RE: PF replication, latency and archiving
Kurt, Speaking on the SEA side of things, it sounds like Exchange is housed at each respective location? If so, it might be best to have a SEA server at each location so that you don't have to archive and retrieve over your WAN (which could cause some bandwidth issues once everything is set up). If you did set up SEA in this manner, you would likely use separate location IDs for each server, i.e. US would be Location ID 1, UK would be Location ID 2, and AU would be Location ID 3. As SEA uses Outlook Forms for retrieving purposes, no matter where they are (depending on network and SEA set up) an employee would be able to retrieve messages from the respective SEA server on or off the WAN. Hopefully, this helps somewhat... Sincerely, Eric Hanna Lead Enterprise Technical Services Specialist Sunbelt Software email: supp...@sunbeltsoftware.com Voice: 1-877-673-1153 x 500 Web: http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com Physical Address: 33 N Garden Ave Suite 120 Clearwater, FL 33755 United States -Original Message- From: Kurt Buff [mailto:kurt.b...@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2009 2:49 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: PF replication, latency and archiving All, We're implementing SEA here, and have three offices - one here in the US, one in the UK and one in AU. The latency between offices for data transfer is pretty huge, as you might expect, with the further handicap that the UK office has a consumer grade DSL connection of 768/128. To illustrate the problem, a robocopy of about 35gb from the US office to the AU office took nearly two weeks - and they have a 2mb SDSL connection. The AU office has about 30gb in mailboxes and 3gb in PFs, the UK office has about 42gb in mailboxes and 21gb in PFs. Only some of the PFs are replicated to the US office - I don't know how exactly many at the moment, but it's probably fewer than half. Questions: 1) Do any of you have a similar situation with latency? If so, how does SEA perform for you? 2) I think it makes sense to replicate all foreign office PFs to the US office, on the theory that SEA will pull replicas locally, and that native Exchange replication will be gentler on bandwidth consumption than SEA. Can anyone confirm or disconfirm this theory? Any thoughts on this welcome... Kurt ~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~ ~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~
Re: PF replication, latency and archiving
We have an Exchange 2003 server at each location. No way we're going to spend more money on more infrastructure, though. One instance of SEA is all we're going to get. However, we are message journaling the foreign offices back to the US office. I'm hoping that helps significantly. Kurt On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 12:17, Eric Hanna eri...@sunbelt-software.com wrote: Kurt, Speaking on the SEA side of things, it sounds like Exchange is housed at each respective location? If so, it might be best to have a SEA server at each location so that you don't have to archive and retrieve over your WAN (which could cause some bandwidth issues once everything is set up). If you did set up SEA in this manner, you would likely use separate location IDs for each server, i.e. US would be Location ID 1, UK would be Location ID 2, and AU would be Location ID 3. As SEA uses Outlook Forms for retrieving purposes, no matter where they are (depending on network and SEA set up) an employee would be able to retrieve messages from the respective SEA server on or off the WAN. Hopefully, this helps somewhat... Sincerely, Eric Hanna Lead Enterprise Technical Services Specialist Sunbelt Software email: supp...@sunbeltsoftware.com Voice: 1-877-673-1153 x 500 Web: http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com Physical Address: 33 N Garden Ave Suite 120 Clearwater, FL 33755 United States -Original Message- From: Kurt Buff [mailto:kurt.b...@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2009 2:49 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: PF replication, latency and archiving All, We're implementing SEA here, and have three offices - one here in the US, one in the UK and one in AU. The latency between offices for data transfer is pretty huge, as you might expect, with the further handicap that the UK office has a consumer grade DSL connection of 768/128. To illustrate the problem, a robocopy of about 35gb from the US office to the AU office took nearly two weeks - and they have a 2mb SDSL connection. The AU office has about 30gb in mailboxes and 3gb in PFs, the UK office has about 42gb in mailboxes and 21gb in PFs. Only some of the PFs are replicated to the US office - I don't know how exactly many at the moment, but it's probably fewer than half. Questions: 1) Do any of you have a similar situation with latency? If so, how does SEA perform for you? 2) I think it makes sense to replicate all foreign office PFs to the US office, on the theory that SEA will pull replicas locally, and that native Exchange replication will be gentler on bandwidth consumption than SEA. Can anyone confirm or disconfirm this theory? Any thoughts on this welcome... Kurt ~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja ~ ~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja ~ ~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~
Re: PF replication, latency and archiving
Hit send too soon... Also, we've been manually archiving the message journaling mailbox for years, and saving the daily PST files to disk and tape. Kurt On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 12:17, Eric Hanna eri...@sunbelt-software.com wrote: Kurt, Speaking on the SEA side of things, it sounds like Exchange is housed at each respective location? If so, it might be best to have a SEA server at each location so that you don't have to archive and retrieve over your WAN (which could cause some bandwidth issues once everything is set up). If you did set up SEA in this manner, you would likely use separate location IDs for each server, i.e. US would be Location ID 1, UK would be Location ID 2, and AU would be Location ID 3. As SEA uses Outlook Forms for retrieving purposes, no matter where they are (depending on network and SEA set up) an employee would be able to retrieve messages from the respective SEA server on or off the WAN. Hopefully, this helps somewhat... Sincerely, Eric Hanna Lead Enterprise Technical Services Specialist Sunbelt Software email: supp...@sunbeltsoftware.com Voice: 1-877-673-1153 x 500 Web: http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com Physical Address: 33 N Garden Ave Suite 120 Clearwater, FL 33755 United States -Original Message- From: Kurt Buff [mailto:kurt.b...@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2009 2:49 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: PF replication, latency and archiving All, We're implementing SEA here, and have three offices - one here in the US, one in the UK and one in AU. The latency between offices for data transfer is pretty huge, as you might expect, with the further handicap that the UK office has a consumer grade DSL connection of 768/128. To illustrate the problem, a robocopy of about 35gb from the US office to the AU office took nearly two weeks - and they have a 2mb SDSL connection. The AU office has about 30gb in mailboxes and 3gb in PFs, the UK office has about 42gb in mailboxes and 21gb in PFs. Only some of the PFs are replicated to the US office - I don't know how exactly many at the moment, but it's probably fewer than half. Questions: 1) Do any of you have a similar situation with latency? If so, how does SEA perform for you? 2) I think it makes sense to replicate all foreign office PFs to the US office, on the theory that SEA will pull replicas locally, and that native Exchange replication will be gentler on bandwidth consumption than SEA. Can anyone confirm or disconfirm this theory? Any thoughts on this welcome... Kurt ~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja ~ ~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja ~ ~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~
RE: PF replication, latency and archiving
PF replication will always take a lesser precedent to normal mail traffic, and you can configure it to happen out of hours, if any such things exists in your company. You might also have the luxury - depending on costs and how much time you have - of setting up an Exchange PF store on a new server locally, replicating your PFs to it, then shipping it off somewhere. Cheers :) From: bounce-8549838-8066...@lyris.sunbelt-software.com [bounce-8549838-8066...@lyris.sunbelt-software.com] On Behalf Of Kurt Buff [kurt.b...@gmail.com] Sent: 28 May 2009 19:48 To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: PF replication, latency and archiving All, We're implementing SEA here, and have three offices - one here in the US, one in the UK and one in AU. The latency between offices for data transfer is pretty huge, as you might expect, with the further handicap that the UK office has a consumer grade DSL connection of 768/128. To illustrate the problem, a robocopy of about 35gb from the US office to the AU office took nearly two weeks - and they have a 2mb SDSL connection. The AU office has about 30gb in mailboxes and 3gb in PFs, the UK office has about 42gb in mailboxes and 21gb in PFs. Only some of the PFs are replicated to the US office - I don't know how exactly many at the moment, but it's probably fewer than half. Questions: 1) Do any of you have a similar situation with latency? If so, how does SEA perform for you? 2) I think it makes sense to replicate all foreign office PFs to the US office, on the theory that SEA will pull replicas locally, and that native Exchange replication will be gentler on bandwidth consumption than SEA. Can anyone confirm or disconfirm this theory? Any thoughts on this welcome... Kurt ~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~ ~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~
Re: PF replication, latency and archiving
That will probably prove useful. I'll make note of that during the conversations we have. On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 13:29, Sobey, Richard A r.so...@imperial.ac.uk wrote: PF replication will always take a lesser precedent to normal mail traffic, and you can configure it to happen out of hours, if any such things exists in your company. You might also have the luxury - depending on costs and how much time you have - of setting up an Exchange PF store on a new server locally, replicating your PFs to it, then shipping it off somewhere. Cheers :) From: bounce-8549838-8066...@lyris.sunbelt-software.com [bounce-8549838-8066...@lyris.sunbelt-software.com] On Behalf Of Kurt Buff [kurt.b...@gmail.com] Sent: 28 May 2009 19:48 To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: PF replication, latency and archiving All, We're implementing SEA here, and have three offices - one here in the US, one in the UK and one in AU. The latency between offices for data transfer is pretty huge, as you might expect, with the further handicap that the UK office has a consumer grade DSL connection of 768/128. To illustrate the problem, a robocopy of about 35gb from the US office to the AU office took nearly two weeks - and they have a 2mb SDSL connection. The AU office has about 30gb in mailboxes and 3gb in PFs, the UK office has about 42gb in mailboxes and 21gb in PFs. Only some of the PFs are replicated to the US office - I don't know how exactly many at the moment, but it's probably fewer than half. Questions: 1) Do any of you have a similar situation with latency? If so, how does SEA perform for you? 2) I think it makes sense to replicate all foreign office PFs to the US office, on the theory that SEA will pull replicas locally, and that native Exchange replication will be gentler on bandwidth consumption than SEA. Can anyone confirm or disconfirm this theory? Any thoughts on this welcome... Kurt ~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja ~ ~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja ~ ~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~
