I'll say now that we don't use static ports. From: bounce-9482555-8066...@lyris.sunbelt-software.com [mailto:bounce-9482555-8066...@lyris.sunbelt-software.com] On Behalf Of Steve Goodman Sent: 02 February 2012 11:18 To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Load Balancer vs. 2 more Exchange Servers?
I don't think there is a particular downside. When the US wakes up I am sure Michael may have a different take, but assigning a static port avoids having to load balance a large number of TCP/IP ports for RPC. In essence to set static ports it's just a couple of registry entries on each server that's part of the array hosting the CAS role. Steve From: Paul Hutchings [mailto:paul.hutchi...@mira.co.uk]<mailto:[mailto:paul.hutchi...@mira.co.uk]> Sent: 02 February 2012 11:10 To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Load Balancer vs. 2 more Exchange Servers? And to balance RPC I guess I'm back where I started with the docs from loadbalancer.org stating you need to assign a static RPC port? Any downside in doing so? --- 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
