Haven't found anything to dislike about Kemp at all (/bandwagon) from support to functionality they're great. We do 80 and 443. Two active sites, two Kemp 2200's in each site for redundancy. about 7K mailboxes. They don't even get warm:)
Blackberry From: Steve Goodman [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, February 01, 2012 05:59 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues <[email protected]> Subject: RE: Load Balancer vs. 2 more Exchange Servers? +1 on Kemp in particular, I have been recommending them to my customers when faced with a similar decision. Just a heads-up, pricing wise for a mid-size deployment (having driven past Mira many times I am guessing ~500 users?) you might find the physical Kemp LM-Exchange boxes cheaper than the virtual equivalent. Pros/cons of NLB vs a load balancer were covered in a TechEd session a while back. A transcript of the relevant session is here: http://www.stevieg.org/2010/11/exchange-team-no-longer-recommend-windows-nlb-for-client-access-server-load-balancing/ If you want something to play with – Kemp do a trial, and for a Lab/Test/PoC setup I have made a free virtual appliance (ha-proxy based) which does a similar job: http://www.stevieg.org/e2010haproxy/ Steve From: Michael B. Smith [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 01 February 2012 22:42 To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Load Balancer vs. 2 more Exchange Servers? I don’t know anything about loadbalancer.org (I’ll go take a look later), but the appliances from either Kemp or Coyote Point work just fine and you don’t have to do anything with RPC ports. I have both widely deployed with clients. (I’ve also got expensive ones deployed – but for “most” companies, Kemp and Coyote Point will work just fine.) Regards, Michael B. Smith Consultant and Exchange MVP http://TheEssentialExchange.com From: Paul Hutchings [mailto:[email protected]]<mailto:[mailto:[email protected]]> Sent: Wednesday, February 01, 2012 2:47 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: Load Balancer vs. 2 more Exchange Servers? I'm doing some background digging/reading with a view to adding a second Exchange 2010 server at some point and moving from a single MB/HT/CAS to two boxes. Is there any pro/con in fronting it with a pair of boxes running Windows NLB vs. a load balancer virtual appliance such as one from loadbalancer.org or Kemp? From the documentation on the loadbalancer.org product it seems you have to make some changes to the RPC ports that the servers use, not that that is necessarily a problem. I'm open to both options but would prefer not to take on another two servers - I'm just trying to understand what some of the gotcha's might be before diving in and changing anything. Thanks, Paul ________________________________ MIRA Ltd Watling Street, Nuneaton, Warwickshire, CV10 0TU, England Registered in England and Wales No. 402570 VAT Registration GB 100 1464 84 The contents of this e-mail are confidential and are solely for the use of the intended recipient. If you receive this e-mail in error, please delete it and notify us either by e-mail, telephone or fax. You should not copy, forward or otherwise disclose the content of the e-mail as this is prohibited. --- To manage subscriptions click here: http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/ or send an email to [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> with the body: unsubscribe exchangelist --- To manage subscriptions click here: http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/ or send an email to [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> with the body: unsubscribe exchangelist --- To manage subscriptions click here: http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/ or send an email to [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> with the body: unsubscribe exchangelist --- To manage subscriptions click here: http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/ or send an email to [email protected] with the body: unsubscribe exchangelist
