RE: E2K Clustering advice
Thanks for the feedback! The Proxy idea is the best one yet as they won't go for any kind of non-MS OS. They are migrating from a mixed Novell/NT environment and want to standardize. Jeff -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ken Cornetet Sent: Monday, March 10, 2003 9:28 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: E2K Clustering advice Talk them into using a proxy server to publish their front-end server to the Internet. Benefits: 1. You can make the non-clustered FE server the first server in site without, as Ed points out, having SRS in the DMZ. 2. Much easier to secure a dedicated proxy in a DMZ (one port in, one out) 3. For a few extra bucks, the proxy can do the SSL stuff, offloading some cycles from the FE server. Some possibilities: 1. Network Appliance netcache. 2. MS ISA server. 3. Apache web server in proxy mode. (To my knowledge, this combination has never been tried) -Original Message- From: Ed Crowley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, March 07, 2003 11:39 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: E2K Clustering advice Building the non-clustered front-end as the first server in the site would mean that your Site Replication Server would reside in the DMZ. That's even worse than a front-end server in a DMZ; I agree with your opinion on that. Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP Freelance E-Mail Philosopher Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups!T -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jeffrey Dubyn Sent: Friday, March 07, 2003 8:15 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: E2K Clustering advice For those that have done this, I'm looking for some advice on clustering E2K. I have a customer with an existing Exchange 5.5 site (1 server) who wants to setup 1 Exchange 2K Front-End server in the DMZ and then have a single Exchange 2K cluster on the inside. I'm trying to talk them out of OWA altogether and to use Nfuse instead, but the customer seems to have predetermined this is what they need. As for the clustering, I don't see how it's really going to benefit them - only if the motherboard or memory fails, or for scheduled maintenance on one of the nodes. The rest of the server is fault tolerant (power supply, NIC, disks) Anyway, as per http://support.microsoft.com/?id=316886 , an Exchange 2000 cluster cannot be the first Exchange 2000 server in a site. I'm trying to figure out if the nonclustered Front End server work as the first server in the site? It seems that this can be done, but that the system folders have to be rehomed elsewhere. Can these be rehomed on the cluster? If so, how? Does anyone have any experience with this? Thanks! _ 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 advice
Talk them into using a proxy server to publish their front-end server to the Internet. Benefits: 1. You can make the non-clustered FE server the first server in site without, as Ed points out, having SRS in the DMZ. 2. Much easier to secure a dedicated proxy in a DMZ (one port in, one out) 3. For a few extra bucks, the proxy can do the SSL stuff, offloading some cycles from the FE server. Some possibilities: 1. Network Appliance netcache. 2. MS ISA server. 3. Apache web server in proxy mode. (To my knowledge, this combination has never been tried) -Original Message- From: Ed Crowley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, March 07, 2003 11:39 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: E2K Clustering advice Building the non-clustered front-end as the first server in the site would mean that your Site Replication Server would reside in the DMZ. That's even worse than a front-end server in a DMZ; I agree with your opinion on that. Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP Freelance E-Mail Philosopher Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups!T -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jeffrey Dubyn Sent: Friday, March 07, 2003 8:15 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: E2K Clustering advice For those that have done this, I'm looking for some advice on clustering E2K. I have a customer with an existing Exchange 5.5 site (1 server) who wants to setup 1 Exchange 2K Front-End server in the DMZ and then have a single Exchange 2K cluster on the inside. I'm trying to talk them out of OWA altogether and to use Nfuse instead, but the customer seems to have predetermined this is what they need. As for the clustering, I don't see how it's really going to benefit them - only if the motherboard or memory fails, or for scheduled maintenance on one of the nodes. The rest of the server is fault tolerant (power supply, NIC, disks) Anyway, as per http://support.microsoft.com/?id=316886 , an Exchange 2000 cluster cannot be the first Exchange 2000 server in a site. I'm trying to figure out if the nonclustered Front End server work as the first server in the site? It seems that this can be done, but that the system folders have to be rehomed elsewhere. Can these be rehomed on the cluster? If so, how? Does anyone have any experience with this? Thanks! _ 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 advice
Option 4 - Squid proxy running on your choice of freeware OS (I'd recommend OpenBSD). It can also function as the SSL accelerator. We're doing it here for OWA for Ex 5.5, but no reason it wouldn't work for E2k. -- Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis Inc. -Original Message- From: Ken Cornetet [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, March 10, 2003 9:28 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: E2K Clustering advice Talk them into using a proxy server to publish their front-end server to the Internet. Benefits: 1. You can make the non-clustered FE server the first server in site without, as Ed points out, having SRS in the DMZ. 2. Much easier to secure a dedicated proxy in a DMZ (one port in, one out) 3. For a few extra bucks, the proxy can do the SSL stuff, offloading some cycles from the FE server. Some possibilities: 1. Network Appliance netcache. 2. MS ISA server. 3. Apache web server in proxy mode. (To my knowledge, this combination has never been tried) -Original Message- From: Ed Crowley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, March 07, 2003 11:39 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: E2K Clustering advice Building the non-clustered front-end as the first server in the site would mean that your Site Replication Server would reside in the DMZ. That's even worse than a front-end server in a DMZ; I agree with your opinion on that. Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP Freelance E-Mail Philosopher Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups!T -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jeffrey Dubyn Sent: Friday, March 07, 2003 8:15 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: E2K Clustering advice For those that have done this, I'm looking for some advice on clustering E2K. I have a customer with an existing Exchange 5.5 site (1 server) who wants to setup 1 Exchange 2K Front-End server in the DMZ and then have a single Exchange 2K cluster on the inside. I'm trying to talk them out of OWA altogether and to use Nfuse instead, but the customer seems to have predetermined this is what they need. As for the clustering, I don't see how it's really going to benefit them - only if the motherboard or memory fails, or for scheduled maintenance on one of the nodes. The rest of the server is fault tolerant (power supply, NIC, disks) Anyway, as per http://support.microsoft.com/?id=316886 , an Exchange 2000 cluster cannot be the first Exchange 2000 server in a site. I'm trying to figure out if the nonclustered Front End server work as the first server in the site? It seems that this can be done, but that the system folders have to be rehomed elsewhere. Can these be rehomed on the cluster? If so, how? Does anyone have any experience with this? Thanks! _ 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 advice
Building the non-clustered front-end as the first server in the site would mean that your Site Replication Server would reside in the DMZ. That's even worse than a front-end server in a DMZ; I agree with your opinion on that. Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP Freelance E-Mail Philosopher Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups!T -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jeffrey Dubyn Sent: Friday, March 07, 2003 8:15 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: E2K Clustering advice For those that have done this, I'm looking for some advice on clustering E2K. I have a customer with an existing Exchange 5.5 site (1 server) who wants to setup 1 Exchange 2K Front-End server in the DMZ and then have a single Exchange 2K cluster on the inside. I'm trying to talk them out of OWA altogether and to use Nfuse instead, but the customer seems to have predetermined this is what they need. As for the clustering, I don't see how it's really going to benefit them - only if the motherboard or memory fails, or for scheduled maintenance on one of the nodes. The rest of the server is fault tolerant (power supply, NIC, disks) Anyway, as per http://support.microsoft.com/?id=316886 , an Exchange 2000 cluster cannot be the first Exchange 2000 server in a site. I'm trying to figure out if the nonclustered Front End server work as the first server in the site? It seems that this can be done, but that the system folders have to be rehomed elsewhere. Can these be rehomed on the cluster? If so, how? Does anyone have any experience with this? Thanks! _ 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: E2k Clustering
Damn good hardware. -Original Message- From: Dennis Depp [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2002 9:13 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: 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
RE: E2k Clustering
This subject seems to come up all the time on this list. Listen, for the final time. Active/Active clusters are more problems than what they are worth. Just get yourself a kick ass system and you won't have to worry when you go home on Friday worrying about your systems. You can sleep at night. I don't know about you guys/gals. But I can think of whole hell of a lot of things that I'd rather do than worry about my systems. Like BOOZING!! ___ John Bowles Exchange Administrator Enterprise Support Engineering Celera Genomics [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: Andy David [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2002 9:20 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: E2k Clustering Damn good hardware. -Original Message- From: Dennis Depp [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2002 9:13 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: 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
Re: E2k Clustering
Really good hardware with redundant components. When I worked in a hosting environment, that's what we did after testing all kinds of solutions for availablity. We found we could guarantee a 99.5% SLA with this solution, while other solutions weren't really more than 99.6% -- in other words, for the ROI, great hardware is really the best solution. And the only time we missed the SLA was because of a network outage caused by screwy routing in the data center. The boxes were solid. Missy - Original Message - From: Dennis Depp [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2002 9:13 AM Subject: 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
RE: E2k Clustering
My production server is a high-spec DELL box with plenty of redundancy built in. I have an identical recovery server which when not needed for recovery purposes runs slave DNS, secondary WINS, monitoring for the production server etc. We have a SAN for the directory and store data, with lots of redundancy built-in. In the event of some motherboard failure etc I can copy a disk image of the system drive onto the recovery server so that it is exactly the same as the production server (takes about 5 mins) and then point this at the SAN for data. It's not as fast as a cluster failover but we had so many problems with that it was unreal. Since going back to standalone servers I have had 100% uptime, and sleep easy at night. Dan -Original Message- From: Dennis Depp [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 14 March 2002 14:13 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: 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
RE: E2k Clustering
Yowza. Keep these posts coming. They want to cluster here and I am fighting the good fight with these little snippets! -Original Message- From: Atkinson, Daniel [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2002 9:22 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: E2k Clustering My production server is a high-spec DELL box with plenty of redundancy built in. I have an identical recovery server which when not needed for recovery purposes runs slave DNS, secondary WINS, monitoring for the production server etc. We have a SAN for the directory and store data, with lots of redundancy built-in. In the event of some motherboard failure etc I can copy a disk image of the system drive onto the recovery server so that it is exactly the same as the production server (takes about 5 mins) and then point this at the SAN for data. It's not as fast as a cluster failover but we had so many problems with that it was unreal. Since going back to standalone servers I have had 100% uptime, and sleep easy at night. Dan -Original Message- From: Dennis Depp [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 14 March 2002 14:13 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: 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
RE: E2k Clustering
Good hardware and really good administration practices. -- Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE Sr. Systems Administrator Peregrine Systems Atlanta, GA -Original Message- From: Dennis Depp [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2002 9:13 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: 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
RE: E2k Clustering
Mmmm solid box -Original Message- From: missy koslosky [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2002 6:27 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Re: E2k Clustering Really good hardware with redundant components. When I worked in a hosting environment, that's what we did after testing all kinds of solutions for availablity. We found we could guarantee a 99.5% SLA with this solution, while other solutions weren't really more than 99.6% -- in other words, for the ROI, great hardware is really the best solution. And the only time we missed the SLA was because of a network outage caused by screwy routing in the data center. The boxes were solid. Missy - Original Message - From: Dennis Depp [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2002 9:13 AM Subject: 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
RE: E2k Clustering
Yowza. Keep these posts coming. They want to cluster here and I am fighting the good fight with these little snippets! Well, the arguments are simple... 1. you have to do active/passive clustering, so you'll always have one expensive server doing absolutely nothing. What a waste! 2. All you're protecting from is serious hardware failure, like the motherboard blowing up. How often does that happen? You can build redundancy in pretty much everywhere else on the server without clustering. Anyway, in my experience, Exchange crashes are generally related to the databases and a cluster is no help in that situation because all nodes share the same data. 3. The cluster service seems to do some strange things sometimes. During our adventures into clustering, we had instances of the cluster simply forgetting it's IP address or netbios name, total halt. 4. Failover isn't that great anyway. During tests we found that some of our outlook clients would simply freeze and not pick up the new server immediately - sometimes a reboot would be needed. Some macintosh clients would completely lock up and the retouch guy goes beserk because he's lost his quark doc. 5. Clustering requires win2k advanced server, so it will cost more to license. 6. Having a good recovery server and DR plan means you can run loads of good stuff on the recovery box when not in use for recovery, plus you can use it for restoring mailboxes that your junior admin deleted. I'm sure there's more... dan _ 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
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 _ 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
Most of that opinion is experience based, Ed is a published Author with an exchange Book under his belt, He knows what he is talking about. If you ask any MVP, any one who has worked with exchange they too will all say Active / passive is the better of the 2. Personally I prefer to listen to Mr. Crowley the only good cluster is a single node Meaning there is no good cluster --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 Etts, Russell Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2002 6:38 AM To: Exchange Discussions 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 _ 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] _ 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]
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 _ 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
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 _ 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
RE: E2k Clustering
And what do you plan on gaining from the active active? --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: Wednesday, March 13, 2002 8:01 AM To: Exchange Discussions 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 _ 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
I get to use both of my servers that I purchased. Cause of our budget is so tight and I have get buy. It took me a year to get the following equipment. Don't you think active/active is right for me, since I am below the MS recommendations. Eric Sabo NT Administrator Computing Services Center California University of Pennsylvania -Original Message- From: Kevin Miller [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2002 11:14 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: E2k Clustering And what do you plan on gaining from the active active? --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: Wednesday, March 13, 2002 8:01 AM To: Exchange Discussions 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
RE: E2k Clustering
Let's look at this Both servers must be at less than 40% to use Active/Active Living within those rules, the same implementation on Active/Passive would yield 80%/0% usage. Looks to me like you can get better use out of the two servers by going Active/Passive! And implementing a Single Storage Group with a minimal number of databases is going to reduce the system overhead, increasing the performance yet more. -Original Message- From: Sabo, Eric [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Posted At: Wednesday, March 13, 2002 11:17 AM Posted To: Microsoft Exchange Conversation: E2k Clustering Subject: RE: E2k Clustering I get to use both of my servers that I purchased. Cause of our budget is so tight and I have get buy. It took me a year to get the following equipment. Don't you think active/active is right for me, since I am below the MS recommendations. Eric Sabo NT Administrator Computing Services Center California University of Pennsylvania -Original Message- From: Kevin Miller [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2002 11:14 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: E2k Clustering And what do you plan on gaining from the active active? --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: Wednesday, March 13, 2002 8:01 AM To: Exchange Discussions 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
RE: E2k Clustering
Eric, It's not such much the processor you should be worried about, but the virtual memory. You'll see, the VM will get fragmented, and failover might not happen like it should. As far as, I get to use both boxes You get to use those anyway in an active / passive solution. Don't fall for the well it just sits there doing nothing way of thinking. The way to approach it is telling the decision maker, I can give you this percentage of uptime for this amount of money, do you want that? The answer is either yes or no, and it DOES NOT MATTER, what the technology is behind that that will make this happen, i.e. whether 2 machines are getting a nice workout, or if one machine is primarily there to provide for that high availability when necessary. It's just like paying for insurance :-) -Per -Original Message- From: Sabo, Eric [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Posted At: Wednesday, March 13, 2002 10:17 AM Posted To: Exchange Conversation: E2k Clustering Subject: RE: E2k Clustering I get to use both of my servers that I purchased. Cause of our budget is so tight and I have get buy. It took me a year to get the following equipment. Don't you think active/active is right for me, since I am below the MS recommendations. Eric Sabo NT Administrator Computing Services Center California University of Pennsylvania -Original Message- From: Kevin Miller [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2002 11:14 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: E2k Clustering And what do you plan on gaining from the active active? --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: Wednesday, March 13, 2002 8:01 AM To: Exchange Discussions 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
RE: E2k Clustering
Why does Microsoft say you can even do an active/active cluster in the first place with those parameters as describe in the SP2 Release notes. http://www.bink.nu/exchange_2000.htm Eric Sabo NT Administrator Computing Services Center California University of Pennsylvania -Original Message- From: Exchange [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2002 11:43 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: E2k Clustering Eric, It's not such much the processor you should be worried about, but the virtual memory. You'll see, the VM will get fragmented, and failover might not happen like it should. As far as, I get to use both boxes You get to use those anyway in an active / passive solution. Don't fall for the well it just sits there doing nothing way of thinking. The way to approach it is telling the decision maker, I can give you this percentage of uptime for this amount of money, do you want that? The answer is either yes or no, and it DOES NOT MATTER, what the technology is behind that that will make this happen, i.e. whether 2 machines are getting a nice workout, or if one machine is primarily there to provide for that high availability when necessary. It's just like paying for insurance :-) -Per -Original Message- From: Sabo, Eric [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Posted At: Wednesday, March 13, 2002 10:17 AM Posted To: Exchange Conversation: E2k Clustering Subject: RE: E2k Clustering I get to use both of my servers that I purchased. Cause of our budget is so tight and I have get buy. It took me a year to get the following equipment. Don't you think active/active is right for me, since I am below the MS recommendations. Eric Sabo NT Administrator Computing Services Center California University of Pennsylvania -Original Message- From: Kevin Miller [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2002 11:14 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: E2k Clustering And what do you plan on gaining from the active active? --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: Wednesday, March 13, 2002 8:01 AM To: Exchange Discussions 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
Re: E2k Clustering
Sheesh. It's not a matter of can/can't. It's a matter of should/should not. And really, if you don't like what you're hearing, just do whatever you want. It's not like we're a committee deciding how your environment will be set up. We're just trying to provide the best guidance. Missy - Original Message - From: Sabo, Eric [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2002 11:48 AM Subject: RE: E2k Clustering Why does Microsoft say you can even do an active/active cluster in the first place with those parameters as describe in the SP2 Release notes. http://www.bink.nu/exchange_2000.htm Eric Sabo NT Administrator Computing Services Center California University of Pennsylvania -Original Message- From: Exchange [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2002 11:43 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: E2k Clustering Eric, It's not such much the processor you should be worried about, but the virtual memory. You'll see, the VM will get fragmented, and failover might not happen like it should. As far as, I get to use both boxes You get to use those anyway in an active / passive solution. Don't fall for the well it just sits there doing nothing way of thinking. The way to approach it is telling the decision maker, I can give you this percentage of uptime for this amount of money, do you want that? The answer is either yes or no, and it DOES NOT MATTER, what the technology is behind that that will make this happen, i.e. whether 2 machines are getting a nice workout, or if one machine is primarily there to provide for that high availability when necessary. It's just like paying for insurance :-) -Per -Original Message- From: Sabo, Eric [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Posted At: Wednesday, March 13, 2002 10:17 AM Posted To: Exchange Conversation: E2k Clustering Subject: RE: E2k Clustering I get to use both of my servers that I purchased. Cause of our budget is so tight and I have get buy. It took me a year to get the following equipment. Don't you think active/active is right for me, since I am below the MS recommendations. Eric Sabo NT Administrator Computing Services Center California University of Pennsylvania -Original Message- From: Kevin Miller [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2002 11:14 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: E2k Clustering And what do you plan on gaining from the active active? --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: Wednesday, March 13, 2002 8:01 AM To: Exchange Discussions 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
RE: E2k Clustering
They screwed up, Eric. I was at a client, designing a 20k+ deployment, right at time of RTM. As we got further into it, this little VM problem surfaced, and MS (with the tail between their legs) admitted that A/A was not the way to go. The problem is they hyped A/A so much on release, and of course never hyped the bad part once problems arose. On top of that: what Missy said. -Per -Original Message- From: missy koslosky [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Posted At: Wednesday, March 13, 2002 10:51 AM Posted To: Exchange Conversation: E2k Clustering Subject: Re: E2k Clustering Sheesh. It's not a matter of can/can't. It's a matter of should/should not. And really, if you don't like what you're hearing, just do whatever you want. It's not like we're a committee deciding how your environment will be set up. We're just trying to provide the best guidance. Missy - Original Message - From: Sabo, Eric [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2002 11:48 AM Subject: RE: E2k Clustering Why does Microsoft say you can even do an active/active cluster in the first place with those parameters as describe in the SP2 Release notes. http://www.bink.nu/exchange_2000.htm Eric Sabo NT Administrator Computing Services Center California University of Pennsylvania -Original Message- From: Exchange [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2002 11:43 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: E2k Clustering Eric, It's not such much the processor you should be worried about, but the virtual memory. You'll see, the VM will get fragmented, and failover might not happen like it should. As far as, I get to use both boxes You get to use those anyway in an active / passive solution. Don't fall for the well it just sits there doing nothing way of thinking. The way to approach it is telling the decision maker, I can give you this percentage of uptime for this amount of money, do you want that? The answer is either yes or no, and it DOES NOT MATTER, what the technology is behind that that will make this happen, i.e. whether 2 machines are getting a nice workout, or if one machine is primarily there to provide for that high availability when necessary. It's just like paying for insurance :-) -Per -Original Message- From: Sabo, Eric [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Posted At: Wednesday, March 13, 2002 10:17 AM Posted To: Exchange Conversation: E2k Clustering Subject: RE: E2k Clustering I get to use both of my servers that I purchased. Cause of our budget is so tight and I have get buy. It took me a year to get the following equipment. Don't you think active/active is right for me, since I am below the MS recommendations. Eric Sabo NT Administrator Computing Services Center California University of Pennsylvania -Original Message- From: Kevin Miller [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2002 11:14 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: E2k Clustering And what do you plan on gaining from the active active? --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: Wednesday, March 13, 2002 8:01 AM To: Exchange Discussions 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
RE: E2k Clustering
Hi there Let me start by saying two things: 1) I didn't mean to start a heated discussion on this. If I offended anyone, I apologize. I'm trying to use this as a learning experience. I have found in the past that even Microsoft makes mistakes. 2) As for active/active - the only reason that it seems more attractive is that I can add more users. So far, failing over has not been an issue, it's worked fine - but I know I am still not pushing it. Thanks for being patient Ed and all... Thanks Russell -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 _ 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
RE: E2k Clustering
You CANNOT add more users in Active/Active. That is a simple fact. Active/Active has a limit of about 3900 users. Active/Passive has no such limit. It is limited only by the hardware. There are quite a few 6,000 user Active/Passive clusters. This could not be done reliably on an Active/Active cluster. -Original Message- From: Etts, Russell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Posted At: Wednesday, March 13, 2002 12:15 PM Posted To: Microsoft Exchange Conversation: E2k Clustering Subject: RE: E2k Clustering Hi there Let me start by saying two things: 1) I didn't mean to start a heated discussion on this. If I offended anyone, I apologize. I'm trying to use this as a learning experience. I have found in the past that even Microsoft makes mistakes. 2) As for active/active - the only reason that it seems more attractive is that I can add more users. So far, failing over has not been an issue, it's worked fine - but I know I am still not pushing it. Thanks for being patient Ed and all... Thanks Russell -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 _ 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
Because Active/Active was advertised as a feature ion Exchange 2000. And while it WILL do it, testing and experience have shown that limitations that were not contemplated during the design phase suggest that it should not be done. In reality, for Active/Active clustering, you would want each side running at 60-70% capacity and then failover into a reduced functioning solution during a failure. But MS's limit of 40% pretty well mean that you are only going to get 40% system capacity in Active/Active and 50% in Active/Passive. The biggest thing is that the quad box that you are looking at using is capable of significantly more than 3800 concurrent users, probably double that. So if you are indeed cost conscious, then remove two of the processors in each box. Oh and don't respond with the we want to build expandability in stuff, you know where the design max is and your hardware is already above it. -Original Message- From: Sabo, Eric [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Posted At: Wednesday, March 13, 2002 11:48 AM Posted To: Microsoft Exchange Conversation: E2k Clustering Subject: RE: E2k Clustering Why does Microsoft say you can even do an active/active cluster in the first place with those parameters as describe in the SP2 Release notes. http://www.bink.nu/exchange_2000.htm Eric Sabo NT Administrator Computing Services Center California University of Pennsylvania -Original Message- From: Exchange [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2002 11:43 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: E2k Clustering Eric, It's not such much the processor you should be worried about, but the virtual memory. You'll see, the VM will get fragmented, and failover might not happen like it should. As far as, I get to use both boxes You get to use those anyway in an active / passive solution. Don't fall for the well it just sits there doing nothing way of thinking. The way to approach it is telling the decision maker, I can give you this percentage of uptime for this amount of money, do you want that? The answer is either yes or no, and it DOES NOT MATTER, what the technology is behind that that will make this happen, i.e. whether 2 machines are getting a nice workout, or if one machine is primarily there to provide for that high availability when necessary. It's just like paying for insurance :-) -Per -Original Message- From: Sabo, Eric [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Posted At: Wednesday, March 13, 2002 10:17 AM Posted To: Exchange Conversation: E2k Clustering Subject: RE: E2k Clustering I get to use both of my servers that I purchased. Cause of our budget is so tight and I have get buy. It took me a year to get the following equipment. Don't you think active/active is right for me, since I am below the MS recommendations. Eric Sabo NT Administrator Computing Services Center California University of Pennsylvania -Original Message- From: Kevin Miller [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2002 11:14 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: E2k Clustering And what do you plan on gaining from the active active? --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: Wednesday, March 13, 2002 8:01 AM To: Exchange Discussions 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
RE: E2k Clustering
Hi Ed Then I have totally misunderstood what I was reading. I assumed that the limit was on active/passive as well. I am wrong. I wish that MS would have been clearer on the fragmented memory issue. That would have made my life easier - especially down the road. I am just now starting to have nightmares. Anyone have any ideas on how to keep tabs on this, especially as the server gets used more?? If you could point me in the direction of some documents, so this way you are not spoon feeding me. For the record, I do not like my cluster - it has made my life miserable, especially when using the FE/BE configuration. Unfortunately, this is what I have been given. When you have lemons, make lemon-aid. Again, thanks for taking the time to go over this with me. Russell -Original Message- From: Woodrick, Ed [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2002 12:20 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: E2k Clustering You CANNOT add more users in Active/Active. That is a simple fact. Active/Active has a limit of about 3900 users. Active/Passive has no such limit. It is limited only by the hardware. There are quite a few 6,000 user Active/Passive clusters. This could not be done reliably on an Active/Active cluster. -Original Message- From: Etts, Russell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Posted At: Wednesday, March 13, 2002 12:15 PM Posted To: Microsoft Exchange Conversation: E2k Clustering Subject: RE: E2k Clustering Hi there Let me start by saying two things: 1) I didn't mean to start a heated discussion on this. If I offended anyone, I apologize. I'm trying to use this as a learning experience. I have found in the past that even Microsoft makes mistakes. 2) As for active/active - the only reason that it seems more attractive is that I can add more users. So far, failing over has not been an issue, it's worked fine - but I know I am still not pushing it. Thanks for being patient Ed and all... Thanks Russell -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
RE: E2k Clustering
I agree, they will run great. Until one node fails and all users end up on one node. That's when you're going to have issues. You're missing the point that 6000 users FAR exceeds the 1900 per node specification. In a nutshell, that spec exists because the server side MAPI subsystem tends to allow memory fragmentation as the number of user sessions increases. Experimental data (done by a number of Compaq employees, IIRC) showed that 2000 users per node tends to cause excessive memory fragmentation. When the second node fails over, causing all clients to connect to one node, that single node does not have enough contiguous blocks of memory to allocate to all requesting users, and poof - no fail over. Then again, its your job, not ours. We're just telling you the reality of the cluster situation in Exchange today. Roger -- Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE Sr. Systems Administrator Peregrine Systems Atlanta, GA -Original Message- From: Sabo, Eric [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2002 11:01 AM To: Exchange Discussions 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
RE: E2k Clustering
Because you can make a BA-Cluster[1] for strictly IMAP/POP/OWA clients (ie those that can connect via a FE/BE architecture). Of course, they really recommend that if you do make a BA-Cluster for those clients, you move the client load to front end servers -- Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE Sr. Systems Administrator Peregrine Systems Atlanta, GA [1] Big Arse -Original Message- From: Sabo, Eric [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2002 11:48 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: E2k Clustering Why does Microsoft say you can even do an active/active cluster in the first place with those parameters as describe in the SP2 Release notes. http://www.bink.nu/exchange_2000.htm Eric Sabo NT Administrator Computing Services Center California University of Pennsylvania -Original Message- From: Exchange [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2002 11:43 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: E2k Clustering Eric, It's not such much the processor you should be worried about, but the virtual memory. You'll see, the VM will get fragmented, and failover might not happen like it should. As far as, I get to use both boxes You get to use those anyway in an active / passive solution. Don't fall for the well it just sits there doing nothing way of thinking. The way to approach it is telling the decision maker, I can give you this percentage of uptime for this amount of money, do you want that? The answer is either yes or no, and it DOES NOT MATTER, what the technology is behind that that will make this happen, i.e. whether 2 machines are getting a nice workout, or if one machine is primarily there to provide for that high availability when necessary. It's just like paying for insurance :-) -Per -Original Message- From: Sabo, Eric [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Posted At: Wednesday, March 13, 2002 10:17 AM Posted To: Exchange Conversation: E2k Clustering Subject: RE: E2k Clustering I get to use both of my servers that I purchased. Cause of our budget is so tight and I have get buy. It took me a year to get the following equipment. Don't you think active/active is right for me, since I am below the MS recommendations. Eric Sabo NT Administrator Computing Services Center California University of Pennsylvania -Original Message- From: Kevin Miller [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2002 11:14 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: E2k Clustering And what do you plan on gaining from the active active? --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: Wednesday, March 13, 2002 8:01 AM To: Exchange Discussions 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
RE: E2k Clustering
The other issues are what are you gaining by clustering at all? The only things that you are covering with clustering are: 1) Hardware failure on the servers (not on the shared disk) 2) Shorter software upgrade or hotfix time (how often does this happen) By adding clustering into the mix you are adding to the complexity of your Exchange environment a hundred fold. Doing this gives you more points that CAN fail. Typically what are the reasons a server goes down? 1) Application Error (Hung SMTP message or the like) - Cluster doesn't help 2) Hardware error (local memory error or disk failure) - Cluster can help but typically your disk is redundant locally anyway 3) Service packs/Hotfixes - Clusters help they can save ~10 minutes of scheduled downtime We have several Exchange A/P clusters in production. They work very well however if you do a cost analysis of how much they cost and how much they ACTUALLY save in downtime it doesn't add up to a savings. In the real world it typically doesn't make sense monetarily to have an exchange cluster. It also is very important that you have people on staff that knows how to work with and manage clusters as it is not something you want to be touched by just anyone. Joel -Original Message- From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2002 12:01 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: E2k Clustering Because you can make a BA-Cluster[1] for strictly IMAP/POP/OWA clients (ie those that can connect via a FE/BE architecture). Of course, they really recommend that if you do make a BA-Cluster for those clients, you move the client load to front end servers -- Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE Sr. Systems Administrator Peregrine Systems Atlanta, GA [1] Big Arse -Original Message- From: Sabo, Eric [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2002 11:48 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: E2k Clustering Why does Microsoft say you can even do an active/active cluster in the first place with those parameters as describe in the SP2 Release notes. http://www.bink.nu/exchange_2000.htm Eric Sabo NT Administrator Computing Services Center California University of Pennsylvania -Original Message- From: Exchange [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2002 11:43 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: E2k Clustering Eric, It's not such much the processor you should be worried about, but the virtual memory. You'll see, the VM will get fragmented, and failover might not happen like it should. As far as, I get to use both boxes You get to use those anyway in an active / passive solution. Don't fall for the well it just sits there doing nothing way of thinking. The way to approach it is telling the decision maker, I can give you this percentage of uptime for this amount of money, do you want that? The answer is either yes or no, and it DOES NOT MATTER, what the technology is behind that that will make this happen, i.e. whether 2 machines are getting a nice workout, or if one machine is primarily there to provide for that high availability when necessary. It's just like paying for insurance :-) -Per -Original Message- From: Sabo, Eric [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Posted At: Wednesday, March 13, 2002 10:17 AM Posted To: Exchange Conversation: E2k Clustering Subject: RE: E2k Clustering I get to use both of my servers that I purchased. Cause of our budget is so tight and I have get buy. It took me a year to get the following equipment. Don't you think active/active is right for me, since I am below the MS recommendations. Eric Sabo NT Administrator Computing Services Center California University of Pennsylvania -Original Message- From: Kevin Miller [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2002 11:14 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: E2k Clustering And what do you plan on gaining from the active active? --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: Wednesday, March 13, 2002 8:01 AM To: Exchange Discussions 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
RE: E2k Clustering Active/Active
Don't do Active/Active, do Active/Passive and everybody's happy. If Active/Passive slows down user response too much, then Active/Active is pretty well guaranteed to fail. Read SP2 Release Notes -Original Message- From: Andrew [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Posted At: Tuesday, March 12, 2002 8:34 AM Posted To: Microsoft Exchange Conversation: E2k Clustering Active/Active Subject: E2k Clustering Active/Active We are evaluating an Exchange 2000 Active/Active cluster, but I remember a 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. Searching the archives now... Thanks, Andrew _ 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 Active/Active
Thanks, sorry for all the repeats. Andrew -Original Message- From: Woodrick, Ed [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2002 4:04 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: E2k Clustering Active/Active Don't do Active/Active, do Active/Passive and everybody's happy. If Active/Passive slows down user response too much, then Active/Active is pretty well guaranteed to fail. Read SP2 Release Notes -Original Message- From: Andrew [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Posted At: Tuesday, March 12, 2002 8:34 AM Posted To: Microsoft Exchange Conversation: E2k Clustering Active/Active Subject: E2k Clustering Active/Active We are evaluating an Exchange 2000 Active/Active cluster, but I remember a 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. Searching the archives now... Thanks, Andrew _ 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
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 _ 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
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 _ 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]
