So what is the pro of that approach over doing LB for RPC too? Keeping in mind I'm trying to avoid client disruption if/when we do this?
I'd assumed, incorrectly probably, that using RPC over HTTP on the LAN isn't all that common? If nothing else it makes a big difference in the level and cost of LB required. From: Michael B. Smith [mailto:mich...@smithcons.com] Sent: 02 February 2012 12:15 To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Load Balancer vs. 2 more Exchange Servers? Yep. 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: Thursday, February 02, 2012 6:52 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Load Balancer vs. 2 more Exchange Servers? Even on the LAN? Don't you then run into issues where you need an LB that can handle SSL from all your clients rather than just the RPC/HTTP/ActiveSync/OWA ones? From: Michael B. Smith [mailto:mich...@smithcons.com]<mailto:[mailto:mich...@smithcons.com]> Sent: 02 February 2012 11:45 To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Load Balancer vs. 2 more Exchange Servers? My recommendation is to use RPC/HTTP (Outlook Anywhere) and avoid this issue entirely. Regards, Michael B. Smith Consultant and Exchange MVP http://TheEssentialExchange.com From: Steve Goodman [mailto:st...@stevieg.org]<mailto:[mailto:st...@stevieg.org]> Sent: Thursday, February 02, 2012 6:18 AM 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? From: Steve Goodman [mailto:st...@stevieg.org]<mailto:[mailto:st...@stevieg.org]> Sent: 02 February 2012 10:59 To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Load Balancer vs. 2 more Exchange Servers? It's worth setting up a CAS array logical name and assigning it to the Mailbox Databases even if you have a single, combined roles server. It makes things easier down the line if you add HA in but don't want to move mailboxes between databases etc.. (eg another combined roles box, DAG, LB, CAS etc). If you do go for LB, I agree with Richard about load balancing RPC for internal clients, using the CAS array name. If you aren't actually after HA and just want fairly quick recovery, then one option could be to have the HTTPS and CAS namespaces pointed at the IP of one Exchange server (with a 5 min TTL or similar) and change it if there's a outage. Not great, but free and doesn't require anything else in a two server multi-role DAG. Steve From: Sobey, Richard A [mailto:r.so...@imperial.ac.uk]<mailto:[mailto:r.so...@imperial.ac.uk]> Sent: 02 February 2012 10:16 To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Load Balancer vs. 2 more Exchange Servers? 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> [mailto:bounce-9482517-8066...@lyris.sunbelt-software.com]<mailto:[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<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<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
