RE: Clustering... is it worth it?
What client configurations are you thinking of supporting? We have a centralized architecture but line speeds are not fast enough to support online access - a word doc can take over a minute to stream down to some locations. Thus we have configured Outlook in offline mode, but this makes the use of public folders very painful since if the public folders are large and marked as available offline the ost file gets very large and is more likely to break. Can't see a good way around this apart from using Notes, which seems to cope with a centralized architecture and disconnected users much better :( . Anyone got any good ideas other than Exchange 2003? -Original Message- From: Slinger, Gary [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 02 July 2003 04:33 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Clustering... is it worth it? (Can't resist - it's a 4-node cluster, with a passive same-scale server as part of the mix g). Which is 4,000 per node... Sounding reasonable to me so far... Oh, and if anyone's wondering if it's real world or Microsoft/HP playing - yes, I'm seriously considering (and have the budget to back it up) using it as a deployment model for my environment (no, I don't have 16,000+ users, but the concept remains the same). -Original Message- From: William Lefkovics [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2003 12:20 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Clustering... is it worth it? As you've read... No, I can't count. 16,000 users on a 7-node cluster, which is really a 5-node cluster. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Fyodorov, Andrey Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2003 6:16 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Clustering... is it worth it? only 16,000 users? on an 8-node cluster? -Original Message- From: William Lefkovics [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June 27, 2003 8:11 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Re: Clustering... is it worth it? But do consider revisiting this with 2003. With Microsoft running 16,000 users on an 8-node cluster now. Windows2003 and Exchange2003 of course. - Original Message - From: Martin Blackstone [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June 27, 2003 5:04 PM Subject: RE: Clustering... is it worth it? That's pretty much the argument against clustering. In fact, many folks will tell you that Exchange needs much more hand holding in a cluster. _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=lang =english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=lang =english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ** This e-mail and any files transmitted with it are confidential to the intended recipient(s). If you have received the e-mail in error please notify the author by replying to this e-mail and delete it and all copies from your system. Any unauthorised disclosure, use, or dissemination, either whole or partial, is prohibited. Any views or opinions contained in this email are those of the author and are not necessarily endorsed by The Company, and The Company cannot be held responsible for any misuse. The Company does not accept responsibility or liability for any loss or damage arising in any way from its receipt or use or for any errors or omissions in its contents, which may arise as a result of its transmission. This email is covered by The Company Terms and Conditions of Business, a copy of which can be obtained on request. ** ** _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Clustering... is it worth it?
XP Pro Win2KPro, plus some OWA. -Original Message- From: Midgley, Ian [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2003 09:24 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Clustering... is it worth it? What client configurations are you thinking of supporting? We have a centralized architecture but line speeds are not fast enough to support online access - a word doc can take over a minute to stream down to some locations. Thus we have configured Outlook in offline mode, but this makes the use of public folders very painful since if the public folders are large and marked as available offline the ost file gets very large and is more likely to break. Can't see a good way around this apart from using Notes, which seems to cope with a centralized architecture and disconnected users much better :( . Anyone got any good ideas other than Exchange 2003? -Original Message- From: Slinger, Gary [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 02 July 2003 04:33 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Clustering... is it worth it? (Can't resist - it's a 4-node cluster, with a passive same-scale server as part of the mix g). Which is 4,000 per node... Sounding reasonable to me so far... Oh, and if anyone's wondering if it's real world or Microsoft/HP playing - yes, I'm seriously considering (and have the budget to back it up) using it as a deployment model for my environment (no, I don't have 16,000+ users, but the concept remains the same). -Original Message- From: William Lefkovics [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2003 12:20 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Clustering... is it worth it? As you've read... No, I can't count. 16,000 users on a 7-node cluster, which is really a 5-node cluster. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Fyodorov, Andrey Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2003 6:16 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Clustering... is it worth it? only 16,000 users? on an 8-node cluster? -Original Message- From: William Lefkovics [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June 27, 2003 8:11 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Re: Clustering... is it worth it? But do consider revisiting this with 2003. With Microsoft running 16,000 users on an 8-node cluster now. Windows2003 and Exchange2003 of course. - Original Message - From: Martin Blackstone [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June 27, 2003 5:04 PM Subject: RE: Clustering... is it worth it? That's pretty much the argument against clustering. In fact, many folks will tell you that Exchange needs much more hand holding in a cluster. _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=lang =english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=lang =english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ** This e-mail and any files transmitted with it are confidential to the intended recipient(s). If you have received the e-mail in error please notify the author by replying to this e-mail and delete it and all copies from your system. Any unauthorised disclosure, use, or dissemination, either whole or partial, is prohibited. Any views or opinions contained in this email are those of the author and are not necessarily endorsed by The Company, and The Company cannot be held responsible for any misuse. The Company does not accept responsibility or liability for any loss or damage arising in any way from its receipt or use or for any errors or omissions in its contents, which may arise as a result of its transmission. This email is covered by The Company Terms and Conditions of Business, a copy of which can be obtained on request. ** ** _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=lang =english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL
RE: Clustering... is it worth it?
only 16,000 users? on an 8-node cluster? -Original Message- From: William Lefkovics [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June 27, 2003 8:11 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Re: Clustering... is it worth it? But do consider revisiting this with 2003. With Microsoft running 16,000 users on an 8-node cluster now. Windows2003 and Exchange2003 of course. - Original Message - From: Martin Blackstone [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June 27, 2003 5:04 PM Subject: RE: Clustering... is it worth it? That's pretty much the argument against clustering. In fact, many folks will tell you that Exchange needs much more hand holding in a cluster. -Original Message- From: MSX dude [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June 27, 2003 4:50 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Clustering... is it worth it? Upper management here is inquiring about clustering our exchange server. We already have our PRIV, PUB and DIR on a SAN. I don't see the benefit. If the server itself fails, I can rebuild it in an hour. If the database corrupts it would have taken the cluster down too. I have searched the internet but all I find are vendors praising clustering because they want to see you something. Does anyone have any links or whitepapers are unbiased in their opinions? _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Clustering... is it worth it?
As you've read... No, I can't count. 16,000 users on a 7-node cluster, which is really a 5-node cluster. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Fyodorov, Andrey Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2003 6:16 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Clustering... is it worth it? only 16,000 users? on an 8-node cluster? -Original Message- From: William Lefkovics [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June 27, 2003 8:11 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Re: Clustering... is it worth it? But do consider revisiting this with 2003. With Microsoft running 16,000 users on an 8-node cluster now. Windows2003 and Exchange2003 of course. - Original Message - From: Martin Blackstone [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June 27, 2003 5:04 PM Subject: RE: Clustering... is it worth it? That's pretty much the argument against clustering. In fact, many folks will tell you that Exchange needs much more hand holding in a cluster. _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Clustering... is it worth it?
(Can't resist - it's a 4-node cluster, with a passive same-scale server as part of the mix g). Which is 4,000 per node... Sounding reasonable to me so far... Oh, and if anyone's wondering if it's real world or Microsoft/HP playing - yes, I'm seriously considering (and have the budget to back it up) using it as a deployment model for my environment (no, I don't have 16,000+ users, but the concept remains the same). -Original Message- From: William Lefkovics [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2003 12:20 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Clustering... is it worth it? As you've read... No, I can't count. 16,000 users on a 7-node cluster, which is really a 5-node cluster. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Fyodorov, Andrey Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2003 6:16 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Clustering... is it worth it? only 16,000 users? on an 8-node cluster? -Original Message- From: William Lefkovics [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June 27, 2003 8:11 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Re: Clustering... is it worth it? But do consider revisiting this with 2003. With Microsoft running 16,000 users on an 8-node cluster now. Windows2003 and Exchange2003 of course. - Original Message - From: Martin Blackstone [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June 27, 2003 5:04 PM Subject: RE: Clustering... is it worth it? That's pretty much the argument against clustering. In fact, many folks will tell you that Exchange needs much more hand holding in a cluster. _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=lang =english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Clustering... is it worth it?
you two kiss and make up now. -Original Message- From: William Lefkovics [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, June 28, 2003 1:40 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Clustering... is it worth it? You are totally right. Cochran's slides do say that. My notes do not. I am wrong. I'm sorry, Gary. 7-node cluster per the slides. 4-1-2. Not 5-1-2. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Slinger, Gary Sent: Friday, June 27, 2003 9:55 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Clustering... is it worth it? OK, I'll try it another way - the presentation that I heard at Tech-Ed, matched up against my notes, indicated that it was: A) 4 x 4-way servers, active, plus B) 1 x 4-way server, passive, plus C) 2 x 2-way servers, passive, for backups, etc. Equals 7. I never claimed 8. I'm perfectly capable of basic math. 8, to my recollection, notes, and thoughts of the PPT, is wrong., -Original Message- From: William Lefkovics [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, June 28, 2003 12:58 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Clustering... is it worth it? The PPT would be wrong then as 4+1+2 8 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Slinger, Gary Sent: Friday, June 27, 2003 9:45 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Clustering... is it worth it? The TechEd PPT was 4-1-2; other than that, concur. -Original Message- From: William Lefkovics [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June 27, 2003 9:21 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Re: Clustering... is it worth it? Definitely Active/Passive. The 8-node cluster I mentioned it 5-1 with 2 for snap back up to stream to tape after. This is per a TechEd presentation. William - Original Message - From: Schneider, Bryan D [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June 27, 2003 6:13 PM Subject: RE: Clustering... is it worth it? You have the benefit of quick recovery in event of hardware failure on the server (not likely typically). But, it is really nice for maintenance where you have to apply patches, security updates, virus engine updates, service packs, etc... You can failover in a matter of seconds and you have as much time as you need to work on the server without interrupting users or bouncing email. On an active/active cluster we host 16,000 users, 2500 using Outlook and the rest using OWA 2000. We can have both virtual machines running on one quad-Xeon 700Mhz without users noticing much of a slowdown at all. Exchange 2003 with Windows 2003 runs more efficiently so far in our tests. However, Microsoft is now recommending ACTIVE / PASSIVE so you have a fresh server to failover to. You already have a key component - SAN - so I would cluster in a heartbeat. We haven't had any issues - except for a corrupted db which we attributed to the SAN. 2003 promisses to make clustering better, but we haven't tested that yet. -Original Message- From: William Lefkovics [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Fri 6/27/2003 7:10 PM To: Exchange Discussions Cc: Subject: Re: Clustering... is it worth it? But do consider revisiting this with 2003. With Microsoft running 16,000 users on an 8-node cluster now. Windows2003 and Exchange2003 of course. - Original Message - From: Martin Blackstone [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June 27, 2003 5:04 PM Subject: RE: Clustering... is it worth it? That's pretty much the argument against clustering. In fact, many folks will tell you that Exchange needs much more hand holding in a cluster. _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchanget ext_mode=lang =english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=lang =english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=lang= english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http
RE: Clustering... is it worth it?
You're confusing me with Andi... Oh, wait - wrong list. Never mind :) -Original Message- From: Erik Sojka [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, June 30, 2003 08:42 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Clustering... is it worth it? you two kiss and make up now. -Original Message- From: William Lefkovics [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, June 28, 2003 1:40 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Clustering... is it worth it? You are totally right. Cochran's slides do say that. My notes do not. I am wrong. I'm sorry, Gary. 7-node cluster per the slides. 4-1-2. Not 5-1-2. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Slinger, Gary Sent: Friday, June 27, 2003 9:55 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Clustering... is it worth it? OK, I'll try it another way - the presentation that I heard at Tech-Ed, matched up against my notes, indicated that it was: A) 4 x 4-way servers, active, plus B) 1 x 4-way server, passive, plus C) 2 x 2-way servers, passive, for backups, etc. Equals 7. I never claimed 8. I'm perfectly capable of basic math. 8, to my recollection, notes, and thoughts of the PPT, is wrong., -Original Message- From: William Lefkovics [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, June 28, 2003 12:58 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Clustering... is it worth it? The PPT would be wrong then as 4+1+2 8 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Slinger, Gary Sent: Friday, June 27, 2003 9:45 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Clustering... is it worth it? The TechEd PPT was 4-1-2; other than that, concur. -Original Message- From: William Lefkovics [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June 27, 2003 9:21 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Re: Clustering... is it worth it? Definitely Active/Passive. The 8-node cluster I mentioned it 5-1 with 2 for snap back up to stream to tape after. This is per a TechEd presentation. William - Original Message - From: Schneider, Bryan D [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June 27, 2003 6:13 PM Subject: RE: Clustering... is it worth it? You have the benefit of quick recovery in event of hardware failure on the server (not likely typically). But, it is really nice for maintenance where you have to apply patches, security updates, virus engine updates, service packs, etc... You can failover in a matter of seconds and you have as much time as you need to work on the server without interrupting users or bouncing email. On an active/active cluster we host 16,000 users, 2500 using Outlook and the rest using OWA 2000. We can have both virtual machines running on one quad-Xeon 700Mhz without users noticing much of a slowdown at all. Exchange 2003 with Windows 2003 runs more efficiently so far in our tests. However, Microsoft is now recommending ACTIVE / PASSIVE so you have a fresh server to failover to. You already have a key component - SAN - so I would cluster in a heartbeat. We haven't had any issues - except for a corrupted db which we attributed to the SAN. 2003 promisses to make clustering better, but we haven't tested that yet. -Original Message- From: William Lefkovics [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Fri 6/27/2003 7:10 PM To: Exchange Discussions Cc: Subject: Re: Clustering... is it worth it? But do consider revisiting this with 2003. With Microsoft running 16,000 users on an 8-node cluster now. Windows2003 and Exchange2003 of course. - Original Message - From: Martin Blackstone [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June 27, 2003 5:04 PM Subject: RE: Clustering... is it worth it? That's pretty much the argument against clustering. In fact, many folks will tell you that Exchange needs much more hand holding in a cluster. _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchanget ext_mode=lang =english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=lang =english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=lang = english
RE: Clustering... is it worth it?
And I don't wear make up. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Slinger, Gary Sent: Monday, June 30, 2003 6:15 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Clustering... is it worth it? You're confusing me with Andi... Oh, wait - wrong list. Never mind :) -Original Message- From: Erik Sojka [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, June 30, 2003 08:42 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Clustering... is it worth it? you two kiss and make up now. -Original Message- From: William Lefkovics [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, June 28, 2003 1:40 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Clustering... is it worth it? You are totally right. Cochran's slides do say that. My notes do not. I am wrong. I'm sorry, Gary. 7-node cluster per the slides. 4-1-2. Not 5-1-2. _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Clustering... is it worth it?
IIRC Active/Active was the initial recommendation under E2k, until some of these MAPI session limits starts cropping up, and with memory fragmentation in ESE. We were in discussions with MS about deploying a large Active/Active cluster during this period, and they changed their tune part-way through the discussions and recommended Active/Passive rather than Active/Active. With all of the redundancy we were building in with the Exchange design anyway (see below), clustering was only going to save us from physical hardware failure of one of the front-end servers, but we pretty much had that covered anyway. As others have said, clustering doesn't protect you from DB corruption. Config for single mailbox server was: Multi-Processor Server ECC Memory Multiple hot-plug power supplies on different physical power curcits, running on building UPS' (optionally local UPS for each power supply as well) Multiple hot-plug fans for cooling RAID'ed disk (obviously), on multiple channels, with hot spares Multiple Physical, Multi-Port NICs using port aggregation over multiple redundant switches. We also had a hot-standby server incase of total-systems failure (move the entire disk array to new server), and hot spares of every major component. We also deployed multiple Exchange servers, so in the case of complete failure of one server, only portions of the organisation were affected. We ensured that members of the same work area were located on physically seperate machines, so if one server did fail, at least one mailbox in each section was still able to send and receive important emails. Multiple incoming and outgoing connector servers provded some measure of protection against a single connector server failure (the fault-tolerance levels of these machines were much lower to save costs). All Public folders were replicated to at least two different servers. Even with clustering, a number of the measures described above were still required, such as building some level of redundancy into the front-end servers, but you now have the added complexity of the redundancy and fault tolerance required for the SAN device. My gripe with clustering is that there is a tendency to try and throw the entire org onto a single cluster (either Active/Active or Active/Passive), but when the cluster itself fails, the entire organisation is off the air. Something that isn't tolerated these days with mission critical mail systems. Exchange has so many built-in redundany and load sharing features, that clustering just introduces unnecessary complexity into the mix, especially in recovery scenarios. That being said, when I have deployed them and got the kinks worked out, they have been pretty solid. 2k3 may be a different kettle of fish. My $0.02 G. - Original Message - From: Martin Blackstone [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, June 28, 2003 11:34 AM Subject: RE: Clustering... is it worth it? I believe they have always recommended an Active/Active cluster. Paul Roubicheux sais the E2K3 clusters awesomely. -Original Message- From: Schneider, Bryan D [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June 27, 2003 6:14 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Clustering... is it worth it? You have the benefit of quick recovery in event of hardware failure on the server (not likely typically). But, it is really nice for maintenance where you have to apply patches, security updates, virus engine updates, service packs, etc... You can failover in a matter of seconds and you have as much time as you need to work on the server without interrupting users or bouncing email. On an active/active cluster we host 16,000 users, 2500 using Outlook and the rest using OWA 2000. We can have both virtual machines running on one quad-Xeon 700Mhz without users noticing much of a slowdown at all. Exchange 2003 with Windows 2003 runs more efficiently so far in our tests. However, Microsoft is now recommending ACTIVE / PASSIVE so you have a fresh server to failover to. You already have a key component - SAN - so I would cluster in a heartbeat. We haven't had any issues - except for a corrupted db which we attributed to the SAN. 2003 promisses to make clustering better, but we haven't tested that yet. -Original Message- From: William Lefkovics [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Fri 6/27/2003 7:10 PM To: Exchange Discussions Cc: Subject: Re: Clustering... is it worth it? But do consider revisiting this with 2003. With Microsoft running 16,000 users on an 8-node cluster now. Windows2003 and Exchange2003 of course. - Original Message - From: Martin Blackstone [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June 27, 2003 5:04 PM Subject: RE: Clustering... is it worth it? That's pretty much the argument against clustering. In fact, many folks will tell you that Exchange needs much more hand holding in a cluster. -Original Message- From: MSX dude
Clustering... is it worth it?
Upper management here is inquiring about clustering our exchange server. We already have our PRIV, PUB and DIR on a SAN. I don't see the benefit. If the server itself fails, I can rebuild it in an hour. If the database corrupts it would have taken the cluster down too. I have searched the internet but all I find are vendors praising clustering because they want to see you something. Does anyone have any links or whitepapers are unbiased in their opinions? _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Clustering... is it worth it?
I don't see the benefits either. Your two points are spot on. Exchange failures are generally due to poor hardware or poor administration. Mitigate these two issues and you will have a great single-node [1] cluster. [1] Single-Node copyright Ed Crowley. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of MSX dude Sent: Friday, June 27, 2003 7:50 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Clustering... is it worth it? Upper management here is inquiring about clustering our exchange server. We already have our PRIV, PUB and DIR on a SAN. I don't see the benefit. If the server itself fails, I can rebuild it in an hour. If the database corrupts it would have taken the cluster down too. I have searched the internet but all I find are vendors praising clustering because they want to see you something. Does anyone have any links or whitepapers are unbiased in their opinions? _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=lang =english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Clustering... is it worth it?
That's pretty much the argument against clustering. In fact, many folks will tell you that Exchange needs much more hand holding in a cluster. -Original Message- From: MSX dude [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June 27, 2003 4:50 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Clustering... is it worth it? Upper management here is inquiring about clustering our exchange server. We already have our PRIV, PUB and DIR on a SAN. I don't see the benefit. If the server itself fails, I can rebuild it in an hour. If the database corrupts it would have taken the cluster down too. I have searched the internet but all I find are vendors praising clustering because they want to see you something. Does anyone have any links or whitepapers are unbiased in their opinions? _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=lang =english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Clustering... is it worth it?
But do consider revisiting this with 2003. With Microsoft running 16,000 users on an 8-node cluster now. Windows2003 and Exchange2003 of course. - Original Message - From: Martin Blackstone [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June 27, 2003 5:04 PM Subject: RE: Clustering... is it worth it? That's pretty much the argument against clustering. In fact, many folks will tell you that Exchange needs much more hand holding in a cluster. -Original Message- From: MSX dude [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June 27, 2003 4:50 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Clustering... is it worth it? Upper management here is inquiring about clustering our exchange server. We already have our PRIV, PUB and DIR on a SAN. I don't see the benefit. If the server itself fails, I can rebuild it in an hour. If the database corrupts it would have taken the cluster down too. I have searched the internet but all I find are vendors praising clustering because they want to see you something. Does anyone have any links or whitepapers are unbiased in their opinions? _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Clustering... is it worth it?
You have the benefit of quick recovery in event of hardware failure on the server (not
likely typically). But, it is really nice for maintenance where you have to apply
patches, security updates, virus engine updates, service packs, etc... You can
failover in a matter of seconds and you have as much time as you need to work on the
server without interrupting users or bouncing email.
On an active/active cluster we host 16,000 users, 2500 using Outlook and the rest
using OWA 2000. We can have both virtual machines running on one quad-Xeon 700Mhz
without users noticing much of a slowdown at all. Exchange 2003 with Windows 2003 runs
more efficiently so far in our tests. However, Microsoft is now recommending ACTIVE /
PASSIVE so you have a fresh server to failover to.
You already have a key component - SAN - so I would cluster in a heartbeat. We haven't
had any issues - except for a corrupted db which we attributed to the SAN.
2003 promisses to make clustering better, but we haven't tested that yet.
-Original Message-
From: William Lefkovics [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Fri 6/27/2003 7:10 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Cc:
Subject: Re: Clustering... is it worth it?
But do consider revisiting this with 2003.
With Microsoft running 16,000 users on an 8-node cluster now.
Windows2003 and Exchange2003 of course.
- Original Message -
From: Martin Blackstone [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, June 27, 2003 5:04 PM
Subject: RE: Clustering... is it worth it?
That's pretty much the argument against clustering.
In fact, many folks will tell you that Exchange needs much more hand
holding
in a cluster.
-Original Message-
From: MSX dude [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, June 27, 2003 4:50 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Clustering... is it worth it?
Upper management here is inquiring about clustering our exchange server.
We already have our PRIV, PUB and DIR on a SAN. I don't see the benefit.
If the server itself fails, I can rebuild it in an hour. If the database
corrupts it would have taken the cluster down too.
I have searched the internet but all I find are vendors praising
clustering
because they want to see you something. Does anyone have any links or
whitepapers are unbiased in their opinions?
_
List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Web Interface:
http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=lang=english
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
.+-¦-xm¶ÿÃ
,Â)Ür¿ë(º· ýì\
öªy²'µêßi¶Úþ)íÙl¥ªä+-r¿r嬦W§µêÞÅÈZ{f¡jx
b²èº{.nÇ+·¦j)m¢W½ç±r§él³ §Ê!jx .+-iX¬µ§f{0Êy ¢
RE: Clustering... is it worth it?
Havent they recommended Active/Passive for awhile now?
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Schneider, Bryan D
Sent: Friday, June 27, 2003 9:14 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Clustering... is it worth it?
You have the benefit of quick recovery in event of hardware failure on the server (not
likely typically). But, it is really nice for maintenance where you have to apply
patches, security updates, virus engine updates, service packs, etc... You can
failover in a matter of seconds and you have as much time as you need to work on the
server without interrupting users or bouncing email.
On an active/active cluster we host 16,000 users, 2500 using Outlook and the rest
using OWA 2000. We can have both virtual machines running on one quad-Xeon 700Mhz
without users noticing much of a slowdown at all. Exchange 2003 with Windows 2003 runs
more efficiently so far in our tests. However, Microsoft is now recommending ACTIVE /
PASSIVE so you have a fresh server to failover to.
You already have a key component - SAN - so I would cluster in a heartbeat. We haven't
had any issues - except for a corrupted db which we attributed to the SAN.
2003 promisses to make clustering better, but we haven't tested that yet.
-Original Message-
From: William Lefkovics [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Fri 6/27/2003 7:10 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Cc:
Subject: Re: Clustering... is it worth it?
But do consider revisiting this with 2003.
With Microsoft running 16,000 users on an 8-node cluster now.
Windows2003 and Exchange2003 of course.
- Original Message -
From: Martin Blackstone [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, June 27, 2003 5:04 PM
Subject: RE: Clustering... is it worth it?
That's pretty much the argument against clustering.
In fact, many folks will tell you that Exchange needs much more hand
holding
in a cluster.
-Original Message-
From: MSX dude [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, June 27, 2003 4:50 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Clustering... is it worth it?
Upper management here is inquiring about clustering our exchange server.
We already have our PRIV, PUB and DIR on a SAN. I don't see the benefit.
If the server itself fails, I can rebuild it in an hour. If the database
corrupts it would have taken the cluster down too.
I have searched the internet but all I find are vendors praising
clustering
because they want to see you something. Does anyone have any links or
whitepapers are unbiased in their opinions?
_
List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Web Interface:
http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=lang=english
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
..+--xm ,) r( \ y' i�� ) l+-rr W{jx Vmyzr vi
_
List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Web Interface:
http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=lang=english
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Clustering... is it worth it?
Definitely Active/Passive.
The 8-node cluster I mentioned it 5-1 with 2 for snap back up to stream to
tape after.
This is per a TechEd presentation.
William
- Original Message -
From: Schneider, Bryan D [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, June 27, 2003 6:13 PM
Subject: RE: Clustering... is it worth it?
You have the benefit of quick recovery in event of hardware failure on the
server (not likely typically). But, it is really nice for maintenance where
you have to apply patches, security updates, virus engine updates, service
packs, etc... You can failover in a matter of seconds and you have as much
time as you need to work on the server without interrupting users or
bouncing email.
On an active/active cluster we host 16,000 users, 2500 using Outlook and
the rest using OWA 2000. We can have both virtual machines running on one
quad-Xeon 700Mhz without users noticing much of a slowdown at all. Exchange
2003 with Windows 2003 runs more efficiently so far in our tests. However,
Microsoft is now recommending ACTIVE / PASSIVE so you have a fresh server to
failover to.
You already have a key component - SAN - so I would cluster in a
heartbeat. We haven't had any issues - except for a corrupted db which we
attributed to the SAN.
2003 promisses to make clustering better, but we haven't tested that yet.
-Original Message-
From: William Lefkovics [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Fri 6/27/2003 7:10 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Cc:
Subject: Re: Clustering... is it worth it?
But do consider revisiting this with 2003.
With Microsoft running 16,000 users on an 8-node cluster now.
Windows2003 and Exchange2003 of course.
- Original Message -
From: Martin Blackstone [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, June 27, 2003 5:04 PM
Subject: RE: Clustering... is it worth it?
That's pretty much the argument against clustering.
In fact, many folks will tell you that Exchange needs much more hand
holding
in a cluster.
-Original Message-
From: MSX dude [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, June 27, 2003 4:50 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Clustering... is it worth it?
Upper management here is inquiring about clustering our exchange server.
We already have our PRIV, PUB and DIR on a SAN. I don't see the
benefit.
If the server itself fails, I can rebuild it in an hour. If the
database
corrupts it would have taken the cluster down too.
I have searched the internet but all I find are vendors praising
clustering
because they want to see you something. Does anyone have any links or
whitepapers are unbiased in their opinions?
_
List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Web Interface:
http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=lang=english
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
.+--xm ,)r( \y'i)l+-rrW{jxVmyzrvi
_
List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Web Interface:
http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=lang=english
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Clustering... is it worth it?
I believe they have always recommended an Active/Active cluster.
Paul Roubicheux sais the E2K3 clusters awesomely.
-Original Message-
From: Schneider, Bryan D [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, June 27, 2003 6:14 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Clustering... is it worth it?
You have the benefit of quick recovery in event of hardware failure on the
server (not likely typically). But, it is really nice for maintenance where
you have to apply patches, security updates, virus engine updates, service
packs, etc... You can failover in a matter of seconds and you have as much
time as you need to work on the server without interrupting users or
bouncing email.
On an active/active cluster we host 16,000 users, 2500 using Outlook and the
rest using OWA 2000. We can have both virtual machines running on one
quad-Xeon 700Mhz without users noticing much of a slowdown at all. Exchange
2003 with Windows 2003 runs more efficiently so far in our tests. However,
Microsoft is now recommending ACTIVE / PASSIVE so you have a fresh server to
failover to.
You already have a key component - SAN - so I would cluster in a heartbeat.
We haven't had any issues - except for a corrupted db which we attributed to
the SAN.
2003 promisses to make clustering better, but we haven't tested that yet.
-Original Message-
From: William Lefkovics [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Fri 6/27/2003 7:10 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Cc:
Subject: Re: Clustering... is it worth it?
But do consider revisiting this with 2003.
With Microsoft running 16,000 users on an 8-node cluster now.
Windows2003 and Exchange2003 of course.
- Original Message -
From: Martin Blackstone [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, June 27, 2003 5:04 PM
Subject: RE: Clustering... is it worth it?
That's pretty much the argument against clustering.
In fact, many folks will tell you that Exchange needs much more
hand
holding
in a cluster.
-Original Message-
From: MSX dude [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, June 27, 2003 4:50 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Clustering... is it worth it?
Upper management here is inquiring about clustering our exchange
server.
We already have our PRIV, PUB and DIR on a SAN. I don't see the
benefit.
If the server itself fails, I can rebuild it in an hour. If the
database
corrupts it would have taken the cluster down too.
I have searched the internet but all I find are vendors praising
clustering
because they want to see you something. Does anyone have any
links or
whitepapers are unbiased in their opinions?
_
List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Web Interface:
http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=lang
=english
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
.+--xm ,)r( \y'i)l+-rrW{jxm^zx%S ^jZ 2G(L\xfyb))
_
List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Web Interface:
http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=lang=english
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Clustering... is it worth it?
Active/Active Clusters however are limited to 1900 mapi connections (Sp2+) so for that
reason and others, Active/Passive is generally recommended.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Martin Blackstone
Sent: Friday, June 27, 2003 9:35 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Clustering... is it worth it?
I believe they have always recommended an Active/Active cluster.
Paul Roubicheux sais the E2K3 clusters awesomely.
-Original Message-
From: Schneider, Bryan D [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, June 27, 2003 6:14 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Clustering... is it worth it?
You have the benefit of quick recovery in event of hardware failure on the server (not
likely typically). But, it is really nice for maintenance where you have to apply
patches, security updates, virus engine updates, service packs, etc... You can
failover in a matter of seconds and you have as much time as you need to work on the
server without interrupting users or bouncing email.
On an active/active cluster we host 16,000 users, 2500 using Outlook and the rest
using OWA 2000. We can have both virtual machines running on one quad-Xeon 700Mhz
without users noticing much of a slowdown at all. Exchange 2003 with Windows 2003 runs
more efficiently so far in our tests. However, Microsoft is now recommending ACTIVE /
PASSIVE so you have a fresh server to failover to.
You already have a key component - SAN - so I would cluster in a heartbeat. We haven't
had any issues - except for a corrupted db which we attributed to the SAN.
2003 promisses to make clustering better, but we haven't tested that yet.
-Original Message-
From: William Lefkovics [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Fri 6/27/2003 7:10 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Cc:
Subject: Re: Clustering... is it worth it?
But do consider revisiting this with 2003.
With Microsoft running 16,000 users on an 8-node cluster now.
Windows2003 and Exchange2003 of course.
- Original Message -
From: Martin Blackstone [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, June 27, 2003 5:04 PM
Subject: RE: Clustering... is it worth it?
That's pretty much the argument against clustering.
In fact, many folks will tell you that Exchange needs much more hand
holding
in a cluster.
-Original Message-
From: MSX dude [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, June 27, 2003 4:50 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Clustering... is it worth it?
Upper management here is inquiring about clustering our exchange server.
We already have our PRIV, PUB and DIR on a SAN. I don't see the benefit.
If the server itself fails, I can rebuild it in an hour. If the database
corrupts it would have taken the cluster down too.
I have searched the internet but all I find are vendors praising
clustering
because they want to see you something. Does anyone have any links or
whitepapers are unbiased in their opinions?
_
List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Web Interface:
http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=lang
=english
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
..+--xm ,)r( \y'i)l+-rrW{jxm^zx%S ^jZ 2G(L\xfyb))
_
List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Web Interface:
http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=lang=english
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
_
List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Web Interface:
http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=lang=english
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Clustering... is it worth it?
The TechEd PPT was 4-1-2; other than that, concur.
-Original Message-
From: William Lefkovics [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, June 27, 2003 9:21 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Re: Clustering... is it worth it?
Definitely Active/Passive.
The 8-node cluster I mentioned it 5-1 with 2 for snap back up to stream to
tape after.
This is per a TechEd presentation.
William
- Original Message -
From: Schneider, Bryan D [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, June 27, 2003 6:13 PM
Subject: RE: Clustering... is it worth it?
You have the benefit of quick recovery in event of hardware failure on the
server (not likely typically). But, it is really nice for maintenance where
you have to apply patches, security updates, virus engine updates, service
packs, etc... You can failover in a matter of seconds and you have as much
time as you need to work on the server without interrupting users or
bouncing email.
On an active/active cluster we host 16,000 users, 2500 using Outlook and
the rest using OWA 2000. We can have both virtual machines running on one
quad-Xeon 700Mhz without users noticing much of a slowdown at all. Exchange
2003 with Windows 2003 runs more efficiently so far in our tests. However,
Microsoft is now recommending ACTIVE / PASSIVE so you have a fresh server to
failover to.
You already have a key component - SAN - so I would cluster in a
heartbeat. We haven't had any issues - except for a corrupted db which we
attributed to the SAN.
2003 promisses to make clustering better, but we haven't tested that yet.
-Original Message-
From: William Lefkovics [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Fri 6/27/2003 7:10 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Cc:
Subject: Re: Clustering... is it worth it?
But do consider revisiting this with 2003.
With Microsoft running 16,000 users on an 8-node cluster now.
Windows2003 and Exchange2003 of course.
- Original Message -
From: Martin Blackstone [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, June 27, 2003 5:04 PM
Subject: RE: Clustering... is it worth it?
That's pretty much the argument against clustering.
In fact, many folks will tell you that Exchange needs much more hand
holding
in a cluster.
-Original Message-
From: MSX dude [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, June 27, 2003 4:50 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Clustering... is it worth it?
Upper management here is inquiring about clustering our exchange server.
We already have our PRIV, PUB and DIR on a SAN. I don't see the
benefit.
If the server itself fails, I can rebuild it in an hour. If the
database
corrupts it would have taken the cluster down too.
I have searched the internet but all I find are vendors praising
clustering
because they want to see you something. Does anyone have any links or
whitepapers are unbiased in their opinions?
_
List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Web Interface:
http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=lang
=english
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
.+--xm ,)r( \y'i)l+-rrW{jxVmyzrvi
_
List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Web Interface:
http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=lang
=english
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
_
List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Web Interface:
http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=lang=english
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Clustering... is it worth it?
The PPT would be wrong then as 4+1+2 8 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Slinger, Gary Sent: Friday, June 27, 2003 9:45 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Clustering... is it worth it? The TechEd PPT was 4-1-2; other than that, concur. -Original Message- From: William Lefkovics [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June 27, 2003 9:21 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Re: Clustering... is it worth it? Definitely Active/Passive. The 8-node cluster I mentioned it 5-1 with 2 for snap back up to stream to tape after. This is per a TechEd presentation. William - Original Message - From: Schneider, Bryan D [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June 27, 2003 6:13 PM Subject: RE: Clustering... is it worth it? You have the benefit of quick recovery in event of hardware failure on the server (not likely typically). But, it is really nice for maintenance where you have to apply patches, security updates, virus engine updates, service packs, etc... You can failover in a matter of seconds and you have as much time as you need to work on the server without interrupting users or bouncing email. On an active/active cluster we host 16,000 users, 2500 using Outlook and the rest using OWA 2000. We can have both virtual machines running on one quad-Xeon 700Mhz without users noticing much of a slowdown at all. Exchange 2003 with Windows 2003 runs more efficiently so far in our tests. However, Microsoft is now recommending ACTIVE / PASSIVE so you have a fresh server to failover to. You already have a key component - SAN - so I would cluster in a heartbeat. We haven't had any issues - except for a corrupted db which we attributed to the SAN. 2003 promisses to make clustering better, but we haven't tested that yet. -Original Message- From: William Lefkovics [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Fri 6/27/2003 7:10 PM To: Exchange Discussions Cc: Subject: Re: Clustering... is it worth it? But do consider revisiting this with 2003. With Microsoft running 16,000 users on an 8-node cluster now. Windows2003 and Exchange2003 of course. - Original Message - From: Martin Blackstone [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June 27, 2003 5:04 PM Subject: RE: Clustering... is it worth it? That's pretty much the argument against clustering. In fact, many folks will tell you that Exchange needs much more hand holding in a cluster. _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Clustering... is it worth it?
OK, I'll try it another way - the presentation that I heard at Tech-Ed, matched up against my notes, indicated that it was: A) 4 x 4-way servers, active, plus B) 1 x 4-way server, passive, plus C) 2 x 2-way servers, passive, for backups, etc. Equals 7. I never claimed 8. I'm perfectly capable of basic math. 8, to my recollection, notes, and thoughts of the PPT, is wrong., -Original Message- From: William Lefkovics [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, June 28, 2003 12:58 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Clustering... is it worth it? The PPT would be wrong then as 4+1+2 8 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Slinger, Gary Sent: Friday, June 27, 2003 9:45 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Clustering... is it worth it? The TechEd PPT was 4-1-2; other than that, concur. -Original Message- From: William Lefkovics [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June 27, 2003 9:21 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Re: Clustering... is it worth it? Definitely Active/Passive. The 8-node cluster I mentioned it 5-1 with 2 for snap back up to stream to tape after. This is per a TechEd presentation. William - Original Message - From: Schneider, Bryan D [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June 27, 2003 6:13 PM Subject: RE: Clustering... is it worth it? You have the benefit of quick recovery in event of hardware failure on the server (not likely typically). But, it is really nice for maintenance where you have to apply patches, security updates, virus engine updates, service packs, etc... You can failover in a matter of seconds and you have as much time as you need to work on the server without interrupting users or bouncing email. On an active/active cluster we host 16,000 users, 2500 using Outlook and the rest using OWA 2000. We can have both virtual machines running on one quad-Xeon 700Mhz without users noticing much of a slowdown at all. Exchange 2003 with Windows 2003 runs more efficiently so far in our tests. However, Microsoft is now recommending ACTIVE / PASSIVE so you have a fresh server to failover to. You already have a key component - SAN - so I would cluster in a heartbeat. We haven't had any issues - except for a corrupted db which we attributed to the SAN. 2003 promisses to make clustering better, but we haven't tested that yet. -Original Message- From: William Lefkovics [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Fri 6/27/2003 7:10 PM To: Exchange Discussions Cc: Subject: Re: Clustering... is it worth it? But do consider revisiting this with 2003. With Microsoft running 16,000 users on an 8-node cluster now. Windows2003 and Exchange2003 of course. - Original Message - From: Martin Blackstone [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June 27, 2003 5:04 PM Subject: RE: Clustering... is it worth it? That's pretty much the argument against clustering. In fact, many folks will tell you that Exchange needs much more hand holding in a cluster. _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=lang =english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Clustering... is it worth it?
You are totally right. Cochran's slides do say that. My notes do not. I am wrong. I'm sorry, Gary. 7-node cluster per the slides. 4-1-2. Not 5-1-2. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Slinger, Gary Sent: Friday, June 27, 2003 9:55 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Clustering... is it worth it? OK, I'll try it another way - the presentation that I heard at Tech-Ed, matched up against my notes, indicated that it was: A) 4 x 4-way servers, active, plus B) 1 x 4-way server, passive, plus C) 2 x 2-way servers, passive, for backups, etc. Equals 7. I never claimed 8. I'm perfectly capable of basic math. 8, to my recollection, notes, and thoughts of the PPT, is wrong., -Original Message- From: William Lefkovics [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, June 28, 2003 12:58 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Clustering... is it worth it? The PPT would be wrong then as 4+1+2 8 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Slinger, Gary Sent: Friday, June 27, 2003 9:45 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Clustering... is it worth it? The TechEd PPT was 4-1-2; other than that, concur. -Original Message- From: William Lefkovics [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June 27, 2003 9:21 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Re: Clustering... is it worth it? Definitely Active/Passive. The 8-node cluster I mentioned it 5-1 with 2 for snap back up to stream to tape after. This is per a TechEd presentation. William - Original Message - From: Schneider, Bryan D [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June 27, 2003 6:13 PM Subject: RE: Clustering... is it worth it? You have the benefit of quick recovery in event of hardware failure on the server (not likely typically). But, it is really nice for maintenance where you have to apply patches, security updates, virus engine updates, service packs, etc... You can failover in a matter of seconds and you have as much time as you need to work on the server without interrupting users or bouncing email. On an active/active cluster we host 16,000 users, 2500 using Outlook and the rest using OWA 2000. We can have both virtual machines running on one quad-Xeon 700Mhz without users noticing much of a slowdown at all. Exchange 2003 with Windows 2003 runs more efficiently so far in our tests. However, Microsoft is now recommending ACTIVE / PASSIVE so you have a fresh server to failover to. You already have a key component - SAN - so I would cluster in a heartbeat. We haven't had any issues - except for a corrupted db which we attributed to the SAN. 2003 promisses to make clustering better, but we haven't tested that yet. -Original Message- From: William Lefkovics [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Fri 6/27/2003 7:10 PM To: Exchange Discussions Cc: Subject: Re: Clustering... is it worth it? But do consider revisiting this with 2003. With Microsoft running 16,000 users on an 8-node cluster now. Windows2003 and Exchange2003 of course. - Original Message - From: Martin Blackstone [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June 27, 2003 5:04 PM Subject: RE: Clustering... is it worth it? That's pretty much the argument against clustering. In fact, many folks will tell you that Exchange needs much more hand holding in a cluster. _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=lang =english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=lang =english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
