RE: Quick Question for the Crew of XCHG2K xsperts

2002-07-29 Thread William Lefkovics 
Title: Message



1) I 
don't know anything about your WAN links, but you might consider obtaining 
better links to allow for some consolidation.  E2K can handle more users 
per server than 5.5 did.
 
2) I 
have a couple clients that run E2K on a DC/GC.  The issues are similar as 
with 5.5 - both performance and recoverability.
 
3) 
Whenever possible, I would favour a fresh install.  Even if it means 
installing a temporary server to migrate to and rebuild the intended upgrade 
server.  But that's me.
 
 

  
  -Original Message-From: Rick Ward - HQ 
  [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, July 29, 2002 10:10 
  AMTo: MS-Exchange Admin IssuesSubject: Quick Question 
  for the Crew of XCHG2K xsperts
  
  We plan to move 
  completely to XCHG2K (native) beginning 
  in 03.
   
  Here's the 
  environment:
  35 sites running 
  WIN2K (SP2) DC's in native 
  mode in a Single domain/forest
  XCHG 5.5 
  (SP4)
   
  MS DOES NOT recommend 
  running XCHG2K on a DC that is a GC 
  due to LDAP port conflicts. There is a QARTICLE (Q275127 )that 
  allows us a work around to this  issue.
   
  But they claim I will 
  experience MAIL FLOW problems, AD problems and oh yeah the very vague "other 
  communication issues". When I push them for specifics, they won't give me 
  details.. they just tell me it's a bad idea and recommend additional 
  independent servers at each site.. that means 35 servers
   
  Each site is small in 
  the number of users, but because of our WAN topology and service requirements 
  our users need access to email when the WAN links are down. So centralization 
  isn't possible currently.
   
  I would like to do an 
  "in place" upgrade. But if this causes so many issues, I may not have a 
  choice.
   
  So here' my 
  question:
  Has anyone else on 
  this alias run a DC/GC with XCHG2K and had 
  problems? If so, what did you do to correct?
   
  Thanks in 
  advance
  -Rick
   List Charter and FAQ 
  at:http://www.sunbelt-software.com/exchange_list_charter.htm
  ---Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.Checked by 
  AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).Version: 6.0.380 / Virus 
  Database: 213 - Release Date: 7/24/2002
  ---Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.Checked by 
  AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).Version: 6.0.380 / Virus 
  Database: 213 - Release Date: 
7/24/2002
List Charter and FAQ at:
http://www.sunbelt-software.com/exchange_list_charter.htm




---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.380 / Virus Database: 213 - Release Date: 7/24/2002

RE: Quick Question for the Crew of XCHG2K xsperts

2002-07-29 Thread Siegfried Weber 

1. The article you quoted talks about Exchange 5.5
2. Exchange 2000 doesn't provide LDAP access. It uses it to access a
DC/GC with the respective ports (389/3268).
3. Exchange 2000 runs quite nice on a Windows 2000 DC/GC.


I've been using Exchange 2000 for about a year on a DC/GC as production
machine before I bought an additional server to offload AD from my
messaging machine to provide a more reliable network.

I am still using Exchange 2000 on a DC/GC as development server and on
an additional test server without any issues.



> -Original Message-
> From: Rick Ward - HQ [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Monday, July 29, 2002 7:10 PM
> To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
> Subject: Quick Question for the Crew of XCHG2K xsperts
> 
> We plan to move completely to XCHG2K (native) beginning in 03.
> 
> 
> 
> Here's the environment:
> 
> 35 sites running WIN2K (SP2) DC's in native mode in a Single
domain/forest
> 
> XCHG 5.5 (SP4)
> 
> 
> 
> MS DOES NOT recommend running XCHG2K on a DC that is a GC due to LDAP
port
> conflicts. There is a QARTICLE (Q275127 )that allows us a work around
to
> this  issue.
> 
> 
> 
> But they claim I will experience MAIL FLOW problems, AD problems and
oh
> yeah the very vague "other communication issues". When I push them for
> specifics, they won't give me details.. they just tell me it's a bad
idea
> and recommend additional independent servers at each site.. that means
35
> servers
> 
> 
> 
> Each site is small in the number of users, but because of our WAN
topology
> and service requirements our users need access to email when the WAN
links
> are down. So centralization isn't possible currently.
> 
> 
> 
> I would like to do an "in place" upgrade. But if this causes so many
> issues, I may not have a choice.
> 
> 
> 
> So here' my question:
> 
> Has anyone else on this alias run a DC/GC with XCHG2K and had
problems? If
> so, what did you do to correct?
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks in advance
> 
> -Rick
> 
> 
> 
> List Charter and FAQ at:
> http://www.sunbelt-software.com/exchange_list_charter.htm
> 
> 
> 
> ---
> Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> Version: 6.0.380 / Virus Database: 213 - Release Date: 7/24/2002
> 


List Charter and FAQ at:
http://www.sunbelt-software.com/exchange_list_charter.htm