Doesn't "stay running" and "high availability" mean approximately the same thing?! :)
I'm a bit confused how you've got a CAS array but you're not currently using a NLB/HLB. Actually, it makes a bit more sense if you only have one CAS. Is that right? So, if you only LB 443 and 80, you have two CASes and one goes down, Outlook clients that are not connected via Outlook Anywhere will fail. You can mitigate this somewhat by setting the RPCClientAccessServer on the half the databases to CAS01 and the other half to CAS02. You really want to be load balancing MAPI though. Richard From: bounce-9482517-8066...@lyris.sunbelt-software.com [mailto:bounce-9482517-8066...@lyris.sunbelt-software.com] On Behalf Of Paul Hutchings Sent: 02 February 2012 09:46 To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Load Balancer vs. 2 more Exchange Servers? This is clearly where I have a lot of reading to do. To clarify, high availability isn't the absolute end-goal here, the end goal is to stay running even and a little manual intervention is acceptable (still better than recovering a box), but it would be great if it just sorted itself out. So, if I balance just 80 and 443, what happens to all of my regular Outlook 2007/2010 clients on the LAN if I lose one of my servers? Right now they just point to the FQDN of the CAS array that I was advised to setup before I moved any mailboxed from 2003 to 2010. One your point on static ports, BOTH conditions are not true. People on the road using RPC/HTTP are separated by a firewall but the firewall only lets 443 in. People on the LAN are not separated by a firewall. Paul From: Michael B. Smith [mailto:mich...@smithcons.com]<mailto:[mailto:mich...@smithcons.com]> Sent: 01 February 2012 22:59 To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Load Balancer vs. 2 more Exchange Servers? A couple of things: keep in mind that loadbalancer.org (and the other companies) are in business to sell load balancers. Therefore they recommend you LB everything. Most companies get along just fine with only doing ports 80 and 443. For incoming port 25, you give each HT its own IP and separate MX record, and DNS round-robin will do load balancing for you. If you need to LB POP/IMAP/etc.., then yes, you'll need to consider those. Configuring static ports for Exchange RPC traffic is only needed when BOTH are true: your CAS are separated from Outlook clients by a firewall AND the Outlook clients are not using RPC/HTTP. Most people (not all, but most) these days are using RPC/HTTP (also known as Outlook Anywhere). With OA you don't need to configure the static ports and as a corollary, you don't need to LB those static ports either. Loadbalancer.org is a certified solution. And given that, that means the Exchange team has said it works. So there ya go. Regards, Michael B. Smith Consultant and Exchange MVP http://TheEssentialExchange.com From: Michael B. Smith [mailto:mich...@smithcons.com]<mailto:[mailto:mich...@smithcons.com]> Sent: Wednesday, February 01, 2012 5:42 PM 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:paul.hutchi...@mira.co.uk]<mailto:[mailto:paul.hutchi...@mira.co.uk]> 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 listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com<mailto:listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com> with the body: unsubscribe exchangelist --- To manage subscriptions click here: http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/ or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com<mailto:listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com> with the body: unsubscribe exchangelist --- To manage subscriptions click here: http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/ or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com<mailto:listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com> with the body: unsubscribe exchangelist --- To manage subscriptions click here: http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/ or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com<mailto:listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com> with the body: unsubscribe exchangelist --- To manage subscriptions click here: http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/ or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com with the body: unsubscribe exchangelist
