BladeSystem c7000

We normally implement a non Blade System for management purposes of EVA storage (like DL360). I consider it a waste of a precious blade slot and relative connectivity ports of the interconnects (ethernet and fc switches).

On the other hand a server for hosting the management tools (specially the EVA) is necessary so if you don't want to use a separate server then a blade is the only solution.

Remember that you can always connect directly to the Blades Manager via web interface (and to servers with iLo) from any computer in the LAN.

HP's requirement for a dedicated server to run Command View EVA does bump the cost up a bit, especially since it runs quite happily with the CV EVA server turned off. Still, as r_panos says you can use one of the rack servers you are migrating to VMware from since it doesn't need much RAM or CPU.

BTW, I hope you haven't got the blades populated as per that Visio, it should be filled from left to right. "Half-height server blades should be populated in the front of the enclosure from top to bottom and from left to right. The first two half-height server blades should be placed in bays 1 and 9; the second two half-height server blades should be placed in bays 2 and 10 and so on, until the enclosure is full."

Great, so I let me sum it up:
Currently the whole blade in slot #16 is taken by the server that runs only CV EVA, an for that purpose all the resources of this blade are dedicated - 40G of RAM and 2 quad-core processors. In my opinion it is a crime.
So I'm pretty safe just grabbing a simple 1U server, instaling CV on it and using the existing blade for something else?

*******

Andy,
The blades are actually set up exactly the same way as shown on the picture (it is a snapshot from existing configuration - onlide blade configuration).  So in fact they should be populated like that: (nubers signify the servs, not the slot numbers)
1 3 5 7 9   11 13 15
2 4 5 8 10 12 14 16
Can you explain why it is crucial to do it that way and not acceptable the way it is configured now?

Thanks.

Great, thanks guys.

"I bet they forgot to discuss whether you wanted N+1 or N+N power redundancy as well."
--- The more I dig into what they did, the more I see that they brainwashed the guys here, for example they promised 100% uptime in VMware environment and I showed that it was not configured to support it... Anyway, speaking about N+1 or N+N power redundancy - can you describe it in few words or provide a link to read about it? (it might be in the same link you sent - I just started reading it)

Thanks.

Great. Thanks.