It really depends on what you are trying to achieve. Based on your follow-up note, I'd suggest the most direct course of action is to get new hardware and replace the existing server. There are a variety of strategies available to provide continuity and recovery without Windows clustering, but with a flakey source machine the fundamental precept of HA is violated. Before trying to achieve an additional 9 of availability through a new piece of the puzzle, the current pieces should be in place to provide the first nines.
-- Chris Scharff Messaging Services Architect MessageOne [o] 512.652.4500 x244 [m] 512.560.2984 [f] 512.652.4504 > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Erick Thompson > Posted At: Monday, December 20, 2004 12:39 PM > Posted To: swynk > Conversation: Exchange 2003 fail over > Subject: Exchange 2003 fail over > > > Is it possible to have a second server running Exchange 2003 > take over in the case of a server failure, without using > clusters? I don't have Enterprise versions of either Windows > or Exchange 2003. > > Thanks, > Erick _________________________________________________________________ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/read/?forum=exchange To subscribe: http://e-newsletters.internet.com/discussionlists.html/ To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe via postal mail, please contact us at: Jupitermedia Corp. Attn: Discussion List Management 475 Park Avenue South New York, NY 10016 Please include the email address which you have been contacted with.
