SRM Server as a VM

[raadek]

Hi All,

I've searched through existing posts, but didn't manage to find the answer for this:

Is it OK / recommended to run the SRM Server as a VM?

Running VC itself as a VM is sort of established (& documented) now, but I am struggling to find anything SRM-related.

Kindest regards,

Radek

[jose_maria_gonz]

Hi Raadek

The getting started Site Recovery Manager guide, under the SRM architecture section, mention "The SRM Server Host .. page 2"as if it has to be running on a physical Server.

http://www.vmware.com/pdf/srm_10_gettingstarted.pdf

However, I don´t see any reason why it cannot run on a VM.

Rgs,

J.

If you find this or any other answer useful please consider awarding points by marking the answer helpful or correct.

-

---

El Blog de Virtualizacion en Español

http://josemariagonzalez.es

-

---

[bladeraptor]

Hi

I think like all things in the IT space, the choice to go with virtual or physical depends on the environment in which the service will run.

Clearly as ESX has advanced and is able to deliver better performance at the network, processor, memory and storage layer , there are less and less applications that cannot run as VMs (taking into account the need for host and application vendor qualification prior to VM deployment).

We run VC and SRM on the same virtual machines for a number of demonstration environments and it works well - these are not huge production environments - hence my earlier comments around proper sizing - but in terms of all the elements involved in VC and SRM such as SQL, Windows etc. - all of these have been tried and tested in a virtulaised environment and scale very well

I would try it in the context of your environment and see how it works - that is the joy with VMware - if it does not work as a vitual machine - you can build it out as a physical.

However unless you environment is failry unusual I would be suprised if it does not perform well as a VM - bearing in mind all the sizing and support qualifications mentioned earlier.

Importantly there is also no substitute for proper planning

Kind regards

Alex Tanner

[admin]

Physical or Virtual SRM System

• A physical SRM system provides clear separation of management infrastructure from the managed infrastructure - esp if there isn't a separate cluster of management ESX hosts being used

• A physical SRM system might be required if your SRA requires access to the admin LUNs to communicate with the storage array

• A physical SRM system does not have the advantage of the availability and load balancing features provided by VMware Infrastructure

• Cost of a physical SRM system will be higher than a VM with similar fault resilience features

• Adding resources to a physical system is time consuming and will result in downtime, and can be less scalable

• A virtual SRM system is less expensive, provides better manageability, availability - although it is better to keep a clear separation of management infrastructure from the managed infrastructure and use a separate cluster / resource pools

Co-located or Dedicated SRM System

• A co-located system costs less

• A co-located system will consume additional resources during a failover test and failover, which might impact performance and day-to-day management and operations

• Overall availability and manageability is reduced for a co-located system since changes to one application can have an impact on SRM

You have to evaluate these considerations w.r.t the customer's existing environment, requirements etc. to determine which option works best.

Rupen.