> Yowza. Keep these posts coming. > They want to cluster here and I am fighting the good fight with these >little snippets!
Well, the arguments are simple... 1. you have to do active/passive clustering, so you'll always have one expensive server doing absolutely nothing. What a waste! 2. All you're protecting from is serious hardware failure, like the motherboard blowing up. How often does that happen? You can build redundancy in pretty much everywhere else on the server without clustering. Anyway, in my experience, Exchange crashes are generally related to the databases and a cluster is no help in that situation because all nodes share the same data. 3. The cluster service seems to do some strange things sometimes. During our adventures into clustering, we had instances of the cluster simply forgetting it's IP address or netbios name, total halt. 4. Failover isn't that great anyway. During tests we found that some of our outlook clients would simply freeze and not pick up the new server immediately - sometimes a reboot would be needed. Some macintosh clients would completely lock up and the retouch guy goes beserk because he's lost his quark doc. 5. Clustering requires win2k advanced server, so it will cost more to license. 6. Having a good recovery server and DR plan means you can run loads of good stuff on the recovery box when not in use for recovery, plus you can use it for restoring mailboxes that your junior admin deleted. I'm sure there's more... dan _________________________________________________________________ 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]
