Sheesh. It's not a matter of can/can't. It's a matter of should/should not.
And really, if you don't like what you're hearing, just do whatever you want. It's not like we're a committee deciding how your environment will be set up. We're just trying to provide the best guidance. Missy ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sabo, Eric" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2002 11:48 AM Subject: RE: E2k Clustering Why does Microsoft say you can even do an active/active cluster in the first place with those parameters as describe in the SP2 Release notes. http://www.bink.nu/exchange_2000.htm Eric Sabo NT Administrator Computing Services Center California University of Pennsylvania -----Original Message----- From: Exchange [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2002 11:43 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: E2k Clustering Eric, It's not such much the processor you should be worried about, but the virtual memory. You'll see, the VM will get fragmented, and failover might not happen like it should. As far as, "I get to use both boxes...". You get to use those anyway in an active / passive solution. Don't fall for the "well it just sits there doing nothing" way of thinking. The way to approach it is telling the decision maker, "I can give you this percentage of uptime for this amount of money, do you want that?" The answer is either "yes" or "no", and it DOES NOT MATTER, what the technology is behind that that will make this happen, i.e. whether 2 machines are getting a nice workout, or if one machine is primarily there to provide for that high availability when necessary. It's just like paying for insurance :-) -Per -----Original Message----- From: Sabo, Eric [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Posted At: Wednesday, March 13, 2002 10:17 AM Posted To: Exchange Conversation: E2k Clustering Subject: RE: E2k Clustering I get to use both of my servers that I purchased. Cause of our budget is so tight and I have get buy. It took me a year to get the following equipment. Don't you think active/active is right for me, since I am below the MS recommendations. Eric Sabo NT Administrator Computing Services Center California University of Pennsylvania -----Original Message----- From: Kevin Miller [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2002 11:14 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: E2k Clustering 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] _________________________________________________________________ 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]
