And what do you plan on gaining from the active active? 

--Kevinm M, WLKMMAS, UCC+WCA, And Beyond
Did I just say that out loud?


-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Sabo, Eric
Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2002 8:01 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: E2k Clustering


I talked to compaq/microsoft today, I am confident in our situation here
that an active/active is the right choice for us.

Currently we have the following:
Server no. 1 - Quad Pentium Pro 200 MHZ (very old chipset technology) -
1 MEG cache on each processor - 2 GB RAM: (800 mailboxes/heavy users)
        The most I ever saw the processor level was at 50% usage, most
of the time it is around 10%-20% usage

Server no. 2 - dual Pentium III 500 MHZ Xeon Processor - 2 Meg cache on
each processor - 2 GB RAM (6000 mailboxes/light users)- The most I ever
saw these processors was at 35%, most of the time it is around 5%-10%


We are going to the following:
Two servers running w2k adv sp2 e2k sp2 - Quad Pentium III Xeon 700 MHZ
- 2 MB cache of each processor- 3 GB physical RAM using a Storageworks
San solution.

I would say these machines should run around 5-10% CPU usage.


Eric Sabo
NT Administrator
Computing Services Center
California University of Pennsylvania


-----Original Message-----
From: Woodrick, Ed [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2002 9:59 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: E2k Clustering


Use Active/Passive clusters when possible to increase scalability and
reduce failover times. Active/Active clusters are only supported in
2-node configurations in which each node has a maximum of 40 percent
loading and 1900 simultaneous users. 

"Microsoft Exchange 2000 Server Service Pack 2 Deployment Guide"

In short, there are NO issues when running in Active/Passive, but when
running in Active/Active you have a high chance of a failover failing
because of memory fragmentation. Active/Passive is going to provide you
with high reliability failover. Active/Active is going to cause grief. 


Let me turn the tables, why do you think that Active/Active is better
than Active/Passive?


Ed

-----Original Message-----
From: Etts, Russell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Posted At: Wednesday, March 13, 2002 9:38 AM
Posted To: Microsoft Exchange
Conversation: E2k Clustering
Subject: RE: E2k Clustering


Hi there

I was looking over the white paper, and according to Microsoft, both
active/passive and active/active are recommended in the below listed
whitepaper.  Do you have access to information that suggests otherwise??

Thanks

Russell

-----Original Message-----
From: Woodrick, Ed [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2002 5:51 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: E2k Clustering


Make it Active/Passive as recommended and it's a moot point.

-----Original Message-----
From: Sabo, Eric [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Posted At: Tuesday, March 12, 2002 5:42 PM
Posted To: Microsoft Exchange
Conversation: E2k Clustering
Subject: RE: E2k Clustering


When they talk about concurrent connections, does microsoft mean if one
users is using a mapi client that would mean 3 connections there for
just one user.  Is this correct?

Eric Sabo
NT Administrator
Computing Services Center
California University of Pennsylvania


-----Original Message-----
From: Etts, Russell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2002 4:20 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: E2k Clustering


Hi there

According to the MS whitepaper, here are the limits for active / active:

"After you deploy your cluster, make sure you do the following:

Limit the number of concurrent connection (users) per node to a maximum
of 1,900, and proactively monitor the cluster to insure that the CPU
does not exceed 40 percent (load generated from users) loading."

There is more information in the white paper that will help you.  The
name is, "Deploying Microsoft Exchange 2000 server service pack 2
clusters". 

Hope this helps you

Russell


 

-----Original Message-----
From: Ashby, Andrew [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, March 11, 2002 3:50 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: E2k Clustering


We are evaluating an Exchange 2000 Active/Active cluster, but I remember
an old limitation of 1000 clients per virtual server.

In my searching of technet, and other knowledgebase solutions, I have
not been able to find this documented anywhere.

Is there a technical limit to the number of clients per virtual server?

Proposed hardware:  2 quad processor, 2GB systems connected to SAN via
fibre channel.  100MB NIC connections.

Roughly 4k users.

Thanks,

Andrew

_________________________________________________________________
List posting FAQ:       http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Archives:               http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp
To unsubscribe:         mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:    [EMAIL PROTECTED]

_________________________________________________________________
List posting FAQ:       http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Archives:               http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp
To unsubscribe:         mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:    [EMAIL PROTECTED]

_________________________________________________________________
List posting FAQ:       http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Archives:               http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp
To unsubscribe:         mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:    [EMAIL PROTECTED]

_________________________________________________________________
List posting FAQ:       http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Archives:               http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp
To unsubscribe:         mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:    [EMAIL PROTECTED]

_________________________________________________________________
List posting FAQ:       http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Archives:               http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp
To unsubscribe:         mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:    [EMAIL PROTECTED]

_________________________________________________________________
List posting FAQ:       http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Archives:               http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp
To unsubscribe:         mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:    [EMAIL PROTECTED]

_________________________________________________________________
List posting FAQ:       http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Archives:               http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp
To unsubscribe:         mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:    [EMAIL PROTECTED]



_________________________________________________________

Do You Yahoo!?

Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com




_________________________________________________________________
List posting FAQ:       http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Archives:               http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp
To unsubscribe:         mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:    [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to