My production server is a high-spec DELL box with plenty of redundancy built in. I have an identical recovery server which when not needed for recovery purposes runs slave DNS, secondary WINS, monitoring for the production server etc. We have a SAN for the directory and store data, with lots of redundancy built-in. In the event of some motherboard failure etc I can copy a disk image of the system drive onto the recovery server so that it is exactly the same as the production server (takes about 5 mins) and then point this at the SAN for data.
It's not as fast as a cluster failover but we had so many problems with that it was unreal. Since going back to standalone servers I have had 100% uptime, and sleep easy at night. Dan -----Original Message----- From: Dennis Depp [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 14 March 2002 14:13 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Re: E2k Clustering Missy, If you would not recommend clustering, what do you recommend for high availablility environments? Dennis Depp At 11:17 AM 3/13/2002 -0500, missy koslosky wrote: >While I'm really not into arguing the point, while some people at Compaq >and/or MS might recommend A/A over A/P, not everyone would. > >And yes, I'm one of the ones at Compaq who would recommend A/P if I had >a client that was dead set on clustering. But I'd try to talk them out >of clustering if at all possible. > >Missy >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Sabo, Eric" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2002 11:00 AM >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] > > > >_________________________________________________________________ >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]
