective VM possibilities:

Server role	VM Yes/No	Notes
Consolidated FE (SE)	No	Just don’t
Consolidated FE (EE)	Yes for IM&P only	No for anything A/V, desktop share, or Live Meeting
CWA	Yes	As the user numbers climb, performance will drop off.  IE; You will see some screen-draw issues as the user count climbs.
Group Chat	Yes	Works well
Group Chat Archiving	Yes	Works well.
Mediation	No	Just don’t
Director	Yes	For the numbers we quoted above, it works
Consolidated Edge	No	Just don’t
Archiving	Yes	For the numbers we quoted above, it works
Monitoring	Yes	For the number we quoted above, it works
Web Components	Yes	This will depend on your LM work load, how many remote users are expanding DL’s etc.
SQL	Yes	SQL in VM is supported; but not SQL cluster.  However, I have done SQL cluster on two separate VM hosts.  Do not do VMotion or equivalent on the cluster.

While you are at this, you may want to take a look at SQL databases.  Microsoft says you need a separate SQL instance for each database.  This is for performance reasons.  However, I know that one SQL server can host the backend OCS database, the Group Chat Archive Database, the archiving database, and the monitoring database and do just fine.  Again, this is a numbers game.  As the number of users climbs, the load on the SQL will climb also and eventually you will see a drop in performance.  Specifically, our second reference document says that the SQL backend is the limiting factor to how many users can be attached to a virtualized enterprise pool.  But, our target user numbers are only 1/8th of that limit.  Therefore, I feel confident in stating that one SQL server (with the proper resources) will support your OCS needs.

Let’s take look at this table from a deployment perspective.  As an example, say you have 1000 users. Your usage projections are for moderate use of Live Meeting, about 100 users maximum for CWA, and about 200 or so of your users are remote, and federation/PIC will be used by 30% of your users (just picking numbers here for this example).  In this case, I would think that you could explore the possibilities of using VM for everything but your SE and your Edge.  A single SQL server, deployed in VM, will be able to host all of your OCS databases. Should you deploy Enterprise Voice, you would place your mediation server on physical as well.

Before you move ahead with a project such as this, remember this is just my opinion, based on my experience, and that virtualizing OCS 2007 R2 roles that are not supported as virtualized by Microsoft places you in an unsupported configuration.

Exchange 2010 OWA and IE

It appears that there are significant differences between the IE versions and how OWA displays and operates with Exchange 2010 RC.

IE7 is the minimum to get the premium OWA; IE6 gets you OWA lite.

:(

polite drivers

Hello Wenatchee Washington.

I have had the opportunity to cross the street recently, and I have to say; I wish my home town had drivers who stopped for pedestrians.  And I am not talking about just one or two, I mean everybody! 

I am simply not used to drivers stopping 50-60 meters short of where I am waiting to allow me to walk across the street.  And these are four lane main streets, not some dinky-ass side street.

In Portland (Oregon), and more specifically Gresham, where I live, crossing the street is an adventure - I fully expect some psycho to attempt to run me over should I have the temerity to use a cross-walk.  In Wenatchee, even crossing in the middle of the block worked just the way it should.

Win7 wireless performance

In my zeal to like Windows 7, I have now upgraded my work laptop to Windows 7.

Lenovo T500, Win7x64Ent.

Looks like everything is working just fine.

And wireless appears to be twice as fast…

Strange, it only says 65Mbps until I start a file transfer - at which point I magically have twice the bandwidth.  Nifty.  I will conduct some ad hoc OCS test next week to see how that is affected.

But notice that Win7 still does not have it “right.”  Here is the exact same file transfer running, but now I have the Ethernet plugged in.  And it reports only 100Mbps, slower connection, but take a look at the bandwidth utilization…. 100% v 40ish on the wireless…

C’mon!  Microsoft!  Fix this!

DL Management from Outlook

Exchange admins typically add/remove members from distribution lists.  However, as the organization grows in numbers and complexity, this situation needs addressing.

You would think that simply adding the appropriate user to the DL manager as shown would work, but that is not the case.

You will also need to do a little add-adpermission tweaking like this (the line may wrap):

add-adpermission -identity: “DL Group1” -User:domain\joe.tester -accessrights readproperty, writeproperty -properties ‘member’

you can add a group to this also:

add-adpermission -identity: “DL Group1” -User:”display name of permissions group” -accessrights readproperty, writeproperty -properties ‘member’

After this, the user should be able to open the DL from the outlook address book and modify the member list.  If you have a multiple domain scenario and this does not work, you have a global catalog issue.

My thanks to http://knicksmith.blogspot.com/2007/04/delegating-distribution-group.html for pointing me in the right direction to remember what I had forgotten.  Thanks Nick!

ws08 and srvany

 

Hello Captain Obvious…

I run a small domain in my home office - I use it for all manner of things.  I don’t want to pay the provider (Verizon in my case) a fee just to have fixed IP addressing.  Enter dynamic DNS.  Works great, less filling.

But, being a cheap bastid, how to get it to work on Server 2008?  After casting about a bit, I decided to try the basics (always a good choice).

Duh. 

instsrv.exe and srvany.exe work just fine under Server 2008.

HC Madness

I object!

Just some food for thought.  The following article from the WSJ oversimplifies the underlying economic and social issues, but the bottom line statements are both stated and implied.  The Federal budget is too big, there is no way to pay for it with today's revenue streams, and the incumbents want this budget to get bigger and to raise taxes across the board to pay for it.  There is no source to create such revenue for the Government without turning to the center-mass of population numbers.  There are not enough "rich" earners out there to play Robin Hood; the poor are numerous, but they already pay almost zero in income taxes - and their sales tax revenue is not enough either (hence the hints at the VAT).  With no place to turn but the $50-300k earners (the 200-225 million US taxpayers in the middle) you can expect the politicians to go after the meat and potatoes next. 

We should expect a smaller budget that fits within revenue; however, we know that will never happen.  Prime examples of the constant Federal bloat are the DoE and the TSA.  Other prime examples are the pork riders on every bill that passes either house.  Prime examples of Federal (and state) government's inability to plan, execute, and sustain plans of this scope are Social Security, Medicare (Medicaid), the IRS, and government itself.  Always growing larger, always demanding more money, always producing less return per dollar and constantly controlling more of your life.  And always in the name/guise/sham of being good to you.

 

---

Teeing Up the Middle Class

Joe the Plumber’s tax vindication is nigh.

Few of President Obama’s 2008 campaign pledges were more definitive than his vow that anyone making less than $250,000 a year “will not see their taxes increase by a single dime” if he was elected. And he was right, very strictly speaking: It’s going to be many, many, many billions of dimes.

Asked about raising taxes on the middle class on Sunday on CBS’s “Face the Nation,” White House economist Larry Summers wouldn’t repeat Mr. Obama’s pre-election promise. “It is never a good idea to absolutely rule things out no matter what,” Mr. Summers said—except, apparently, when his boss is running for office. Meanwhile, on ABC’s “This Week,” Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner also slid around Mr. Obama’s vow and said, “We have to bring these deficits down very dramatically. And that’s going to require some very hard choices.”

These aren’t even nondenial denials. The Obama advisers are laying the groundwork for taxing the middle class while claiming the deficit made them do it.

The liberal establishment is even further along in finally admitting that Mr. Obama wasn’t, er, telling the truth. A piece in the New York Times over the weekend declared in a headline that “the Rich Can’t Pay for Everything, Analysts Say.” And it quoted Leonard Burman, a veteran of the Clinton Treasury who now runs the Brookings Tax Policy Center, as saying that “This idea that everything new that government provides ought to be paid for by the top 5%, that’s a basically unstable way of governing.” They’re right, but where were they during the campaign?

In an editorial on February 26, “The 2% Illusion,” we wrote that the feds could take 100% of the taxable income of everyone in America earning more than $500,000 and still have raised only $1.3 trillion even in the boom year of 2006. The rich are fewer and less rich now, while the Obama budget is nearly $4 trillion.

Democrats already plan to repeal the Bush tax cuts, but that won’t raise enough money. So they’re proposing an income tax surcharge on “the wealthy,” but that won’t raise enough either. Democrats have no choice but to soak the middle class because only they have enough money to finance the liberal dream of yoking the middle class to cradle-to-grave government entitlements.

Democrats have already taxed the middle class by raising cigarette taxes to pay for the children’s health-care expansion. They’re also teeing up average earners with their cap-and-tax energy bill. Mr. Obama had hoped that cap-and-tax would raise some $646 billion over a decade, but Democrats in the House had to give most of that away in bribes to business to pass their bill. To finance ObamaCare, they’re also proposing another 10-percentage-point increase in the payroll tax on firms and individuals that don’t purchase health insurance. But this won’t raise enough money either.

So waiting in the wings is the biggest middle-class tax increase of them all: a European-style value added tax, or VAT. This tax would apply to every level of production or service, and it is beloved by politicians in Europe because it raises so much money so easily without voters noticing. Ezekiel Emanuel, a White House aide and brother of Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, has advocated a 10% VAT to finance national health care. Look for a VAT to be one of the prominent options when Mr. Obama’s tax reform commission issues its report later this year.

The undeniable reality is that you can’t run a European-style welfare-entitlement state without European-style levels of taxation on the middle class (and eventually without low European-style growth and high jobless rates). It’s looking more and more like Mr. Obama’s no-middle-class-tax pledge was one of the greatest confidence tricks in American political history.