> I also question your assertion that mailbox servers need more > frequent reboots.
I've moved many of the special purpose mailboxes (for example listserver list POP boxes, FAX Gateway) off the mailbox server. I'm in favour of the general idea to separate them from plain mailbox servers, but not because the mailbox server reboots more often: it's the opposite. The (3rd party mostly) software which comes with these boxes and connectors are mostly the problem. I can keep the mailbox server up and running just fine and rarely reboot it. Michel > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Steve B > Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2003 9:37 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > > I seem to be involved in a bit of philosophical debate and > want to get opinions from the field on this. > > Basically, I have some "service mailboxes" that I would > prefer not to run on regular mailbox servers. These > particular mailboxes do not hold any email, they are simply > needed for the cirictal operation of exchange dependant third > party services (like a peice of monitoring software that > needs its own mailbox). They pose no risk to any server and > do not need special attention. I feel better if they reside > on infrastructure servers such as bridgeheads or smtp > gateways since these servers tend to have less problems than > regular mailbox servers do (as far as is's stopping or > mailbox servers needing to be rebooted more often and then > large transaction logs replaying that contribute to a longer > down time for these services that rely on the mailbox). > > What do you guys/gals feel about this? _________________________________________________________________ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
