RE: Installing 5.5 on Windows 2000
Paul, I'm probably overly paranoid, but I would not install MBSA on the Exchange box. If memory serves me correctly, you can run this software remotely and still gather the patch information. Avoid installing Outlook on the server. You don't mention this, but I always install the network monitor that comes with Windows 2000. This is not installed by default, and requires a reboot. Often when I get a quirky problem, Microsoft will want to take a packet capture. Having this installed saves having to plan a reboot of the Server. Dennis -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Paul Hutchings Sent: Thursday, February 13, 2003 7:54 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Installing 5.5 on Windows 2000 Hmm.. I only sent that once - hope this one doesn't appear twice as well! One thing just occurred to me. What's the consensus on having a Mapi client installed on the Exchange server? It's the sort of thing that I could imagine might be required at some point down the line, so I'm wondering if it would be better to install it prior to installing Exchange? Presumably Outlook is the only Windows 2000 Mapi client as Windows 2000 doesn't come with the old slim line Exchange Client AFAIK? regards, Paul -- Paul Hutchings Network Administrator, MIRA Ltd. Tel: 024 7635 5378, Fax: 024 7635 8378 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: Paul HutchingsBSA Sent: 13 February 2003 12:04 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Installing 5.5 on Windows 2000 [bcc] I'm probably being a little paranoid here, but I want to get this right first time :-) I'm adding two new boxes into our Exchange 5.5 SP4 site to migrate the existing boxes off onto (thanks Ed for the SMM). The new servers are Windows 2000 SP3 member servers with the following: Terminal Services in Remote Admin mode IIS removed IE6 SP1 installed Relevant Critical Updates Exchange service account in local admins group Installed MBSA to keep up with patches etc.. Installed Dell Openmanage hardware monitoring.. These are dedicated Exchange boxes, the only additional third party software will be Trend Scanmail and a Rightfax connector on one of the boxes. Right now I think I'm ready to stick the Exchange CD in and get going, but I guess better safe than sorry - can anyone think of anything obvious that I've forgotten? regards, Paul -- Paul Hutchings Network Administrator, MIRA Ltd. Tel: 024 7635 5378, Fax: 024 7635 8378 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Shortcuts to Outlook objects
Everthing in IT is not vendor based. Just off the top of my head A+ Certification SANS GIAC CISSP These are all certifications that are not based on any vendor's products. Dennis Depp -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Greg Deckler Sent: Friday, February 07, 2003 2:01 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Shortcuts to Outlook objects This is exactly what I am talking about. Certifications in our industry are based around vendors and their tools. I get Microsoft certified. But that is meaningless. Imagine the corollary, a doctor gets certified in The Purple Pill. That's nonsense, but that is how the IT industry works. We get certifications based upon vendors, not based upon the services or processes we provide or our specialties. If we were to operate more like a profession, we would have people getting certified in Email and Network OS, etc. But we do not, everything in IT is vendor-based. It is sad and until our industry wakes up and realizes this, it will fail to be viewed a profession on par with doctors, lawyers, engineers, etc. This view has a SEVERE impact on our ENTIRE industry. We are the equivalent of people traveling around in our medicine wagon peddling snake oil and other remedies to cure all your ills. I agree with you, to an extent. However, I believe the accountability = lapse in our profession is because of the paucity of meaningful = credentials. An attorney has to pass the bar, and then (potentially) = get board-certified in his or her specialty. Same with medical doctors. = Same with psychologists. Aside from the CCIE program and very few = others, the certification process in our industry is ludicrous and = meaningless. As long as built a Quake server in my parents' garage is = considered a credential, and as long as a paper MCSE or CNE are = considered credentials, the problem will exist. The other problem that = goes hand-in-hand with this is that hiring authorities for some reason = believe that they can accurately judge an applicant's qualifications = based upon buzzword bingo, meaningless certs papering the wall, and = years of experience. Then they get some monkey that crammed for a = week to get his MCSE, throws around a bunch of lingo that he read in a = tech journal in the waiting room, and shared breathing space with a = broken installation of $technology for x period of time. =20 I don't believe accepting my Microsoft Bob coffee mug perverts my = objectivity. Except that I really like drinking coffee from it and = probably wouldn't use my Novell mugs because they're plastic and shaped = in such a way that my coffee gets cold. -tom -Original Message- From: Greg Deckler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Posted At: Friday, February 07, 2003 12:30 PM Posted To: MSExchange Mailing List Conversation: Shortcuts to Outlook objects Subject: RE: Shortcuts to Outlook objects I'm not sure how this refutes anything along these lines. Going to a trade show and picking up a freebie is one thing. Accepting a title and accepting continued compensation is quite another. There is no relationship implied with the first, there is with the second. There are very specific things that denote a profession. One is having = an independent governing body that defines and enforces the rules and ethics of the profession. The IT industry is a horrible failure in this regard. And, if you want to get specific, the only real professions that meet all of the definitions are military, medical, lawyers and to a = lesser degree accounting and engineering. If you want to get technical, the military is the only profession that truly meets all of the = requirements. In terms of their management of individuals in their profession, they = are answerable to no one, have their own legal and ethical code of conduct = and enforce those rules. This is why there is the justice system and the military's justice system. We work with lawyers all the time. We even host partner companies on our Exchange server for free. The lawyers that we work with FORCE us to bill them because they cannot ethically accept this service for free. It creates a conflict of interest for them. Our IT partners have no such ethical constraints. Go talk to lawyers, doctors and architects. Talk to them about their governing bodies, their ethics, etc. Talk to them about vendors in their industry. Getting things for free is viewed as bribery and a conflict of interest. Some of these industries are more lax than others. Look at the medical industry and how drug reps are viewed treated. Then compare that with IT's views on vendors. The difference is stark. In one, drug reps giving away free samples is seen as a huge problem, in IT it is not. _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource
RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering
Yes that is the theory, but there is a limit of 1900 users on an Active/Active cluster. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Andrey Fyodorov Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 10:32 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering No, according to the theory you can get more users on Active/Active because both cluster nodes are being used to do something useful. But if one fails, the other node better be able to take on the load. -Original Message- From: Dennis Depp [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, October 11, 2002 2:50 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering Stay away from active/active. Go Active/passive instead. You can get more users on Active/Passive. Denny -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Imran Iqbal Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2002 5:36 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering We are currently an Exchange 5.5 site, as part of our move to Exchange 2000 I am considering setting up Exchange on a 2 node Active Active cluster and would be interested in hearing anyone views or real world experiences with similar setups. Each server would have about 800 active users and would probably be connected to a SAN for the shared storage. I have heard that there were memory issues with this setup pre SP3. I would like to know if there are any other problems and if it is worth doing Thanks in advance Imran _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering
I've looked into Exchange Active/Passive clustering for our Exchange 2000 servers. The largest Exchange problem that causes downtime is corruption in the database. I agree with Ed that clustering cannot help in this senario. However, even with high quality hardware, you still have to deal with the 58 security patches and one Windows 2000 service pack that have been issued this year. Granted not all the 58 security patches are Windows 2000 related, but a large number of them are. An active/passive cluster gives me the capability of installing hotfixes and service packs without impacting my Exchange server even for a reboot. Also I can install the hotfixes during the day on the passive node and then failover that evening. If there is a problem, I can fail back to the unpatched node. The reduction in reboots and late hours makes an Active/passive cluster very appealing. However, clusters do add a level of complexity. Unless you understand clusters and how they operate, this added complexity can decrease uptime instead of increase it. Denny -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Ed Crowley Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2002 5:11 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering I think at this stage of its development clustering provides very poor business value. It really protects you from very few failure scenarios. Instead, I'd make sure I had the most highly internally redundant system I could afford, buy a capable recovery and hot standby server, and practice my disaster recovery skills. Ed Crowley MCSE+I MVP Technical Consultant hp Services There are seldom good technological solutions to behavioral problems. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Imran Iqbal Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2002 2:36 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering We are currently an Exchange 5.5 site, as part of our move to Exchange 2000 I am considering setting up Exchange on a 2 node Active Active cluster and would be interested in hearing anyone views or real world experiences with similar setups. Each server would have about 800 active users and would probably be connected to a SAN for the shared storage. I have heard that there were memory issues with this setup pre SP3. I would like to know if there are any other problems and if it is worth doing Thanks in advance Imran _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Survivors at MEC
I also am staying the night in Anaheim. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Chris H Sent: Friday, October 11, 2002 1:15 PM To: Exchange Discussions; Exchange Discussions Subject: Re: Survivors at MEC I am! If you hear anything shoot the list a message! - Original Message - From: Ali Wilkes [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, October 11, 2002 8:55 AM Subject: Survivors at MEC I put a folder in the public folders, however: Anyone staying over tonight? I heard a rumor last night about a survivors party. Info, Ideas? Ali _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: New Exchange Server
Why? Placing the pagefile on a separate drive sacrifices reliability for performance. This is not normally a choice I would make on a production server. Dennis Depp -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Andrey Fyodorov Sent: Monday, September 30, 2002 12:58 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: New Exchange Server I would still try to find a way to put page file on a separate drive. Check if you can get a single IDE or SCSI drive and stick it somewhere inside the server. -Original Message- From: Ed Crowley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, September 30, 2002 12:33 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: New Exchange Server What's vitally important is to keep the logs on a separate physical volume from the databases. For 150 users, I agree that combining the OS and logs onto the same physical volume (I recommend separate partitions, though) shouldn't present significant performance problems. Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP kcCC+I Tech Consultant hp Services Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups! -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Martin Blackstone Sent: Monday, September 30, 2002 5:31 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: New Exchange Server The ideal config is as follows 2 Drives, RAID1, OS 2 Drives, RAID1, Logs 3 or more drives, RAID5 (or 1+0 if you have enough drives), Stores Not everyone has the luxury of so many drives. I have 2 drives in RAID1 for OS and Logs, and 4 in a RAID5 for the Store. -Original Message- From: Vincent Avallone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, September 30, 2002 5:18 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: New Exchange Server I am in the process of building a new Exchange server and I have been trying to keep up with the post about configuration, but I will ask again. What is the proper hard drive configuration for setting up a new Exchange 2000 box for about 150 users? On which partition should I put the OS, the database etc. Thanks. -- Vincent Avallone iBiquity Digital (410) 872-1535 _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: DELL PowerVault 220S (RAID) configuration and PERC3/DC
It depends. How do you plan to use this array? If this array will store the Logs and the Store, then I would configure the logs on a mirrored pair and create a RAID5 array with the remaining files. (This is assuming your are only planning one storage group on this 220s.) Dennis Depp -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of MS Exchange Discussions Sent: Monday, September 23, 2002 5:19 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: DELL PowerVault 220S (RAID) configuration and PERC3/DC I hear conflicting information from Dell support on how to configure logical drives. Like to hear from fields... Do you create the logical partitions with hardware (selection drives for the array and partition size) OR you create a RAID with the total usable space and using the OS to partition it? Is there a preference? Running AMI version of PERC3/DC in PowerEdge 2500 in a W2K cluster environment. _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: MEC
I'll be there! -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Martin Blackstone Sent: Friday, September 20, 2002 10:54 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: MEC OK, the time draws near. Who is going? Martin Blackstone Director, Information Technologies Superior Access Insurance Services 949.470.2111 x279 -Better not take a dog on the space shuttle, because if he sticks his head out when you're coming home his face might burn up. _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Must Decide; EX5.5 or EX2K
Eric, Active Directory is a requirement for Exchange 2000. If you have no plans to move to AD, then I would go with Ex 5.5. Denny -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, September 05, 2002 2:51 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Must Decide; EX5.5 or EX2K A much improved OWA, for one - a steadily decreasing lack of support for another. Especially if you're starting from scratch, I recommend Exch2K. AD will not hurt you, and you need not switch to native mode, ever, unless you wish. David -Original Message- From: Eric Fors, II [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, August 12, 2002 1:51 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Must Decide; EX5.5 or EX2K I've recently come into the need to implement Exchange server for my new employer. I have been blissfully ignorant of all things related to Exchange for nearly a year and a half now, but alas that is at an end. I've had substantial experience with Exchange with my previous employer, but when I was hired on here they already had some other e-mail product and were not interested in switching to Exchange. Now they are and I am needing to catch up. My experience with Exchange goes back to the RC for Exchange 4.0 and runs up to EX55 SP3. EX2K was only just starting to be implemented widely by the more adventurous members of this list at the time I changed jobs. With that lengthy pre-amble, here's my question: I have seen some of the recent posts with scary stories about what to expect when upgrading EX55 to EX2K and read some other things about AD implementations gone awry. These cause me to wonder if it is worth it to install EX2K? We already own EX55 and our Windows networking is run strictly on a domains model, (no AD anywhere and none planned in the near future.) Our implementation will be rather small, one site, one server, about 50 users, and a handful of remote users. What if any advantages would there be to me to implement EX2K over EX55? Thanx, Eric Fors, II BTW - I'm glad to see that the Ed's and Missy K. are still on the list. Your posts in the archives have pulled my proverbial bacon out of the fire more than a few times. _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Server Protect on an Exchange Server
If Klez hit you through your default shares, you have a much bigger problem -- Someone is running email with Administrator privledges. This person needs to be found and removed from the administrator list! Either that or shoot them! Dennis At 08:43 PM 8/30/2002 -0400, Chris H wrote: This is what I have always thought as well. All my Exchange servers are dedicated as well as task dedicated within Exchange as well. However, when Klez came calling we did get some hits on the Exchange servers through their default shares. There didnt seem to be any damage, but I was then called to task as to why we dont do it. Thanks for the feedback. Much appreciated. - Original Message - From: William Lefkovics [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, August 30, 2002 8:10 PM Subject: RE: Server Protect on an Exchange Server Did he say why? It's just nonsense to say that and not provide a reason. If your Exchange server *gasp* provides other services, like file and print, then sure. If it is just an exchange server with no shares available to users etc, then I see no reason to. Scan all service packs prior to application to your Exchange Server as well as anything else you apply to it. That's just me. William -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Chris H Sent: Friday, August 30, 2002 4:38 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Server Protect on an Exchange Server I was having a discussion with someone on a Security List the other day who said it was nonsense to NOT run AV on an Exchange Server. Just exclude the DB's and all is well. I have heard also 2 sides: this is true and NEVER run file-level AV on an Exchange server. What's the group consensus? And if it is aye! He's right! Is excluding all *.edb enough? TIA! Chris _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Server Protect on an Exchange Server
I am so sorry! At 09:25 PM 8/30/2002 -0400, Chris H wrote: unfortunately I think it is my boss! :( - Original Message - From: Dennis Depp [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, August 30, 2002 9:24 PM Subject: Re: Server Protect on an Exchange Server If Klez hit you through your default shares, you have a much bigger problem -- Someone is running email with Administrator privledges. This person needs to be found and removed from the administrator list! Either that or shoot them! Dennis At 08:43 PM 8/30/2002 -0400, Chris H wrote: This is what I have always thought as well. All my Exchange servers are dedicated as well as task dedicated within Exchange as well. However, when Klez came calling we did get some hits on the Exchange servers through their default shares. There didnt seem to be any damage, but I was then called to task as to why we dont do it. Thanks for the feedback. Much appreciated. - Original Message - From: William Lefkovics [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, August 30, 2002 8:10 PM Subject: RE: Server Protect on an Exchange Server Did he say why? It's just nonsense to say that and not provide a reason. If your Exchange server *gasp* provides other services, like file and print, then sure. If it is just an exchange server with no shares available to users etc, then I see no reason to. Scan all service packs prior to application to your Exchange Server as well as anything else you apply to it. That's just me. William -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Chris H Sent: Friday, August 30, 2002 4:38 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Server Protect on an Exchange Server I was having a discussion with someone on a Security List the other day who said it was nonsense to NOT run AV on an Exchange Server. Just exclude the DB's and all is well. I have heard also 2 sides: this is true and NEVER run file-level AV on an Exchange server. What's the group consensus? And if it is aye! He's right! Is excluding all *.edb enough? TIA! Chris _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: E2k Clustering
Missy, If you would not recommend clustering, what do you recommend for high availablility environments? Dennis Depp At 11:17 AM 3/13/2002 -0500, missy koslosky wrote: While I'm really not into arguing the point, while some people at Compaq and/or MS might recommend A/A over A/P, not everyone would. And yes, I'm one of the ones at Compaq who would recommend A/P if I had a client that was dead set on clustering. But I'd try to talk them out of clustering if at all possible. Missy - Original Message - From: Sabo, Eric [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2002 11:00 AM Subject: RE: E2k Clustering I talked to compaq/microsoft today, I am confident in our situation here that an active/active is the right choice for us. Currently we have the following: Server no. 1 - Quad Pentium Pro 200 MHZ (very old chipset technology) - 1 MEG cache on each processor - 2 GB RAM: (800 mailboxes/heavy users) The most I ever saw the processor level was at 50% usage, most of the time it is around 10%-20% usage Server no. 2 - dual Pentium III 500 MHZ Xeon Processor - 2 Meg cache on each processor - 2 GB RAM (6000 mailboxes/light users)- The most I ever saw these processors was at 35%, most of the time it is around 5%-10% We are going to the following: Two servers running w2k adv sp2 e2k sp2 - Quad Pentium III Xeon 700 MHZ - 2 MB cache of each processor- 3 GB physical RAM using a Storageworks San solution. I would say these machines should run around 5-10% CPU usage. Eric Sabo NT Administrator Computing Services Center California University of Pennsylvania -Original Message- From: Woodrick, Ed [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2002 9:59 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: E2k Clustering Use Active/Passive clusters when possible to increase scalability and reduce failover times. Active/Active clusters are only supported in 2-node configurations in which each node has a maximum of 40 percent loading and 1900 simultaneous users. Microsoft Exchange 2000 Server Service Pack 2 Deployment Guide In short, there are NO issues when running in Active/Passive, but when running in Active/Active you have a high chance of a failover failing because of memory fragmentation. Active/Passive is going to provide you with high reliability failover. Active/Active is going to cause grief. Let me turn the tables, why do you think that Active/Active is better than Active/Passive? Ed -Original Message- From: Etts, Russell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Posted At: Wednesday, March 13, 2002 9:38 AM Posted To: Microsoft Exchange Conversation: E2k Clustering Subject: RE: E2k Clustering Hi there I was looking over the white paper, and according to Microsoft, both active/passive and active/active are recommended in the below listed whitepaper. Do you have access to information that suggests otherwise?? Thanks Russell -Original Message- From: Woodrick, Ed [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2002 5:51 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: E2k Clustering Make it Active/Passive as recommended and it's a moot point. -Original Message- From: Sabo, Eric [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Posted At: Tuesday, March 12, 2002 5:42 PM Posted To: Microsoft Exchange Conversation: E2k Clustering Subject: RE: E2k Clustering When they talk about concurrent connections, does microsoft mean if one users is using a mapi client that would mean 3 connections there for just one user. Is this correct? Eric Sabo NT Administrator Computing Services Center California University of Pennsylvania -Original Message- From: Etts, Russell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2002 4:20 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: E2k Clustering Hi there According to the MS whitepaper, here are the limits for active / active: After you deploy your cluster, make sure you do the following: Limit the number of concurrent connection (users) per node to a maximum of 1,900, and proactively monitor the cluster to insure that the CPU does not exceed 40 percent (load generated from users) loading. There is more information in the white paper that will help you. The name is, Deploying Microsoft Exchange 2000 server service pack 2 clusters. Hope this helps you Russell -Original Message- From: Ashby, Andrew [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, March 11, 2002 3:50 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: E2k Clustering We are evaluating an Exchange 2000 Active/Active cluster, but I remember an old limitation of 1000 clients per virtual server. In my searching of technet, and other knowledgebase solutions, I have not been able to find this documented anywhere. Is there a technical limit to the number of clients per virtual server? Proposed hardware: 2 quad processor, 2GB systems connected to SAN via fibre channel. 100MB NIC connections. Roughly 4k users. Thanks, Andrew
RE: Exchange Configuration Tools
Perhaps I'm being ignorant, but can't I split the priv database with Exchange 2000? Doesn't this reduce the restore times? Dennis Depp At 12:55 PM 2/18/2002 -0800, Martin Blackstone wrote: One important factor to think about is restore time. How are you backing up? How long does it take to do a test DR? Are these times and numbers acceptable to you and more importantly management? That may drive how you setup your servers. I'm sure that you can find a single box out there to run the whole thing, but is this the wise way to do it. I would probably split that 65GB three ways into 3 boxes with a 20GB IS on each. At least split it in half. -Original Message- From: John Matteson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, February 18, 2002 12:51 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Exchange Configuration Tools Maybe I should have made myself more clear. I have one server for mailboxes. I have another that serves as the bridgehead for the site. I'm willing to split the functions (connections and mailboxes) the same way, but would like to keep all the mailboxes on one server, if at all possible. I'm currently reading Tony Redmond's book as well as a companion book by Pierre Bijaoui. They are helping, but its vapor right now, and I'm looking for something that can help translate theory into something that I can wrap my brain around. John Matteson; Exchange Manager Geac Corporate Infrastructure Systems and Standards (404) 239 - 2981 Be who you are and say what you feel because those who matter don't mind, and those who mind don't matter. -Original Message- From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, February 18, 2002 3:44 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Exchange Configuration Tools IMHO one box is certainly not enough, but 4 is probably too many. -Original Message- From: John Matteson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, February 18, 2002 12:37 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Exchange Configuration Tools Good Afternoon to you all: I've searched the archives and have downloaded Compaq server configuration tool for use with Exchange 2000, but I seem to be futzing the configuration somehow. When I generate a configuration for what I have currently (850 users, 65 Gbyte Private information store, average mailbox is 88Mbytes, heavy users) I get back a recommended configuration of 4 servers with a total of 52 disk drives and none of the server have more than 512 Mbytes of RAM. Currently I have this all on one server (quad 400 MHZ box, 1 Gbyte of RAM) under NT 4.0 SP6a. Anyone have a suggestion on where I should look for different tools to generate up a suggested configuration for an equivalent configuration under Win2K/E2K? John Matteson; Exchange Manager Geac Corporate Infrastructure Systems and Standards (404) 239 - 2981 Be who you are and say what you feel because those who matter don't mind, and those who mind don't matter. _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Exchange and NAS
Am I missing something? When I read http://support.microsoft.com/directory/article.asp?ID=kb;en-us;Q317173 I still don't see where Microsoft supports NAS. Doesn't the NetApp appliance look like a mapped drive to Exchange? Denny At 10:54 AM 2/12/2002 +0100, Martin Tuip wrote: That was my idea also. Of course the manufacturers of NAS devices will always try to make a selling point. Trying to convince management not to implement NAS will be harder then ever now. -- Martin Tuip MVP Exchange Exchange2000 List owner www.exchange-mail.org www.sharepointserver.com -- - Original Message - From: Robert Moir [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2002 10:45 AM Subject: RE: Exchange and NAS Putting exchange on NAS seems to be like making a bear dance. Sure it can be done, but everyone is happier in the long run if you just don't bother. -Original Message- From: Martin Tuip [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 12 February 2002 07:53 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Re: Exchange and NAS http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;Q314916 Now .. that doesn't convince me to combine Exchange and NAS. -- Martin Tuip MVP Exchange Exchange2000 List owner www.exchange-mail.org www.sharepointserver.com -- - Original Message - From: Haber, David J. [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, February 11, 2002 11:49 PM Subject: Exchange and NAS Looks like Microsoft is finally supporting Exchange 5.5 and 2000 on network attached storage devices. See Q317172 and Q317173. _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- This e-mail is intended for the addressee shown. It contains information that is confidential and protected from disclosure. Any review, dissemination or use of this transmission or its contents by persons or unauthorized employees of the intended organisations is strictly prohibited. The contents of this email do not necessarily represent the views or policies of Luton Sixth Form College, its employees or students. _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: haiku friday
Phil, Please rewrite line 2 Haiku should be five seven five Your line is one short Denny At 03:21 PM 2/8/2002 +, Randal, Phil wrote: I have to ask you if there are any more jobs with cars where you work Lucky devil! Phil - Phil Randal Network Engineer Herefordshire Council Hereford, UK -Original Message- From: Atkinson, Daniel [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 08 February 2002 15:07 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: haiku friday review yesterday got a company car now plus salary raise :) _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: haiku friday
Obviously I am! Phil, I'm sorry for ever doubting you! At 11:03 AM 2/8/2002 -0600, Hunter, Lori wrote: Huh? Are you counting differently than we are? -Original Message- From: Dennis Depp [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, February 08, 2002 10:57 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: haiku friday Phil, Please rewrite line 2 Haiku should be five seven five Your line is one short Denny At 03:21 PM 2/8/2002 +, Randal, Phil wrote: I have to ask you if there are any more jobs with cars where you work Lucky devil! Phil - Phil Randal Network Engineer Herefordshire Council Hereford, UK -Original Message- From: Atkinson, Daniel [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 08 February 2002 15:07 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: haiku friday review yesterday got a company car now plus salary raise :) _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: haiku friday
I feel real stupid now all know I can not count I am going home At 10:06 AM 2/8/2002 -0800, Blunt, James H (Jim) wrote: Well Dennis, then I guess you need to rewrite yours too. Haiku pentameter is 5-7-5. Yours is 5-8-5. See hyphens below for syllables. ;o) -Original Message- From: Dennis Depp [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, February 08, 2002 8:57 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: haiku friday Phil, Please re-write line 2 Hai-ku should be five sev-en five Your line is one short Denny At 03:21 PM 2/8/2002 +, Randal, Phil wrote: I have to ask you if there are any more jobs with cars where you work Lucky devil! Phil - Phil Randal Network Engineer Herefordshire Council Hereford, UK -Original Message- From: Atkinson, Daniel [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 08 February 2002 15:07 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: haiku friday review yesterday got a company car now plus salary raise :) _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Procomm and Exchange
Joshua, Did you have any problems with running Exchange on a NetApps box? Denny At 03:24 PM 2/5/2002 -0500, Morgan, Joshua wrote: I have run that type of environment but instead of Procom we had it on a NetApps box Joshua Morgan PH: (864) 250-1350 Ext 133 Fax: (413) 581-4936 [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: John Q Jr. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2002 2:51 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Re: Procomm and Exchange We have that environment. Yes, MS said don't do it, but Procom said it's OK What else do you want to know? - Original Message - From: Camara, David [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2002 9:48 AM Subject: Procomm and Exchange I was wondering if anyone has put their exchange production environment on a Procomm NAS device. I know, I know, NAS is not supported but Procomm claims that MS supports them on exchange. I just want to find out if someone uses it for Exchange. Thanks! Jose David P. Camara II IT-NT Administration Credit Lyonnais *** Credit Lyonnais This e-mail contains confidential information or information belonging to Credit Lyonnais and is intended solely for the addressees. The unauthorized disclosure, use, dissemination or copying (either whole or partial) of this e-mail, or any information it contains, is prohibited. E-mails are susceptible to alteration and their integrity cannot be guaranteed. Credit Lyonnais shall not be liable for this e-mail if modified or falsified. If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, please delete it immediately from your system and notify the sender of the wrong delivery and the mail deletion. Credit Lyonnais in the Americas: Credit Lyonnais, S.A., Credit Lyonnais Bank New York Branch, Credit Lyonnais Securities (USA) Inc., Credit Lyonnais Securities Asia Ltd., Credit Lyonnais Rouse (USA) Ltd., and Credit Lyonnais Rouse Ltd. ** _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Network Appliance SnapManager
Is anyone using this product with Exchange 2000? If so what are your thoughts on the product. What is the granularity of the restore? Thanks Dennis Depp _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Network Appliance SnapManager
There used to be a product call CommVault (I don't know if it is still available or not.) This product could do a restore of individual items. I.e. restore a single message. Denny At 10:56 AM 2/1/2002 -0800, Martin Blackstone wrote: What do you mean, the granularity? -Original Message- From: Dennis Depp [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, February 01, 2002 10:50 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Network Appliance SnapManager Is anyone using this product with Exchange 2000? If so what are your thoughts on the product. What is the granularity of the restore? Thanks Dennis Depp _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Network Appliance SnapManager
Thanks! I have a call into a rep now. As for the cost, I don't think that will be much of a problem. We are looking at placing this on a single server for about 5000 users. (clustered of course.) The cost of the CALs makes $30K much easier to swallow. Thanks again. Denny At 11:19 AM 2/1/2002 -0800, Martin Blackstone wrote: Ahhh. I think it can do that, but never tested for it. Call a rep. You should be able to get a demo unit. They brought one in for me, installed it, configed, and everything. I had it about 60 days -Original Message- From: Dennis Depp [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, February 01, 2002 11:16 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Network Appliance SnapManager There used to be a product call CommVault (I don't know if it is still available or not.) This product could do a restore of individual items. I.e. restore a single message. Denny At 10:56 AM 2/1/2002 -0800, Martin Blackstone wrote: What do you mean, the granularity? -Original Message- From: Dennis Depp [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, February 01, 2002 10:50 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Network Appliance SnapManager Is anyone using this product with Exchange 2000? If so what are your thoughts on the product. What is the granularity of the restore? Thanks Dennis Depp _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Network Appliance SnapManager
We already have the Network Appliance. It was purchased for our Unix based IMAP server, and then we found out our IMAP server would not support it. Denny At 11:45 AM 2/1/2002 -0800, you wrote: Can you run the SW without the Network Appliance? -Original Message- From: Dennis Depp [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, February 01, 2002 11:39 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Network Appliance SnapManager Thanks! I have a call into a rep now. As for the cost, I don't think that will be much of a problem. We are looking at placing this on a single server for about 5000 users. (clustered of course.) The cost of the CALs makes $30K much easier to swallow. Thanks again. Denny At 11:19 AM 2/1/2002 -0800, Martin Blackstone wrote: Ahhh. I think it can do that, but never tested for it. Call a rep. You should be able to get a demo unit. They brought one in for me, installed it, configed, and everything. I had it about 60 days -Original Message- From: Dennis Depp [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, February 01, 2002 11:16 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Network Appliance SnapManager There used to be a product call CommVault (I don't know if it is still available or not.) This product could do a restore of individual items. I.e. restore a single message. Denny At 10:56 AM 2/1/2002 -0800, Martin Blackstone wrote: What do you mean, the granularity? -Original Message- From: Dennis Depp [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, February 01, 2002 10:50 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Network Appliance SnapManager Is anyone using this product with Exchange 2000? If so what are your thoughts on the product. What is the granularity of the restore? Thanks Dennis Depp _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Terminal Server Security
Open only port 3389 and require High security. The usual mumbo jumbo about keeping up to date on security patches is a must! Denny At 03:52 PM 2/1/2002 -0500, Phil wrote: Well the CEO does not want to VPN in first. So Terminal Services would work great but I do not want to put in out on the Internet Directly I miss spoke, I do want a firewall in front but I want to be able to connect to the terminal services from the internet directly. What do you think... - Original Message - From: Andy David [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, February 01, 2002 15:24 Subject: RE: Terminal Server Security Why the need for the Terminal Server in the first place? -Original Message- From: Phil [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, February 01, 2002 3:25 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: ot: Terminal Server Security I want to put a terminal server on the internet directly. What kind of precautions do I need to do in order to secure the box? I mean that I do not want to have people VPN into the network first. What are the security holes associated with doing this? When people lob in is it sent with plain text? Thanks! _ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- The information contained in this email message is privileged and confidential information intended only for the use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copy of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please immediately notify Veronis Suhler Stevenson by telephone (212)935-4990, fax (212)381-8168, or email ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) and delete the message. Thank you. == _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Restoring a exchange 2000 database to another server
Red no blue aaayy!!! At 01:40 PM 1/29/2002 -0500, Andy David wrote: What is you favorite color? -Original Message- From: Kevin Miller [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2002 1:37 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Restoring a exchange 2000 database to another server Who is your backup software? --Kevinm M, WLKMMAS, UCC+WCA, And Beyond Did I just say that out loud? -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Sabo, Eric Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2002 10:36 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Restoring a exchange 2000 database to another server I need to restore a production database to another server so I can recover an mailbox. I have read some articles in Technet but they are very unclear in the restore method. Does anyone have a good reference on how to accomplish this? Thanks, Eric Sabo NT Administrator Computing Services Center California University of Pennsylvania _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- The information contained in this email message is privileged and confidential information intended only for the use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copy of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please immediately notify Veronis Suhler Stevenson by telephone (212)935-4990, fax (212)381-8168, or email ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) and delete the message. Thank you. == _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
