Re: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering
What do you mean each will have 800 users? - Original Message - From: "Imran Iqbal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2002 4:35 AM Subject: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering > We are currently an Exchange 5.5 site, as part of our move to Exchange > 2000 I am considering setting up Exchange on a 2 node Active Active > cluster and would be interested in hearing anyone views or real world > experiences with similar setups. Each server would have about 800 active > users and would probably be connected to a SAN for the shared storage. > > I have heard that there were memory issues with this setup pre SP3. I > would like to know if there are any other problems and if it is worth > doing > > Thanks in advance > > > Imran > > _ > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering
I think at this stage of its development clustering provides very poor business value. It really protects you from very few failure scenarios. Instead, I'd make sure I had the most highly internally redundant system I could afford, buy a capable recovery and hot standby server, and practice my disaster recovery skills. Ed Crowley MCSE+I MVP Technical Consultant hp Services "There are seldom good technological solutions to behavioral problems." -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Imran Iqbal Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2002 2:36 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering We are currently an Exchange 5.5 site, as part of our move to Exchange 2000 I am considering setting up Exchange on a 2 node Active Active cluster and would be interested in hearing anyone views or real world experiences with similar setups. Each server would have about 800 active users and would probably be connected to a SAN for the shared storage. I have heard that there were memory issues with this setup pre SP3. I would like to know if there are any other problems and if it is worth doing Thanks in advance Imran _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering
I have not done any clustering nor have much XCH 2000 experience but if it is worth anything I am at MEC right now and so far 3 speakers over 3 days on HA have said to stick with active/passive and avoid active/active. Chris - Original Message - From: "Imran Iqbal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2002 2:35 AM Subject: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering > We are currently an Exchange 5.5 site, as part of our move to Exchange > 2000 I am considering setting up Exchange on a 2 node Active Active > cluster and would be interested in hearing anyone views or real world > experiences with similar setups. Each server would have about 800 active > users and would probably be connected to a SAN for the shared storage. > > I have heard that there were memory issues with this setup pre SP3. I > would like to know if there are any other problems and if it is worth > doing > > Thanks in advance > > > Imran > > _ > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering
I've looked into Exchange Active/Passive clustering for our Exchange 2000 servers. The largest Exchange problem that causes downtime is corruption in the database. I agree with Ed that clustering cannot help in this senario. However, even with high quality hardware, you still have to deal with the 58 security patches and one Windows 2000 service pack that have been issued this year. Granted not all the 58 security patches are Windows 2000 related, but a large number of them are. An active/passive cluster gives me the capability of installing hotfixes and service packs without impacting my Exchange server even for a reboot. Also I can install the hotfixes during the day on the passive node and then failover that evening. If there is a problem, I can fail back to the unpatched node. The reduction in reboots and late hours makes an Active/passive cluster very appealing. However, clusters do add a level of complexity. Unless you understand clusters and how they operate, this added complexity can decrease uptime instead of increase it. Denny -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Ed Crowley Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2002 5:11 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering I think at this stage of its development clustering provides very poor business value. It really protects you from very few failure scenarios. Instead, I'd make sure I had the most highly internally redundant system I could afford, buy a capable recovery and hot standby server, and practice my disaster recovery skills. Ed Crowley MCSE+I MVP Technical Consultant hp Services "There are seldom good technological solutions to behavioral problems." -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Imran Iqbal Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2002 2:36 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering We are currently an Exchange 5.5 site, as part of our move to Exchange 2000 I am considering setting up Exchange on a 2 node Active Active cluster and would be interested in hearing anyone views or real world experiences with similar setups. Each server would have about 800 active users and would probably be connected to a SAN for the shared storage. I have heard that there were memory issues with this setup pre SP3. I would like to know if there are any other problems and if it is worth doing Thanks in advance Imran _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering
No, according to the theory you can get more users on Active/Active because both cluster nodes are being used to do something useful. But if one fails, the other node better be able to take on the load. -Original Message- From: Dennis Depp [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, October 11, 2002 2:50 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering Stay away from active/active. Go Active/passive instead. You can get more users on Active/Passive. Denny -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Imran Iqbal Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2002 5:36 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering We are currently an Exchange 5.5 site, as part of our move to Exchange 2000 I am considering setting up Exchange on a 2 node Active Active cluster and would be interested in hearing anyone views or real world experiences with similar setups. Each server would have about 800 active users and would probably be connected to a SAN for the shared storage. I have heard that there were memory issues with this setup pre SP3. I would like to know if there are any other problems and if it is worth doing Thanks in advance Imran _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering
What happens if you apply a new service pack for Exchange to the passive node and then failover? I mean in some cases the information store files do not work if they don't recongnize the service pack level. (for example if you restore the information store onto an alternate server and the alternate server is not the same version as the original, the information store would not mount) -Original Message- From: Dennis Depp [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, October 11, 2002 3:15 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering I've looked into Exchange Active/Passive clustering for our Exchange 2000 servers. The largest Exchange problem that causes downtime is corruption in the database. I agree with Ed that clustering cannot help in this senario. However, even with high quality hardware, you still have to deal with the 58 security patches and one Windows 2000 service pack that have been issued this year. Granted not all the 58 security patches are Windows 2000 related, but a large number of them are. An active/passive cluster gives me the capability of installing hotfixes and service packs without impacting my Exchange server even for a reboot. Also I can install the hotfixes during the day on the passive node and then failover that evening. If there is a problem, I can fail back to the unpatched node. The reduction in reboots and late hours makes an Active/passive cluster very appealing. However, clusters do add a level of complexity. Unless you understand clusters and how they operate, this added complexity can decrease uptime instead of increase it. Denny -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Ed Crowley Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2002 5:11 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering I think at this stage of its development clustering provides very poor business value. It really protects you from very few failure scenarios. Instead, I'd make sure I had the most highly internally redundant system I could afford, buy a capable recovery and hot standby server, and practice my disaster recovery skills. Ed Crowley MCSE+I MVP Technical Consultant hp Services "There are seldom good technological solutions to behavioral problems." -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Imran Iqbal Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2002 2:36 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering We are currently an Exchange 5.5 site, as part of our move to Exchange 2000 I am considering setting up Exchange on a 2 node Active Active cluster and would be interested in hearing anyone views or real world experiences with similar setups. Each server would have about 800 active users and would probably be connected to a SAN for the shared storage. I have heard that there were memory issues with this setup pre SP3. I would like to know if there are any other problems and if it is worth doing Thanks in advance Imran _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering
You'd be wrong there. You can get the same amount of users on active/active or active/passive, although realistically, active/passive allows for more users. In either case, if you're clustering identical hardware, you can either put all your users on one box (a/p) or half on each (a/a). In either case, both servers need to be able to handle the same number of users. The memory fragmentation issues would lead me to believe that A/P would be more likely to support a higher number of users than A/A, on identical hardware. Roger -- Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity Atlanta, GA > -Original Message- > From: Andrey Fyodorov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 10:32 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering > > > No, according to the theory you can get more users on > Active/Active because both cluster nodes are being used to do > something useful. But if one fails, the other node better be > able to take on the load. > > > > > > -Original Message- > From: Dennis Depp [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Friday, October 11, 2002 2:50 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering > > > Stay away from active/active. Go Active/passive instead. You can get > more users on Active/Passive. > > Denny > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Imran Iqbal > Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2002 5:36 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering > > > We are currently an Exchange 5.5 site, as part of our move to Exchange > 2000 I am considering setting up Exchange on a 2 node Active Active > cluster and would be interested in hearing anyone views or real world > experiences with similar setups. Each server would have about 800 > active users and would probably be connected to a SAN for the shared > storage. > > I have heard that there were memory issues with this setup pre SP3. I > would like to know if there are any other problems and if it is worth > doing > > Thanks in advance > > > Imran > > _ > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > _ > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > _ > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering
You run eseutil on the patched node to update the stores to the new version. Then again, you'd have tried this in the test lab first, so you'd know not to do that in production. -- Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity Atlanta, GA > -Original Message- > From: Andrey Fyodorov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 10:35 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering > > > What happens if you apply a new service pack for Exchange to > the passive node and then failover? > I mean in some cases the information store files do not work > if they don't recongnize the service pack level. (for example > if you restore the information store onto an alternate server > and the alternate server is not the same version as the > original, the information store would not mount) > > -Original Message- > From: Dennis Depp [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Friday, October 11, 2002 3:15 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering > > > I've looked into Exchange Active/Passive clustering for our Exchange > 2000 servers. The largest Exchange problem that causes downtime is > corruption in the database. I agree with Ed that clustering > cannot help > in this senario. However, even with high quality hardware, you still > have to deal with the 58 security patches and one Windows 2000 service > pack that have been issued this year. Granted not all the 58 security > patches are Windows 2000 related, but a large number of them are. An > active/passive cluster gives me the capability of installing hotfixes > and service packs without impacting my Exchange server even for a > reboot. Also I can install the hotfixes during the day on the passive > node and then failover that evening. If there is a problem, > I can fail > back to the unpatched node. The reduction in reboots and late hours > makes an Active/passive cluster very appealing. However, clusters do > add a level of complexity. Unless you understand clusters > and how they > operate, this added complexity can decrease uptime instead of increase > it. > > Denny > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Ed Crowley > Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2002 5:11 PM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering > > > I think at this stage of its development clustering provides very poor > business value. It really protects you from very few failure > scenarios. > Instead, I'd make sure I had the most highly internally > redundant system > I could afford, buy a capable recovery and hot standby server, and > practice my disaster recovery skills. > > Ed Crowley MCSE+I MVP > Technical Consultant > hp Services > "There are seldom good technological solutions to behavioral > problems." > > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Imran Iqbal > Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2002 2:36 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering > > > We are currently an Exchange 5.5 site, as part of our move to Exchange > 2000 I am considering setting up Exchange on a 2 node Active Active > cluster and would be interested in hearing anyone views or real world > experiences with similar setups. Each server would have about 800 > active users and would probably be connected to a SAN for the shared > storage. > > I have heard that there were memory issues with this setup pre SP3. I > would like to know if there are any other problems and if it is worth > doing > > Thanks in advance > > > Imran > > _ > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > _ > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > _ > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/searc
RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering
I did just that. >From personal experience I prefer to reboot the machine after stopping the service >(as opposed to simply restarting the services). Sometimes the Information Store >service takes hours to stop. And if a full backup is running at the same time >(because it got delayed for whatever reason), IS will never stop. There was a period of time when I had to restart the back-end Exchange server every night after applying SP2. Otherwise OWA refused to work correctly the following day. But then I discovered that doing ipconfig /flushdns once in a while solved that problem. -Original Message- From: Great Cthulhu Jones [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Saturday, October 12, 2002 9:02 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering Heck, just write a batch file that stops all services and bounces the box Sunday at 2AM and you don't even have to call it in to an operator. Five nines, indeed. The box only really needs to be up when people are using it. (:= -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Ed Crowley Sent: Friday, October 11, 2002 9:00 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering It's a pretty steep price to pay to avoid an occasional Sunday morning reboot. Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP kcCC+I Tech Consultant hp Services Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups! -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Dennis Depp Sent: Friday, October 11, 2002 12:15 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering I've looked into Exchange Active/Passive clustering for our Exchange 2000 servers. The largest Exchange problem that causes downtime is corruption in the database. I agree with Ed that clustering cannot help in this senario. However, even with high quality hardware, you still have to deal with the 58 security patches and one Windows 2000 service pack that have been issued this year. Granted not all the 58 security patches are Windows 2000 related, but a large number of them are. An active/passive cluster gives me the capability of installing hotfixes and service packs without impacting my Exchange server even for a reboot. Also I can install the hotfixes during the day on the passive node and then failover that evening. If there is a problem, I can fail back to the unpatched node. The reduction in reboots and late hours makes an Active/passive cluster very appealing. However, clusters do add a level of complexity. Unless you understand clusters and how they operate, this added complexity can decrease uptime instead of increase it. Denny -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Ed Crowley Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2002 5:11 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering I think at this stage of its development clustering provides very poor business value. It really protects you from very few failure scenarios. Instead, I'd make sure I had the most highly internally redundant system I could afford, buy a capable recovery and hot standby server, and practice my disaster recovery skills. Ed Crowley MCSE+I MVP Technical Consultant hp Services "There are seldom good technological solutions to behavioral problems." -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Imran Iqbal Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2002 2:36 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering We are currently an Exchange 5.5 site, as part of our move to Exchange 2000 I am considering setting up Exchange on a 2 node Active Active cluster and would be interested in hearing anyone views or real world experiences with similar setups. Each server would have about 800 active users and would probably be connected to a SAN for the shared storage. I have heard that there were memory issues with this setup pre SP3. I would like to know if there are any other problems and if it is worth doing Thanks in advance Imran _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search
RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering
ESEUTIL /R ? -Original Message- From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 10:38 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering You run eseutil on the patched node to update the stores to the new version. Then again, you'd have tried this in the test lab first, so you'd know not to do that in production. -- Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity Atlanta, GA > -Original Message- > From: Andrey Fyodorov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 10:35 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering > > > What happens if you apply a new service pack for Exchange to > the passive node and then failover? > I mean in some cases the information store files do not work > if they don't recongnize the service pack level. (for example > if you restore the information store onto an alternate server > and the alternate server is not the same version as the > original, the information store would not mount) > > -Original Message- > From: Dennis Depp [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Friday, October 11, 2002 3:15 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering > > > I've looked into Exchange Active/Passive clustering for our Exchange > 2000 servers. The largest Exchange problem that causes downtime is > corruption in the database. I agree with Ed that clustering > cannot help > in this senario. However, even with high quality hardware, you still > have to deal with the 58 security patches and one Windows 2000 service > pack that have been issued this year. Granted not all the 58 security > patches are Windows 2000 related, but a large number of them are. An > active/passive cluster gives me the capability of installing hotfixes > and service packs without impacting my Exchange server even for a > reboot. Also I can install the hotfixes during the day on the passive > node and then failover that evening. If there is a problem, > I can fail > back to the unpatched node. The reduction in reboots and late hours > makes an Active/passive cluster very appealing. However, clusters do > add a level of complexity. Unless you understand clusters > and how they > operate, this added complexity can decrease uptime instead of increase > it. > > Denny > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Ed Crowley > Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2002 5:11 PM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering > > > I think at this stage of its development clustering provides very poor > business value. It really protects you from very few failure > scenarios. > Instead, I'd make sure I had the most highly internally > redundant system > I could afford, buy a capable recovery and hot standby server, and > practice my disaster recovery skills. > > Ed Crowley MCSE+I MVP > Technical Consultant > hp Services > "There are seldom good technological solutions to behavioral > problems." > > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Imran Iqbal > Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2002 2:36 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering > > > We are currently an Exchange 5.5 site, as part of our move to Exchange > 2000 I am considering setting up Exchange on a 2 node Active Active > cluster and would be interested in hearing anyone views or real world > experiences with similar setups. Each server would have about 800 > active users and would probably be connected to a SAN for the shared > storage. > > I have heard that there were memory issues with this setup pre SP3. I > would like to know if there are any other problems and if it is worth > doing > > Thanks in advance > > > Imran > > _ > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > _ > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Exc
RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering
One article I read said that in an A/A situation such that you plan as if you will be running A/P and then split them up between the two nodes assigned to the A/A cluster. Makes sense to me. Nate Couch EDS Messaging > -- > From: Roger Seielstad > Reply To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 09:36 > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering > > You'd be wrong there. > > You can get the same amount of users on active/active or active/passive, > although realistically, active/passive allows for more users. > > In either case, if you're clustering identical hardware, you can either > put > all your users on one box (a/p) or half on each (a/a). In either case, > both > servers need to be able to handle the same number of users. > > The memory fragmentation issues would lead me to believe that A/P would be > more likely to support a higher number of users than A/A, on identical > hardware. > > Roger > -- > Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE > Sr. Systems Administrator > Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity > Atlanta, GA > > > > -Original Message- > > From: Andrey Fyodorov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 10:32 AM > > To: Exchange Discussions > > Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering > > > > > > No, according to the theory you can get more users on > > Active/Active because both cluster nodes are being used to do > > something useful. But if one fails, the other node better be > > able to take on the load. > > > > > > > > > > > > -Original Message- > > From: Dennis Depp [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Friday, October 11, 2002 2:50 AM > > To: Exchange Discussions > > Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering > > > > > > Stay away from active/active. Go Active/passive instead. You can get > > more users on Active/Passive. > > > > Denny > > > > -Original Message- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Imran Iqbal > > Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2002 5:36 AM > > To: Exchange Discussions > > Subject: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering > > > > > > We are currently an Exchange 5.5 site, as part of our move to Exchange > > 2000 I am considering setting up Exchange on a 2 node Active Active > > cluster and would be interested in hearing anyone views or real world > > experiences with similar setups. Each server would have about 800 > > active users and would probably be connected to a SAN for the shared > > storage. > > > > I have heard that there were memory issues with this setup pre SP3. I > > would like to know if there are any other problems and if it is worth > > doing > > > > Thanks in advance > > > > > > Imran > > > > _ > > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > _ > > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > _ > > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > _ > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering
I love theories. > -Original Message- > From: Andrey Fyodorov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 9:32 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering > > > No, according to the theory you can get more users on > Active/Active because both cluster nodes are being used to do > something useful. But if one fails, the other node better be > able to take on the load. > > > > > > -Original Message- > From: Dennis Depp [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Friday, October 11, 2002 2:50 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering > > > Stay away from active/active. Go Active/passive instead. > You can get more users on Active/Passive. > > Denny > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Imran Iqbal > Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2002 5:36 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering > > > We are currently an Exchange 5.5 site, as part of our move to > Exchange 2000 I am considering setting up Exchange on a 2 > node Active Active cluster and would be interested in hearing > anyone views or real world experiences with similar setups. > Each server would have about 800 active users and would > probably be connected to a SAN for the shared storage. > > I have heard that there were memory issues with this setup > pre SP3. I would like to know if there are any other > problems and if it is worth doing > > Thanks in advance > > > Imran > > _ > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > _ > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > _ > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering
Whats brown and sticky? -Original Message- From: Chris Scharff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 10:54 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering I love theories. > -Original Message- > From: Andrey Fyodorov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 9:32 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering > > > No, according to the theory you can get more users on > Active/Active because both cluster nodes are being used to do > something useful. But if one fails, the other node better be > able to take on the load. > > > > > > -Original Message- > From: Dennis Depp [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Friday, October 11, 2002 2:50 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering > > > Stay away from active/active. Go Active/passive instead. > You can get more users on Active/Passive. > > Denny > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Imran Iqbal > Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2002 5:36 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering > > > We are currently an Exchange 5.5 site, as part of our move to > Exchange 2000 I am considering setting up Exchange on a 2 > node Active Active cluster and would be interested in hearing > anyone views or real world experiences with similar setups. > Each server would have about 800 active users and would > probably be connected to a SAN for the shared storage. > > I have heard that there were memory issues with this setup > pre SP3. I would like to know if there are any other > problems and if it is worth doing > > Thanks in advance > > > Imran > > _ > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > _ > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > _ > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- The information contained in this email message is privileged and confidential information intended only for the use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copy of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please immediately notify Veronis Suhler Stevenson by telephone (212)935-4990, fax (212)381-8168, or email ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) and delete the message. Thank you. == _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering
Which meant if you had 3 databases on each cluster, the other active node would fail as soon as it failed to mount one store too many. That's why MS now pushes a/a/a/p clustering. a/a was an unmitigated disaster. (:= -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Andrey Fyodorov Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 9:32 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering No, according to the theory you can get more users on Active/Active because both cluster nodes are being used to do something useful. But if one fails, the other node better be able to take on the load. -Original Message- From: Dennis Depp [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, October 11, 2002 2:50 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering Stay away from active/active. Go Active/passive instead. You can get more users on Active/Passive. Denny -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Imran Iqbal Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2002 5:36 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering We are currently an Exchange 5.5 site, as part of our move to Exchange 2000 I am considering setting up Exchange on a 2 node Active Active cluster and would be interested in hearing anyone views or real world experiences with similar setups. Each server would have about 800 active users and would probably be connected to a SAN for the shared storage. I have heard that there were memory issues with this setup pre SP3. I would like to know if there are any other problems and if it is worth doing Thanks in advance Imran _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering
Hehe, that's why I wrote "in theory" -Original Message- From: Chris Scharff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 10:54 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering I love theories. > -Original Message- > From: Andrey Fyodorov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 9:32 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering > > > No, according to the theory you can get more users on > Active/Active because both cluster nodes are being used to do > something useful. But if one fails, the other node better be > able to take on the load. > > > > > > -Original Message- > From: Dennis Depp [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Friday, October 11, 2002 2:50 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering > > > Stay away from active/active. Go Active/passive instead. > You can get more users on Active/Passive. > > Denny > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Imran Iqbal > Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2002 5:36 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering > > > We are currently an Exchange 5.5 site, as part of our move to > Exchange 2000 I am considering setting up Exchange on a 2 > node Active Active cluster and would be interested in hearing > anyone views or real world experiences with similar setups. > Each server would have about 800 active users and would > probably be connected to a SAN for the shared storage. > > I have heard that there were memory issues with this setup > pre SP3. I would like to know if there are any other > problems and if it is worth doing > > Thanks in advance > > > Imran > > _ > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > _ > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > _ > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering
3 Storage Groups on each node, right? :) I like the idea of a/a/a/p, but that's a one trick pony. You better hope that the other two nodes are not going to fail soon. -Original Message- From: Great Cthulhu Jones [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 10:59 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering Which meant if you had 3 databases on each cluster, the other active node would fail as soon as it failed to mount one store too many. That's why MS now pushes a/a/a/p clustering. a/a was an unmitigated disaster. (:= -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Andrey Fyodorov Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 9:32 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering No, according to the theory you can get more users on Active/Active because both cluster nodes are being used to do something useful. But if one fails, the other node better be able to take on the load. -Original Message- From: Dennis Depp [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, October 11, 2002 2:50 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering Stay away from active/active. Go Active/passive instead. You can get more users on Active/Passive. Denny -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Imran Iqbal Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2002 5:36 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering We are currently an Exchange 5.5 site, as part of our move to Exchange 2000 I am considering setting up Exchange on a 2 node Active Active cluster and would be interested in hearing anyone views or real world experiences with similar setups. Each server would have about 800 active users and would probably be connected to a SAN for the shared storage. I have heard that there were memory issues with this setup pre SP3. I would like to know if there are any other problems and if it is worth doing Thanks in advance Imran _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering
Just disable the DNS Client service - it only causes problems anyway. -- Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity Atlanta, GA > -Original Message- > From: Andrey Fyodorov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 10:46 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering > > > I did just that. > > From personal experience I prefer to reboot the machine after > stopping the service (as opposed to simply restarting the > services). Sometimes the Information Store service takes > hours to stop. And if a full backup is running at the same > time (because it got delayed for whatever reason), IS will never stop. > > There was a period of time when I had to restart the back-end > Exchange server every night after applying SP2. Otherwise OWA > refused to work correctly the following day. > > But then I discovered that doing ipconfig /flushdns once in a > while solved that problem. > > -Original Message- > From: Great Cthulhu Jones [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Saturday, October 12, 2002 9:02 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering > > > Heck, just write a batch file that stops all services and > bounces the box > Sunday at 2AM and you don't even have to call it in to an > operator. Five > nines, indeed. The box only really needs to be up when people > are using it. > > (:= > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Ed Crowley > Sent: Friday, October 11, 2002 9:00 PM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering > > > It's a pretty steep price to pay to avoid an occasional Sunday morning > reboot. > > Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP kcCC+I > Tech Consultant > hp Services > Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups! > > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Dennis Depp > Sent: Friday, October 11, 2002 12:15 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering > > > I've looked into Exchange Active/Passive clustering for our Exchange > 2000 servers. The largest Exchange problem that causes downtime is > corruption in the database. I agree with Ed that clustering > cannot help > in this senario. However, even with high quality hardware, you still > have to deal with the 58 security patches and one Windows 2000 service > pack that have been issued this year. Granted not all the 58 security > patches are Windows 2000 related, but a large number of them are. An > active/passive cluster gives me the capability of installing hotfixes > and service packs without impacting my Exchange server even for a > reboot. Also I can install the hotfixes during the day on the passive > node and then failover that evening. If there is a problem, > I can fail > back to the unpatched node. The reduction in reboots and late hours > makes an Active/passive cluster very appealing. However, clusters do > add a level of complexity. Unless you understand clusters > and how they > operate, this added complexity can decrease uptime instead of increase > it. > > Denny > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Ed Crowley > Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2002 5:11 PM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering > > > I think at this stage of its development clustering provides very poor > business value. It really protects you from very few failure > scenarios. > Instead, I'd make sure I had the most highly internally > redundant system > I could afford, buy a capable recovery and hot standby server, and > practice my disaster recovery skills. > > Ed Crowley MCSE+I MVP > Technical Consultant > hp Services > "There are seldom good technological solutions to behavioral > problems." > > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Imran Iqbal > Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2002 2:36 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering > > > We are currently an Exchange 5.5 site, as part of our move to Exchange > 2000 I am considering setting up Exchange on a 2 node Active Active > cluster and would be interested in hearing anyone views or real world > experiences with similar setups. Each server would have about 800 &g
RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering
Methinks that's the one. -- Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity Atlanta, GA > -Original Message- > From: Andrey Fyodorov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 10:48 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering > > > ESEUTIL /R ? > > -Original Message- > From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 10:38 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering > > > You run eseutil on the patched node to update the stores to > the new version. > > Then again, you'd have tried this in the test lab first, so > you'd know not > to do that in production. > > -- > Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE > Sr. Systems Administrator > Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity > Atlanta, GA > > > > -Original Message- > > From: Andrey Fyodorov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 10:35 AM > > To: Exchange Discussions > > Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering > > > > > > What happens if you apply a new service pack for Exchange to > > the passive node and then failover? > > I mean in some cases the information store files do not work > > if they don't recongnize the service pack level. (for example > > if you restore the information store onto an alternate server > > and the alternate server is not the same version as the > > original, the information store would not mount) > > > > -Original Message- > > From: Dennis Depp [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Friday, October 11, 2002 3:15 AM > > To: Exchange Discussions > > Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering > > > > > > I've looked into Exchange Active/Passive clustering for our Exchange > > 2000 servers. The largest Exchange problem that causes downtime is > > corruption in the database. I agree with Ed that clustering > > cannot help > > in this senario. However, even with high quality hardware, > you still > > have to deal with the 58 security patches and one Windows > 2000 service > > pack that have been issued this year. Granted not all the > 58 security > > patches are Windows 2000 related, but a large number of > them are. An > > active/passive cluster gives me the capability of > installing hotfixes > > and service packs without impacting my Exchange server even for a > > reboot. Also I can install the hotfixes during the day on > the passive > > node and then failover that evening. If there is a problem, > > I can fail > > back to the unpatched node. The reduction in reboots and late hours > > makes an Active/passive cluster very appealing. However, > clusters do > > add a level of complexity. Unless you understand clusters > > and how they > > operate, this added complexity can decrease uptime instead > of increase > > it. > > > > Denny > > > > -Original Message- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Ed Crowley > > Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2002 5:11 PM > > To: Exchange Discussions > > Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering > > > > > > I think at this stage of its development clustering > provides very poor > > business value. It really protects you from very few failure > > scenarios. > > Instead, I'd make sure I had the most highly internally > > redundant system > > I could afford, buy a capable recovery and hot standby server, and > > practice my disaster recovery skills. > > > > Ed Crowley MCSE+I MVP > > Technical Consultant > > hp Services > > "There are seldom good technological solutions to behavioral > > problems." > > > > > > -Original Message- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Imran Iqbal > > Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2002 2:36 AM > > To: Exchange Discussions > > Subject: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering > > > > > > We are currently an Exchange 5.5 site, as part of our move > to Exchange > > 2000 I am considering setting up Exchange on a 2 node Active Active > > cluster and would be interested in hearing anyone views or > real world > > experiences with similar s
RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering
Exactly - you're still having to plan to put all of them on one box at some point, so A/A = A/P in terms of user support. A/P just happens to be more stable. -- Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity Atlanta, GA > -Original Message- > From: Couch, Nate [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 10:51 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering > > > One article I read said that in an A/A situation such that > you plan as if > you will be running A/P and then split them up between the two nodes > assigned to the A/A cluster. > > Makes sense to me. > > Nate Couch > EDS Messaging > > -- > > From: Roger Seielstad > > Reply To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 09:36 > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject:RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering > > > > You'd be wrong there. > > > > You can get the same amount of users on active/active or > active/passive, > > although realistically, active/passive allows for more users. > > > > In either case, if you're clustering identical hardware, > you can either > > put > > all your users on one box (a/p) or half on each (a/a). In > either case, > > both > > servers need to be able to handle the same number of users. > > > > The memory fragmentation issues would lead me to believe > that A/P would be > > more likely to support a higher number of users than A/A, > on identical > > hardware. > > > > Roger > > -- > > Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE > > Sr. Systems Administrator > > Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity > > Atlanta, GA > > > > > > > -Original Message- > > > From: Andrey Fyodorov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 10:32 AM > > > To: Exchange Discussions > > > Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering > > > > > > > > > No, according to the theory you can get more users on > > > Active/Active because both cluster nodes are being used to do > > > something useful. But if one fails, the other node better be > > > able to take on the load. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -Original Message- > > > From: Dennis Depp [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > Sent: Friday, October 11, 2002 2:50 AM > > > To: Exchange Discussions > > > Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering > > > > > > > > > Stay away from active/active. Go Active/passive instead. > You can get > > > more users on Active/Passive. > > > > > > Denny > > > > > > -Original Message- > > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of > Imran Iqbal > > > Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2002 5:36 AM > > > To: Exchange Discussions > > > Subject: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering > > > > > > > > > We are currently an Exchange 5.5 site, as part of our > move to Exchange > > > 2000 I am considering setting up Exchange on a 2 node > Active Active > > > cluster and would be interested in hearing anyone views > or real world > > > experiences with similar setups. Each server would have about 800 > > > active users and would probably be connected to a SAN for > the shared > > > storage. > > > > > > I have heard that there were memory issues with this > setup pre SP3. I > > > would like to know if there are any other problems and if > it is worth > > > doing > > > > > > Thanks in advance > > > > > > > > > Imran > > > > > > _ > > > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > > > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > > > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > > _ > > > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_fa
RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering
A stick. Mike -Original Message- From: Andy David [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 10:59 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering Whats brown and sticky? -Original Message- From: Chris Scharff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 10:54 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering I love theories. > -Original Message- > From: Andrey Fyodorov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 9:32 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering > > > No, according to the theory you can get more users on > Active/Active because both cluster nodes are being used to do > something useful. But if one fails, the other node better be > able to take on the load. > > > > > > -Original Message- > From: Dennis Depp [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Friday, October 11, 2002 2:50 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering > > > Stay away from active/active. Go Active/passive instead. > You can get more users on Active/Passive. > > Denny > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Imran Iqbal > Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2002 5:36 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering > > > We are currently an Exchange 5.5 site, as part of our move to > Exchange 2000 I am considering setting up Exchange on a 2 > node Active Active cluster and would be interested in hearing > anyone views or real world experiences with similar setups. > Each server would have about 800 active users and would > probably be connected to a SAN for the shared storage. > > I have heard that there were memory issues with this setup > pre SP3. I would like to know if there are any other > problems and if it is worth doing > > Thanks in advance > > > Imran > > _ > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > _ > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > _ > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- The information contained in this email message is privileged and confidential information intended only for the use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copy of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please immediately notify Veronis Suhler Stevenson by telephone (212)935-4990, fax (212)381-8168, or email ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) and delete the message. Thank you. == _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering
I vaguely remember talking about it in the past. Although we were talking about domain controllers. I thought that on the Exchange server I should still have it running. -Original Message- From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 11:06 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering Just disable the DNS Client service - it only causes problems anyway. -- Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity Atlanta, GA > -Original Message- > From: Andrey Fyodorov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 10:46 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering > > > I did just that. > > From personal experience I prefer to reboot the machine after > stopping the service (as opposed to simply restarting the > services). Sometimes the Information Store service takes > hours to stop. And if a full backup is running at the same > time (because it got delayed for whatever reason), IS will never stop. > > There was a period of time when I had to restart the back-end > Exchange server every night after applying SP2. Otherwise OWA > refused to work correctly the following day. > > But then I discovered that doing ipconfig /flushdns once in a > while solved that problem. > > -Original Message- > From: Great Cthulhu Jones [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Saturday, October 12, 2002 9:02 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering > > > Heck, just write a batch file that stops all services and > bounces the box > Sunday at 2AM and you don't even have to call it in to an > operator. Five > nines, indeed. The box only really needs to be up when people > are using it. > > (:= > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Ed Crowley > Sent: Friday, October 11, 2002 9:00 PM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering > > > It's a pretty steep price to pay to avoid an occasional Sunday morning > reboot. > > Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP kcCC+I > Tech Consultant > hp Services > Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups! > > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Dennis Depp > Sent: Friday, October 11, 2002 12:15 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering > > > I've looked into Exchange Active/Passive clustering for our Exchange > 2000 servers. The largest Exchange problem that causes downtime is > corruption in the database. I agree with Ed that clustering > cannot help > in this senario. However, even with high quality hardware, you still > have to deal with the 58 security patches and one Windows 2000 service > pack that have been issued this year. Granted not all the 58 security > patches are Windows 2000 related, but a large number of them are. An > active/passive cluster gives me the capability of installing hotfixes > and service packs without impacting my Exchange server even for a > reboot. Also I can install the hotfixes during the day on the passive > node and then failover that evening. If there is a problem, > I can fail > back to the unpatched node. The reduction in reboots and late hours > makes an Active/passive cluster very appealing. However, clusters do > add a level of complexity. Unless you understand clusters > and how they > operate, this added complexity can decrease uptime instead of increase > it. > > Denny > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Ed Crowley > Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2002 5:11 PM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering > > > I think at this stage of its development clustering provides very poor > business value. It really protects you from very few failure > scenarios. > Instead, I'd make sure I had the most highly internally > redundant system > I could afford, buy a capable recovery and hot standby server, and > practice my disaster recovery skills. > > Ed Crowley MCSE+I MVP > Technical Consultant > hp Services > "There are seldom good technological solutions to behavioral > problems." > > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Imran Iqbal > Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2002 2:36 AM > To: Exchange Discussions
RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering
/P may cause big problems :) -Original Message- From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 11:07 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering Methinks that's the one. -- Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity Atlanta, GA > -Original Message- > From: Andrey Fyodorov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 10:48 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering > > > ESEUTIL /R ? > > -Original Message- > From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 10:38 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering > > > You run eseutil on the patched node to update the stores to > the new version. > > Then again, you'd have tried this in the test lab first, so > you'd know not > to do that in production. > > -- > Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE > Sr. Systems Administrator > Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity > Atlanta, GA > > > > -Original Message- > > From: Andrey Fyodorov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 10:35 AM > > To: Exchange Discussions > > Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering > > > > > > What happens if you apply a new service pack for Exchange to > > the passive node and then failover? > > I mean in some cases the information store files do not work > > if they don't recongnize the service pack level. (for example > > if you restore the information store onto an alternate server > > and the alternate server is not the same version as the > > original, the information store would not mount) > > > > -Original Message- > > From: Dennis Depp [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Friday, October 11, 2002 3:15 AM > > To: Exchange Discussions > > Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering > > > > > > I've looked into Exchange Active/Passive clustering for our Exchange > > 2000 servers. The largest Exchange problem that causes downtime is > > corruption in the database. I agree with Ed that clustering > > cannot help > > in this senario. However, even with high quality hardware, > you still > > have to deal with the 58 security patches and one Windows > 2000 service > > pack that have been issued this year. Granted not all the > 58 security > > patches are Windows 2000 related, but a large number of > them are. An > > active/passive cluster gives me the capability of > installing hotfixes > > and service packs without impacting my Exchange server even for a > > reboot. Also I can install the hotfixes during the day on > the passive > > node and then failover that evening. If there is a problem, > > I can fail > > back to the unpatched node. The reduction in reboots and late hours > > makes an Active/passive cluster very appealing. However, > clusters do > > add a level of complexity. Unless you understand clusters > > and how they > > operate, this added complexity can decrease uptime instead > of increase > > it. > > > > Denny > > > > -Original Message- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Ed Crowley > > Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2002 5:11 PM > > To: Exchange Discussions > > Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering > > > > > > I think at this stage of its development clustering > provides very poor > > business value. It really protects you from very few failure > > scenarios. > > Instead, I'd make sure I had the most highly internally > > redundant system > > I could afford, buy a capable recovery and hot standby server, and > > practice my disaster recovery skills. > > > > Ed Crowley MCSE+I MVP > > Technical Consultant > > hp Services > > "There are seldom good technological solutions to behavioral > > problems." > > > > > > -Original Message- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Imran Iqbal > > Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2002 2:36 AM > > To: Exchange Discussions > > Subject: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering > > >
RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering
If you're basing your life around 4 identical boxes that all experience hardware failures that close together, I suggest you switch hardware vendors. Fast. Keep in mind, too, that A/A/A/P means you're running Datacenter. -- Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity Atlanta, GA > -Original Message- > From: Andrey Fyodorov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 11:04 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering > > > 3 Storage Groups on each node, right? :) > > I like the idea of a/a/a/p, but that's a one trick pony. You > better hope that the other two nodes are not going to fail soon. > > -Original Message- > From: Great Cthulhu Jones [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 10:59 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering > > > Which meant if you had 3 databases on each cluster, the other > active node > would fail as soon as it failed to mount one store too many. > > That's why MS now pushes a/a/a/p clustering. a/a was an unmitigated > disaster. > > (:= > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of > Andrey Fyodorov > Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 9:32 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering > > > No, according to the theory you can get more users on > Active/Active because > both cluster nodes are being used to do something useful. But > if one fails, > the other node better be able to take on the load. > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Dennis Depp [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Friday, October 11, 2002 2:50 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering > > > Stay away from active/active. Go Active/passive instead. You can get > more users on Active/Passive. > > Denny > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Imran Iqbal > Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2002 5:36 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering > > > We are currently an Exchange 5.5 site, as part of our move to Exchange > 2000 I am considering setting up Exchange on a 2 node Active Active > cluster and would be interested in hearing anyone views or real world > experiences with similar setups. Each server would have about 800 > active users and would probably be connected to a SAN for the shared > storage. > > I have heard that there were memory issues with this setup pre SP3. I > would like to know if there are any other problems and if it is worth > doing > > Thanks in advance > > > Imran > > _ > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > _ > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > _ > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > _ > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > _ > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering
Only if you have crappy DNS servers. -- Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity Atlanta, GA > -Original Message- > From: Andrey Fyodorov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 11:10 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering > > > I vaguely remember talking about it in the past. Although we > were talking about domain controllers. I thought that on the > Exchange server I should still have it running. > > -Original Message- > From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 11:06 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering > > > Just disable the DNS Client service - it only causes problems anyway. > > -- > Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE > Sr. Systems Administrator > Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity > Atlanta, GA > > > > -Original Message- > > From: Andrey Fyodorov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 10:46 AM > > To: Exchange Discussions > > Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering > > > > > > I did just that. > > > > From personal experience I prefer to reboot the machine after > > stopping the service (as opposed to simply restarting the > > services). Sometimes the Information Store service takes > > hours to stop. And if a full backup is running at the same > > time (because it got delayed for whatever reason), IS will > never stop. > > > > There was a period of time when I had to restart the back-end > > Exchange server every night after applying SP2. Otherwise OWA > > refused to work correctly the following day. > > > > But then I discovered that doing ipconfig /flushdns once in a > > while solved that problem. > > > > -Original Message- > > From: Great Cthulhu Jones [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Saturday, October 12, 2002 9:02 AM > > To: Exchange Discussions > > Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering > > > > > > Heck, just write a batch file that stops all services and > > bounces the box > > Sunday at 2AM and you don't even have to call it in to an > > operator. Five > > nines, indeed. The box only really needs to be up when people > > are using it. > > > > (:= > > > > -Original Message- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Ed Crowley > > Sent: Friday, October 11, 2002 9:00 PM > > To: Exchange Discussions > > Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering > > > > > > It's a pretty steep price to pay to avoid an occasional > Sunday morning > > reboot. > > > > Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP kcCC+I > > Tech Consultant > > hp Services > > Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups! > > > > > > -Original Message- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Dennis Depp > > Sent: Friday, October 11, 2002 12:15 AM > > To: Exchange Discussions > > Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering > > > > > > I've looked into Exchange Active/Passive clustering for our Exchange > > 2000 servers. The largest Exchange problem that causes downtime is > > corruption in the database. I agree with Ed that clustering > > cannot help > > in this senario. However, even with high quality hardware, > you still > > have to deal with the 58 security patches and one Windows > 2000 service > > pack that have been issued this year. Granted not all the > 58 security > > patches are Windows 2000 related, but a large number of > them are. An > > active/passive cluster gives me the capability of > installing hotfixes > > and service packs without impacting my Exchange server even for a > > reboot. Also I can install the hotfixes during the day on > the passive > > node and then failover that evening. If there is a problem, > > I can fail > > back to the unpatched node. The reduction in reboots and late hours > > makes an Active/passive cluster very appealing. However, > clusters do > > add a level of complexity. Unless you understand clusters > > and how they > > operate, this added complexity can decrease uptime instead > of increase > > it. > > &g
RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering
Only the best. Microsoft DNS, active-directory integrated. :) -Original Message- From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 11:11 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering Only if you have crappy DNS servers. -- Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity Atlanta, GA > -Original Message- > From: Andrey Fyodorov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 11:10 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering > > > I vaguely remember talking about it in the past. Although we > were talking about domain controllers. I thought that on the > Exchange server I should still have it running. > > -Original Message- > From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 11:06 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering > > > Just disable the DNS Client service - it only causes problems anyway. > > -- > Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE > Sr. Systems Administrator > Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity > Atlanta, GA > > > > -Original Message- > > From: Andrey Fyodorov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 10:46 AM > > To: Exchange Discussions > > Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering > > > > > > I did just that. > > > > From personal experience I prefer to reboot the machine after > > stopping the service (as opposed to simply restarting the > > services). Sometimes the Information Store service takes > > hours to stop. And if a full backup is running at the same > > time (because it got delayed for whatever reason), IS will > never stop. > > > > There was a period of time when I had to restart the back-end > > Exchange server every night after applying SP2. Otherwise OWA > > refused to work correctly the following day. > > > > But then I discovered that doing ipconfig /flushdns once in a > > while solved that problem. > > > > -Original Message- > > From: Great Cthulhu Jones [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Saturday, October 12, 2002 9:02 AM > > To: Exchange Discussions > > Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering > > > > > > Heck, just write a batch file that stops all services and > > bounces the box > > Sunday at 2AM and you don't even have to call it in to an > > operator. Five > > nines, indeed. The box only really needs to be up when people > > are using it. > > > > (:= > > > > -Original Message- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Ed Crowley > > Sent: Friday, October 11, 2002 9:00 PM > > To: Exchange Discussions > > Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering > > > > > > It's a pretty steep price to pay to avoid an occasional > Sunday morning > > reboot. > > > > Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP kcCC+I > > Tech Consultant > > hp Services > > Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups! > > > > > > -Original Message- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Dennis Depp > > Sent: Friday, October 11, 2002 12:15 AM > > To: Exchange Discussions > > Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering > > > > > > I've looked into Exchange Active/Passive clustering for our Exchange > > 2000 servers. The largest Exchange problem that causes downtime is > > corruption in the database. I agree with Ed that clustering > > cannot help > > in this senario. However, even with high quality hardware, > you still > > have to deal with the 58 security patches and one Windows > 2000 service > > pack that have been issued this year. Granted not all the > 58 security > > patches are Windows 2000 related, but a large number of > them are. An > > active/passive cluster gives me the capability of > installing hotfixes > > and service packs without impacting my Exchange server even for a > > reboot. Also I can install the hotfixes during the day on > the passive > > node and then failover that evening. If there is a problem, > > I can fail > > back to the unpatched node. The reduction in reboots and late hours > > makes an Active/passive cluster
RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering
Hi there I have an active\active E2k box and there is only one thing I like about it - it looks good on a resume. Here is why I am not happy with clustering Exchange: If you have a problem with email, you need to see if you have a cluster issue or Exchange issue before you can start to look at your problem. There are extra steps needed to get a front end\back end configuration to work. You cannot have a cluster as the first server in a mixed site becase clustering does not support the SRS service. My cluster LOVES to roll itself (although infrequently) - sometimes with nothing in the event viewer to tell my why. If you ever have to perform a disaster recovery, the cluster is going to make the job that much more complicated Exchange is complex enough without making it more complicated by installing it on a cluster. Learn from our mistake - don't do it. HTH Russell -Original Message- From: Imran Iqbal [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2002 5:36 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering We are currently an Exchange 5.5 site, as part of our move to Exchange 2000 I am considering setting up Exchange on a 2 node Active Active cluster and would be interested in hearing anyone views or real world experiences with similar setups. Each server would have about 800 active users and would probably be connected to a SAN for the shared storage. I have heard that there were memory issues with this setup pre SP3. I would like to know if there are any other problems and if it is worth doing Thanks in advance Imran _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering
No I am just preparing for the worst-case scenario. -Original Message- From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 11:11 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering If you're basing your life around 4 identical boxes that all experience hardware failures that close together, I suggest you switch hardware vendors. Fast. Keep in mind, too, that A/A/A/P means you're running Datacenter. -- Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity Atlanta, GA > -Original Message- > From: Andrey Fyodorov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 11:04 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering > > > 3 Storage Groups on each node, right? :) > > I like the idea of a/a/a/p, but that's a one trick pony. You > better hope that the other two nodes are not going to fail soon. > > -Original Message- > From: Great Cthulhu Jones [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 10:59 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering > > > Which meant if you had 3 databases on each cluster, the other > active node > would fail as soon as it failed to mount one store too many. > > That's why MS now pushes a/a/a/p clustering. a/a was an unmitigated > disaster. > > (:= > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of > Andrey Fyodorov > Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 9:32 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering > > > No, according to the theory you can get more users on > Active/Active because > both cluster nodes are being used to do something useful. But > if one fails, > the other node better be able to take on the load. > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Dennis Depp [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Friday, October 11, 2002 2:50 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering > > > Stay away from active/active. Go Active/passive instead. You can get > more users on Active/Passive. > > Denny > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Imran Iqbal > Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2002 5:36 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering > > > We are currently an Exchange 5.5 site, as part of our move to Exchange > 2000 I am considering setting up Exchange on a 2 node Active Active > cluster and would be interested in hearing anyone views or real world > experiences with similar setups. Each server would have about 800 > active users and would probably be connected to a SAN for the shared > storage. > > I have heard that there were memory issues with this setup pre SP3. I > would like to know if there are any other problems and if it is worth > doing > > Thanks in advance > > > Imran > > _ > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > _ > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > _ > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > _ > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > _ > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > _
RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering
Excellent! -Original Message- From: Etts, Russell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 11:15 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering Hi there I have an active\active E2k box and there is only one thing I like about it - it looks good on a resume. Here is why I am not happy with clustering Exchange: If you have a problem with email, you need to see if you have a cluster issue or Exchange issue before you can start to look at your problem. There are extra steps needed to get a front end\back end configuration to work. You cannot have a cluster as the first server in a mixed site becase clustering does not support the SRS service. My cluster LOVES to roll itself (although infrequently) - sometimes with nothing in the event viewer to tell my why. If you ever have to perform a disaster recovery, the cluster is going to make the job that much more complicated Exchange is complex enough without making it more complicated by installing it on a cluster. Learn from our mistake - don't do it. HTH Russell -Original Message- From: Imran Iqbal [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2002 5:36 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering We are currently an Exchange 5.5 site, as part of our move to Exchange 2000 I am considering setting up Exchange on a 2 node Active Active cluster and would be interested in hearing anyone views or real world experiences with similar setups. Each server would have about 800 active users and would probably be connected to a SAN for the shared storage. I have heard that there were memory issues with this setup pre SP3. I would like to know if there are any other problems and if it is worth doing Thanks in advance Imran _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering
A tootsie roll. > -- > From: Morrison, Mike L. > Reply To: Exchange Discussions > Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 10:07 > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering > > A stick. > > Mike > > -Original Message- > From: Andy David [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 10:59 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering > > > Whats brown and sticky? > > > -Original Message- > From: Chris Scharff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 10:54 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering > > > I love theories. > > > -Original Message- > > From: Andrey Fyodorov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 9:32 AM > > To: Exchange Discussions > > Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering > > > > > > No, according to the theory you can get more users on > > Active/Active because both cluster nodes are being used to do > > something useful. But if one fails, the other node better be > > able to take on the load. > > > > > > > > > > > > -Original Message- > > From: Dennis Depp [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Friday, October 11, 2002 2:50 AM > > To: Exchange Discussions > > Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering > > > > > > Stay away from active/active. Go Active/passive instead. > > You can get more users on Active/Passive. > > > > Denny > > > > -Original Message- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Imran Iqbal > > Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2002 5:36 AM > > To: Exchange Discussions > > Subject: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering > > > > > > We are currently an Exchange 5.5 site, as part of our move to > > Exchange 2000 I am considering setting up Exchange on a 2 > > node Active Active cluster and would be interested in hearing > > anyone views or real world experiences with similar setups. > > Each server would have about 800 active users and would > > probably be connected to a SAN for the shared storage. > > > > I have heard that there were memory issues with this setup > > pre SP3. I would like to know if there are any other > > problems and if it is worth doing > > > > Thanks in advance > > > > > > Imran > > > > _ > > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > _ > > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > _ > > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > _ > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > -- > -- > -- > The information contained in this email message is privileged and > confidential information intended only for the use of the individual or > entity to whom it is addressed. If the reader of this message is not the > intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, > distribution or copy of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have > received this email in error, please immediately notify Veronis Suhler > Stevenson by telephone (212)935-4990, fax (212)381-8168, or email > ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) and delete the message. Thank you. > > == > == >
RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering
And when you deploy an Exchange cluster, that's exactly what you get! Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP kcCC+I Tech Consultant hp Services Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups! -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Andrey Fyodorov Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 8:15 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering No I am just preparing for the worst-case scenario. -Original Message- From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 11:11 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering If you're basing your life around 4 identical boxes that all experience hardware failures that close together, I suggest you switch hardware vendors. Fast. Keep in mind, too, that A/A/A/P means you're running Datacenter. -- Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity Atlanta, GA > -Original Message- > From: Andrey Fyodorov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 11:04 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering > > > 3 Storage Groups on each node, right? :) > > I like the idea of a/a/a/p, but that's a one trick pony. You > better hope that the other two nodes are not going to fail soon. > > -Original Message- > From: Great Cthulhu Jones [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 10:59 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering > > > Which meant if you had 3 databases on each cluster, the other > active node > would fail as soon as it failed to mount one store too many. > > That's why MS now pushes a/a/a/p clustering. a/a was an unmitigated > disaster. > > (:= > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of > Andrey Fyodorov > Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 9:32 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering > > > No, according to the theory you can get more users on > Active/Active because > both cluster nodes are being used to do something useful. But > if one fails, > the other node better be able to take on the load. > > > > > > -Original Message- > From: Dennis Depp [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Friday, October 11, 2002 2:50 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering > > > Stay away from active/active. Go Active/passive instead. You can get > more users on Active/Passive. > > Denny > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Imran Iqbal > Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2002 5:36 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering > > > We are currently an Exchange 5.5 site, as part of our move to Exchange > 2000 I am considering setting up Exchange on a 2 node Active Active > cluster and would be interested in hearing anyone views or real world > experiences with similar setups. Each server would have about 800 > active users and would probably be connected to a SAN for the shared > storage. > > I have heard that there were memory issues with this setup pre SP3. I > would like to know if there are any other problems and if it is worth > doing > > Thanks in advance > > > Imran > > _ > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > _ > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > _ > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > _ > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > To un
RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering
Thanks Russell. Good summation. > -- > From: Andrey Fyodorov > Reply To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 10:16 > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering > > Excellent! > > -Original Message- > From: Etts, Russell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 11:15 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering > > > Hi there > > I have an active\active E2k box and there is only one thing I like about > it > - it looks good on a resume. > > Here is why I am not happy with clustering Exchange: > > If you have a problem with email, you need to see if you have a cluster > issue or Exchange issue before you can start to look at your problem. > There are extra steps needed to get a front end\back end configuration to > work. > You cannot have a cluster as the first server in a mixed site becase > clustering does not support the SRS service. > My cluster LOVES to roll itself (although infrequently) - sometimes with > nothing in the event viewer to tell my why. > If you ever have to perform a disaster recovery, the cluster is going to > make the job that much more complicated > > Exchange is complex enough without making it more complicated by > installing > it on a cluster. Learn from our mistake - don't do it. > > HTH > > Russell > > > -Original Message- > From: Imran Iqbal [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2002 5:36 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering > > > We are currently an Exchange 5.5 site, as part of our move to Exchange > 2000 I am considering setting up Exchange on a 2 node Active Active > cluster and would be interested in hearing anyone views or real world > experiences with similar setups. Each server would have about 800 active > users and would probably be connected to a SAN for the shared storage. > > I have heard that there were memory issues with this setup pre SP3. I > would like to know if there are any other problems and if it is worth > doing > > Thanks in advance > > > Imran > > _ > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > _ > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > _ > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering
I prefer not to mess with Exchange clustering unless a customer insists on having a dedicated Exchange cluster. -Original Message- From: Ed Crowley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 11:35 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering And when you deploy an Exchange cluster, that's exactly what you get! Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP kcCC+I Tech Consultant hp Services Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups! -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Andrey Fyodorov Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 8:15 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering No I am just preparing for the worst-case scenario. -Original Message- From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 11:11 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering If you're basing your life around 4 identical boxes that all experience hardware failures that close together, I suggest you switch hardware vendors. Fast. Keep in mind, too, that A/A/A/P means you're running Datacenter. -- Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity Atlanta, GA > -Original Message- > From: Andrey Fyodorov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 11:04 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering > > > 3 Storage Groups on each node, right? :) > > I like the idea of a/a/a/p, but that's a one trick pony. You > better hope that the other two nodes are not going to fail soon. > > -Original Message- > From: Great Cthulhu Jones [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 10:59 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering > > > Which meant if you had 3 databases on each cluster, the other > active node > would fail as soon as it failed to mount one store too many. > > That's why MS now pushes a/a/a/p clustering. a/a was an unmitigated > disaster. > > (:= > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of > Andrey Fyodorov > Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 9:32 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering > > > No, according to the theory you can get more users on > Active/Active because > both cluster nodes are being used to do something useful. But > if one fails, > the other node better be able to take on the load. > > > > > > -Original Message- > From: Dennis Depp [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Friday, October 11, 2002 2:50 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering > > > Stay away from active/active. Go Active/passive instead. You can get > more users on Active/Passive. > > Denny > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Imran Iqbal > Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2002 5:36 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering > > > We are currently an Exchange 5.5 site, as part of our move to Exchange > 2000 I am considering setting up Exchange on a 2 node Active Active > cluster and would be interested in hearing anyone views or real world > experiences with similar setups. Each server would have about 800 > active users and would probably be connected to a SAN for the shared > storage. > > I have heard that there were memory issues with this setup pre SP3. I > would like to know if there are any other problems and if it is worth > doing > > Thanks in advance > > > Imran > > _ > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > _ > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > _ > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > To unsubscribe:
RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering
Perhaps it would be better if you educated that customer on better alternatives. Just as an aside, during Tony Redmond's session last week he asked how many in the audience were using clusters and I swear, a third of the people there raised their hands. I would have thought it a lot less. -Original Message- From: Andrey Fyodorov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 11:54 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering I prefer not to mess with Exchange clustering unless a customer insists on having a dedicated Exchange cluster. -Original Message- From: Ed Crowley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 11:35 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering And when you deploy an Exchange cluster, that's exactly what you get! Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP kcCC+I Tech Consultant hp Services Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups! -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Andrey Fyodorov Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 8:15 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering No I am just preparing for the worst-case scenario. -Original Message- From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 11:11 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering If you're basing your life around 4 identical boxes that all experience hardware failures that close together, I suggest you switch hardware vendors. Fast. Keep in mind, too, that A/A/A/P means you're running Datacenter. -- Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity Atlanta, GA > -Original Message- > From: Andrey Fyodorov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 11:04 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering > > > 3 Storage Groups on each node, right? :) > > I like the idea of a/a/a/p, but that's a one trick pony. You > better hope that the other two nodes are not going to fail soon. > > -Original Message- > From: Great Cthulhu Jones [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 10:59 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering > > > Which meant if you had 3 databases on each cluster, the other > active node > would fail as soon as it failed to mount one store too many. > > That's why MS now pushes a/a/a/p clustering. a/a was an unmitigated > disaster. > > (:= > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of > Andrey Fyodorov > Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 9:32 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering > > > No, according to the theory you can get more users on > Active/Active because > both cluster nodes are being used to do something useful. But > if one fails, > the other node better be able to take on the load. > > > > > > -Original Message- > From: Dennis Depp [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Friday, October 11, 2002 2:50 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering > > > Stay away from active/active. Go Active/passive instead. You can get > more users on Active/Passive. > > Denny > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Imran Iqbal > Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2002 5:36 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering > > > We are currently an Exchange 5.5 site, as part of our move to Exchange > 2000 I am considering setting up Exchange on a 2 node Active Active > cluster and would be interested in hearing anyone views or real world > experiences with similar setups. Each server would have about 800 > active users and would probably be connected to a SAN for the shared > storage. > > I have heard that there were memory issues with this setup pre SP3. I > would like to know if there are any other problems and if it is worth > doing > > Thanks in advance > > > Imran > > _ > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >
RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering
MEC <> Typical Exchange environment. > -Original Message- > From: Andy David [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 11:14 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering > > > Perhaps it would be better if you educated that customer on > better alternatives. Just as an aside, during Tony Redmond's > session last week he asked how many in the audience were > using clusters and I swear, a third of the people there > raised their hands. I would have thought it a lot less. > > > > > -Original Message- > From: Andrey Fyodorov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 11:54 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering > > > I prefer not to mess with Exchange clustering unless a > customer insists on having a dedicated Exchange cluster. > > -Original Message- > From: Ed Crowley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 11:35 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering > > > And when you deploy an Exchange cluster, that's exactly what you get! > > Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP kcCC+I > Tech Consultant > hp Services > Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups! > > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of > Andrey Fyodorov > Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 8:15 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering > > > No I am just preparing for the worst-case scenario. > > > -----Original Message- > From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 11:11 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering > > > If you're basing your life around 4 identical boxes that all > experience hardware failures that close together, I suggest > you switch hardware vendors. Fast. > > Keep in mind, too, that A/A/A/P means you're running Datacenter. > > -- > Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE > Sr. Systems Administrator > Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity > Atlanta, GA > > > > -Original Message- > > From: Andrey Fyodorov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 11:04 AM > > To: Exchange Discussions > > Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering > > > > > > 3 Storage Groups on each node, right? :) > > > > I like the idea of a/a/a/p, but that's a one trick pony. You better > > hope that the other two nodes are not going to fail soon. > > > > -Original Message- > > From: Great Cthulhu Jones [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 10:59 AM > > To: Exchange Discussions > > Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering > > > > > > Which meant if you had 3 databases on each cluster, the > other active > > node would fail as soon as it failed to mount one store too many. > > > > That's why MS now pushes a/a/a/p clustering. a/a was an unmitigated > > disaster. > > > > (:= > > > > -Original Message- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Andrey > > Fyodorov > > Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 9:32 AM > > To: Exchange Discussions > > Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering > > > > > > No, according to the theory you can get more users on Active/Active > > because both cluster nodes are being used to do something > useful. But > > if one fails, > > the other node better be able to take on the load. > > > > > > > > > > > > -Original Message- > > From: Dennis Depp [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Friday, October 11, 2002 2:50 AM > > To: Exchange Discussions > > Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering > > > > > > Stay away from active/active. Go Active/passive instead. > You can get > > > more users on Active/Passive. > > > > Denny > > > > -Original Message- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Imran Iqbal > > Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2002 5:36 AM > > To: Exchange Discussions > > Subject: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering > > > > > > We are currently an Exchange 5.5 site, as part of our
RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering
To quote the SP3 Deployment guide... "If you attempt to restore an SP2 database and log file set to an SP3 server, the database is automatically upgraded before it is mounted. However, if you attempt to restore a database that is older than Exchange 2000 SP2, the upgrade will fail." Thus it looks like you may not need to update the stores. I can't say I have tested this though. -Original Message- From: Andrey Fyodorov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 14 October 2002 15:48 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering ESEUTIL /R ? -Original Message- From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 10:38 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering You run eseutil on the patched node to update the stores to the new version. Then again, you'd have tried this in the test lab first, so you'd know not to do that in production. -- Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity Atlanta, GA > -Original Message- > From: Andrey Fyodorov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 10:35 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering > > > What happens if you apply a new service pack for Exchange to > the passive node and then failover? > I mean in some cases the information store files do not work > if they don't recongnize the service pack level. (for example > if you restore the information store onto an alternate server > and the alternate server is not the same version as the > original, the information store would not mount) > > -Original Message- > From: Dennis Depp [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Friday, October 11, 2002 3:15 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering > > > I've looked into Exchange Active/Passive clustering for our Exchange > 2000 servers. The largest Exchange problem that causes downtime is > corruption in the database. I agree with Ed that clustering cannot > help in this senario. However, even with high quality hardware, you > still have to deal with the 58 security patches and one Windows 2000 > service pack that have been issued this year. Granted not all the 58 > security patches are Windows 2000 related, but a large number of them > are. An active/passive cluster gives me the capability of installing > hotfixes and service packs without impacting my Exchange server even > for a reboot. Also I can install the hotfixes during the day on the > passive node and then failover that evening. If there is a problem, > I can fail > back to the unpatched node. The reduction in reboots and late hours > makes an Active/passive cluster very appealing. However, clusters do > add a level of complexity. Unless you understand clusters > and how they > operate, this added complexity can decrease uptime instead of increase > it. > > Denny > > -Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Ed Crowley > Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2002 5:11 PM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering > > > I think at this stage of its development clustering provides very poor > business value. It really protects you from very few failure > scenarios. Instead, I'd make sure I had the most highly internally > redundant system > I could afford, buy a capable recovery and hot standby server, and > practice my disaster recovery skills. > > Ed Crowley MCSE+I MVP > Technical Consultant > hp Services > "There are seldom good technological solutions to behavioral > problems." > > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Imran Iqbal > Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2002 2:36 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering > > > We are currently an Exchange 5.5 site, as part of our move to Exchange > 2000 I am considering setting up Exchange on a 2 node Active Active > cluster and would be interested in hearing anyone views or real world > experiences with similar setups. Each server would have about 800 > active users and would probably be connected to a SAN for the shared > storage. > > I have heard that there were memory issues with this setup pre SP3. I > would like to know if there are any other problems and if it is worth > doing > > Thanks in advance > > > Imran > > ___
RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering
Then you don't need it active anywhere. -- Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity Atlanta, GA > -Original Message- > From: Andrey Fyodorov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 11:14 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering > > > Only the best. Microsoft DNS, active-directory integrated. :) > > -Original Message- > From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 11:11 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering > > > Only if you have crappy DNS servers. > > -- > Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE > Sr. Systems Administrator > Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity > Atlanta, GA > > > > -Original Message- > > From: Andrey Fyodorov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 11:10 AM > > To: Exchange Discussions > > Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering > > > > > > I vaguely remember talking about it in the past. Although we > > were talking about domain controllers. I thought that on the > > Exchange server I should still have it running. > > > > -Original Message----- > > From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 11:06 AM > > To: Exchange Discussions > > Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering > > > > > > Just disable the DNS Client service - it only causes > problems anyway. > > > > -- > > Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE > > Sr. Systems Administrator > > Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity > > Atlanta, GA > > > > > > > -Original Message- > > > From: Andrey Fyodorov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 10:46 AM > > > To: Exchange Discussions > > > Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering > > > > > > > > > I did just that. > > > > > > From personal experience I prefer to reboot the machine after > > > stopping the service (as opposed to simply restarting the > > > services). Sometimes the Information Store service takes > > > hours to stop. And if a full backup is running at the same > > > time (because it got delayed for whatever reason), IS will > > never stop. > > > > > > There was a period of time when I had to restart the back-end > > > Exchange server every night after applying SP2. Otherwise OWA > > > refused to work correctly the following day. > > > > > > But then I discovered that doing ipconfig /flushdns once in a > > > while solved that problem. > > > > > > -Original Message- > > > From: Great Cthulhu Jones [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > Sent: Saturday, October 12, 2002 9:02 AM > > > To: Exchange Discussions > > > Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering > > > > > > > > > Heck, just write a batch file that stops all services and > > > bounces the box > > > Sunday at 2AM and you don't even have to call it in to an > > > operator. Five > > > nines, indeed. The box only really needs to be up when people > > > are using it. > > > > > > (:= > > > > > > -Original Message- > > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of > Ed Crowley > > > Sent: Friday, October 11, 2002 9:00 PM > > > To: Exchange Discussions > > > Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering > > > > > > > > > It's a pretty steep price to pay to avoid an occasional > > Sunday morning > > > reboot. > > > > > > Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP kcCC+I > > > Tech Consultant > > > hp Services > > > Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups! > > > > > > > > > -Original Message- > > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of > Dennis Depp > > > Sent: Friday, October 11, 2002 12:15 AM > > > To: Exchange Discussions > > > Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering > > > > > > > > > I've looked into Exchange
RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering
Then why cluster? To me, it's a marketing gimmick. Make the business function seem much more important than it actually is, in order to justify overspending of an obscene degree. Good hardware, good maintenance, good planning, and good usage practices will serve most organizations just fine. (:= -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Andrey Fyodorov Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 10:04 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering 3 Storage Groups on each node, right? :) I like the idea of a/a/a/p, but that's a one trick pony. You better hope that the other two nodes are not going to fail soon. -Original Message- From: Great Cthulhu Jones [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 10:59 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering Which meant if you had 3 databases on each cluster, the other active node would fail as soon as it failed to mount one store too many. That's why MS now pushes a/a/a/p clustering. a/a was an unmitigated disaster. (:= -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Andrey Fyodorov Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 9:32 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering No, according to the theory you can get more users on Active/Active because both cluster nodes are being used to do something useful. But if one fails, the other node better be able to take on the load. -Original Message- From: Dennis Depp [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, October 11, 2002 2:50 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering Stay away from active/active. Go Active/passive instead. You can get more users on Active/Passive. Denny -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Imran Iqbal Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2002 5:36 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering We are currently an Exchange 5.5 site, as part of our move to Exchange 2000 I am considering setting up Exchange on a 2 node Active Active cluster and would be interested in hearing anyone views or real world experiences with similar setups. Each server would have about 800 active users and would probably be connected to a SAN for the shared storage. I have heard that there were memory issues with this setup pre SP3. I would like to know if there are any other problems and if it is worth doing Thanks in advance Imran _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering
When a customer wants it AND wants to pay money for it... customer is always right. :) Customers hate when one proves them wrong. -Original Message- From: Andy David [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 12:14 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering Perhaps it would be better if you educated that customer on better alternatives. Just as an aside, during Tony Redmond's session last week he asked how many in the audience were using clusters and I swear, a third of the people there raised their hands. I would have thought it a lot less. -Original Message- From: Andrey Fyodorov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 11:54 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering I prefer not to mess with Exchange clustering unless a customer insists on having a dedicated Exchange cluster. -Original Message- From: Ed Crowley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 11:35 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering And when you deploy an Exchange cluster, that's exactly what you get! Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP kcCC+I Tech Consultant hp Services Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups! -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Andrey Fyodorov Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 8:15 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering No I am just preparing for the worst-case scenario. -Original Message- From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 11:11 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering If you're basing your life around 4 identical boxes that all experience hardware failures that close together, I suggest you switch hardware vendors. Fast. Keep in mind, too, that A/A/A/P means you're running Datacenter. -- Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity Atlanta, GA > -Original Message- > From: Andrey Fyodorov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 11:04 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering > > > 3 Storage Groups on each node, right? :) > > I like the idea of a/a/a/p, but that's a one trick pony. You > better hope that the other two nodes are not going to fail soon. > > -Original Message- > From: Great Cthulhu Jones [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 10:59 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering > > > Which meant if you had 3 databases on each cluster, the other > active node > would fail as soon as it failed to mount one store too many. > > That's why MS now pushes a/a/a/p clustering. a/a was an unmitigated > disaster. > > (:= > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of > Andrey Fyodorov > Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 9:32 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering > > > No, according to the theory you can get more users on > Active/Active because > both cluster nodes are being used to do something useful. But > if one fails, > the other node better be able to take on the load. > > > > > > -Original Message- > From: Dennis Depp [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Friday, October 11, 2002 2:50 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering > > > Stay away from active/active. Go Active/passive instead. You can get > more users on Active/Passive. > > Denny > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Imran Iqbal > Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2002 5:36 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering > > > We are currently an Exchange 5.5 site, as part of our move to Exchange > 2000 I am considering setting up Exchange on a 2 node Active Active > cluster and would be interested in hearing anyone views or real world > experiences with similar setups. Each server would have about 800 > active users and would probably be connected to a SAN for the shared > storage. > > I have heard that there were memory issues with this setup pre SP3. I > would like to know if there are any other problems and if it is worth > doing > > Thanks in advance > > > Imran > > ___
RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering
MEC = a lot of non-Exchange aware managers who came there on a habitual basis. -Original Message- From: Chris Scharff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 12:42 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering MEC <> Typical Exchange environment. > -Original Message- > From: Andy David [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 11:14 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering > > > Perhaps it would be better if you educated that customer on > better alternatives. Just as an aside, during Tony Redmond's > session last week he asked how many in the audience were > using clusters and I swear, a third of the people there > raised their hands. I would have thought it a lot less. > > > > > -Original Message- > From: Andrey Fyodorov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 11:54 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering > > > I prefer not to mess with Exchange clustering unless a > customer insists on having a dedicated Exchange cluster. > > -Original Message- > From: Ed Crowley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 11:35 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering > > > And when you deploy an Exchange cluster, that's exactly what you get! > > Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP kcCC+I > Tech Consultant > hp Services > Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups! > > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of > Andrey Fyodorov > Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 8:15 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering > > > No I am just preparing for the worst-case scenario. > > > -----Original Message- > From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 11:11 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering > > > If you're basing your life around 4 identical boxes that all > experience hardware failures that close together, I suggest > you switch hardware vendors. Fast. > > Keep in mind, too, that A/A/A/P means you're running Datacenter. > > -- > Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE > Sr. Systems Administrator > Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity > Atlanta, GA > > > > -Original Message- > > From: Andrey Fyodorov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 11:04 AM > > To: Exchange Discussions > > Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering > > > > > > 3 Storage Groups on each node, right? :) > > > > I like the idea of a/a/a/p, but that's a one trick pony. You better > > hope that the other two nodes are not going to fail soon. > > > > -Original Message- > > From: Great Cthulhu Jones [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 10:59 AM > > To: Exchange Discussions > > Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering > > > > > > Which meant if you had 3 databases on each cluster, the > other active > > node would fail as soon as it failed to mount one store too many. > > > > That's why MS now pushes a/a/a/p clustering. a/a was an unmitigated > > disaster. > > > > (:= > > > > -Original Message- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Andrey > > Fyodorov > > Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 9:32 AM > > To: Exchange Discussions > > Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering > > > > > > No, according to the theory you can get more users on Active/Active > > because both cluster nodes are being used to do something > useful. But > > if one fails, > > the other node better be able to take on the load. > > > > > > > > > > > > -Original Message- > > From: Dennis Depp [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Friday, October 11, 2002 2:50 AM > > To: Exchange Discussions > > Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering > > > > > > Stay away from active/active. Go Active/passive instead. > You can get > > > more users on Active/Passive. > > > > Denny > > > > -Original Message- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > [mailto:[
RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering
Of course on outside we have Bind DNS. But for internal use within the AD - AD's own DNS. -Original Message- From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 1:45 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering Then you don't need it active anywhere. -- Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity Atlanta, GA > -Original Message- > From: Andrey Fyodorov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 11:14 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering > > > Only the best. Microsoft DNS, active-directory integrated. :) > > -Original Message- > From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 11:11 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering > > > Only if you have crappy DNS servers. > > -- > Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE > Sr. Systems Administrator > Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity > Atlanta, GA > > > > -Original Message- > > From: Andrey Fyodorov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 11:10 AM > > To: Exchange Discussions > > Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering > > > > > > I vaguely remember talking about it in the past. Although we > > were talking about domain controllers. I thought that on the > > Exchange server I should still have it running. > > > > -Original Message- > > From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 11:06 AM > > To: Exchange Discussions > > Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering > > > > > > Just disable the DNS Client service - it only causes > problems anyway. > > > > -- > > Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE > > Sr. Systems Administrator > > Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity > > Atlanta, GA > > > > > > > -Original Message- > > > From: Andrey Fyodorov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 10:46 AM > > > To: Exchange Discussions > > > Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering > > > > > > > > > I did just that. > > > > > > From personal experience I prefer to reboot the machine after > > > stopping the service (as opposed to simply restarting the > > > services). Sometimes the Information Store service takes > > > hours to stop. And if a full backup is running at the same > > > time (because it got delayed for whatever reason), IS will > > never stop. > > > > > > There was a period of time when I had to restart the back-end > > > Exchange server every night after applying SP2. Otherwise OWA > > > refused to work correctly the following day. > > > > > > But then I discovered that doing ipconfig /flushdns once in a > > > while solved that problem. > > > > > > -Original Message- > > > From: Great Cthulhu Jones [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > Sent: Saturday, October 12, 2002 9:02 AM > > > To: Exchange Discussions > > > Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering > > > > > > > > > Heck, just write a batch file that stops all services and > > > bounces the box > > > Sunday at 2AM and you don't even have to call it in to an > > > operator. Five > > > nines, indeed. The box only really needs to be up when people > > > are using it. > > > > > > (:= > > > > > > -Original Message- > > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of > Ed Crowley > > > Sent: Friday, October 11, 2002 9:00 PM > > > To: Exchange Discussions > > > Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering > > > > > > > > > It's a pretty steep price to pay to avoid an occasional > > Sunday morning > > > reboot. > > > > > > Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP kcCC+I > > > Tech Consultant > > > hp Services > > > Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups! > > > > > > > > > -Original Message- > > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > [mailto:[EMA
RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering
My passive/passive/passive/passive Datacenter cluster has a perfect 100% downtime. Top that, I say! We even keep the power cables in a separate area to prevent any accidental uptime. (:= -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Roger Seielstad Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 12:45 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering Then you don't need it active anywhere. -- Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity Atlanta, GA > -Original Message- > From: Andrey Fyodorov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 11:14 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering > > > Only the best. Microsoft DNS, active-directory integrated. :) > > -Original Message- > From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 11:11 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering > > > Only if you have crappy DNS servers. > > -- > Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE > Sr. Systems Administrator > Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity > Atlanta, GA > > > > -Original Message- > > From: Andrey Fyodorov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 11:10 AM > > To: Exchange Discussions > > Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering > > > > > > I vaguely remember talking about it in the past. Although we > > were talking about domain controllers. I thought that on the > > Exchange server I should still have it running. > > > > -Original Message----- > > From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 11:06 AM > > To: Exchange Discussions > > Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering > > > > > > Just disable the DNS Client service - it only causes > problems anyway. > > > > -- > > Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE > > Sr. Systems Administrator > > Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity > > Atlanta, GA > > > > > > > -Original Message- > > > From: Andrey Fyodorov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 10:46 AM > > > To: Exchange Discussions > > > Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering > > > > > > > > > I did just that. > > > > > > From personal experience I prefer to reboot the machine after > > > stopping the service (as opposed to simply restarting the > > > services). Sometimes the Information Store service takes > > > hours to stop. And if a full backup is running at the same > > > time (because it got delayed for whatever reason), IS will > > never stop. > > > > > > There was a period of time when I had to restart the back-end > > > Exchange server every night after applying SP2. Otherwise OWA > > > refused to work correctly the following day. > > > > > > But then I discovered that doing ipconfig /flushdns once in a > > > while solved that problem. > > > > > > -Original Message- > > > From: Great Cthulhu Jones [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > Sent: Saturday, October 12, 2002 9:02 AM > > > To: Exchange Discussions > > > Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering > > > > > > > > > Heck, just write a batch file that stops all services and > > > bounces the box > > > Sunday at 2AM and you don't even have to call it in to an > > > operator. Five > > > nines, indeed. The box only really needs to be up when people > > > are using it. > > > > > > (:= > > > > > > -Original Message- > > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of > Ed Crowley > > > Sent: Friday, October 11, 2002 9:00 PM > > > To: Exchange Discussions > > > Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering > > > > > > > > > It's a pretty steep price to pay to avoid an occasional > > Sunday morning > > > reboot. > > > > > > Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP kcCC+I > > > Tech Consultant > > > hp Services > > > Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups! > > > > > > > > > -Original Messa
RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering
A tootsie roll? My bad... I got the threads crossed, there... (:= -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Ed Crowley Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 10:35 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering And when you deploy an Exchange cluster, that's exactly what you get! Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP kcCC+I Tech Consultant hp Services Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups! -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Andrey Fyodorov Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 8:15 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering No I am just preparing for the worst-case scenario. -Original Message- From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 11:11 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering If you're basing your life around 4 identical boxes that all experience hardware failures that close together, I suggest you switch hardware vendors. Fast. Keep in mind, too, that A/A/A/P means you're running Datacenter. -- Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity Atlanta, GA > -Original Message- > From: Andrey Fyodorov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 11:04 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering > > > 3 Storage Groups on each node, right? :) > > I like the idea of a/a/a/p, but that's a one trick pony. You > better hope that the other two nodes are not going to fail soon. > > -Original Message- > From: Great Cthulhu Jones [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 10:59 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering > > > Which meant if you had 3 databases on each cluster, the other > active node > would fail as soon as it failed to mount one store too many. > > That's why MS now pushes a/a/a/p clustering. a/a was an unmitigated > disaster. > > (:= > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of > Andrey Fyodorov > Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 9:32 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering > > > No, according to the theory you can get more users on > Active/Active because > both cluster nodes are being used to do something useful. But > if one fails, > the other node better be able to take on the load. > > > > > > -Original Message- > From: Dennis Depp [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Friday, October 11, 2002 2:50 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering > > > Stay away from active/active. Go Active/passive instead. You can get > more users on Active/Passive. > > Denny > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Imran Iqbal > Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2002 5:36 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering > > > We are currently an Exchange 5.5 site, as part of our move to Exchange > 2000 I am considering setting up Exchange on a 2 node Active Active > cluster and would be interested in hearing anyone views or real world > experiences with similar setups. Each server would have about 800 > active users and would probably be connected to a SAN for the shared > storage. > > I have heard that there were memory issues with this setup pre SP3. I > would like to know if there are any other problems and if it is worth > doing > > Thanks in advance > > > Imran > > _ > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > _ > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > _ > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PRO
RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering
As a customer, I appreciate when I'm shown that I was wrong when planning to spend 100% more than I have to. Makes me want to use that provider again. -- Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity Atlanta, GA > -Original Message- > From: Andrey Fyodorov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 3:49 PM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering > > > When a customer wants it AND wants to pay money for it... > customer is always right. :) > > Customers hate when one proves them wrong. > > -Original Message- > From: Andy David [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 12:14 PM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering > > > Perhaps it would be better if you educated that customer on better > alternatives. > Just as an aside, during Tony Redmond's session last week he > asked how many > in the audience were using clusters and I swear, a third of > the people there > raised their hands. I would have thought it a lot less. > > > > > -Original Message- > From: Andrey Fyodorov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 11:54 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering > > > I prefer not to mess with Exchange clustering unless a > customer insists on > having a dedicated Exchange cluster. > > -Original Message- > From: Ed Crowley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 11:35 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering > > > And when you deploy an Exchange cluster, that's exactly what you get! > > Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP kcCC+I > Tech Consultant > hp Services > Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups! > > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of > Andrey Fyodorov > Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 8:15 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering > > > No I am just preparing for the worst-case scenario. > > > -Original Message- > From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 11:11 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering > > > If you're basing your life around 4 identical boxes that all > experience > hardware failures that close together, I suggest you switch hardware > vendors. Fast. > > Keep in mind, too, that A/A/A/P means you're running Datacenter. > > -- > Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE > Sr. Systems Administrator > Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity > Atlanta, GA > > > > -Original Message- > > From: Andrey Fyodorov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 11:04 AM > > To: Exchange Discussions > > Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering > > > > > > 3 Storage Groups on each node, right? :) > > > > I like the idea of a/a/a/p, but that's a one trick pony. You > > better hope that the other two nodes are not going to fail soon. > > > > -Original Message- > > From: Great Cthulhu Jones [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 10:59 AM > > To: Exchange Discussions > > Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering > > > > > > Which meant if you had 3 databases on each cluster, the other > > active node > > would fail as soon as it failed to mount one store too many. > > > > That's why MS now pushes a/a/a/p clustering. a/a was an unmitigated > > disaster. > > > > (:= > > > > -Original Message- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of > > Andrey Fyodorov > > Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 9:32 AM > > To: Exchange Discussions > > Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering > > > > > > No, according to the theory you can get more users on > > Active/Active because > > both cluster nodes are being used to do something useful. But > > if one fails, > > the other node better be able to take on the load. > > > > > > > > > > > > -Original Message- > > From: Dennis Depp [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sen
RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering
As always, I bow to your greatness. How's the little tentacles? -- Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity Atlanta, GA > -Original Message- > From: Great Cthulhu Jones [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 4:00 PM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering > > > My passive/passive/passive/passive Datacenter cluster has a > perfect 100% > downtime. Top that, I say! We even keep the power cables in a > separate area > to prevent any accidental uptime. > > (:= > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of > Roger Seielstad > Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 12:45 PM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering > > > Then you don't need it active anywhere. > > -- > Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE > Sr. Systems Administrator > Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity > Atlanta, GA > > > > -Original Message- > > From: Andrey Fyodorov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 11:14 AM > > To: Exchange Discussions > > Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering > > > > > > Only the best. Microsoft DNS, active-directory integrated. :) > > > > -Original Message- > > From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 11:11 AM > > To: Exchange Discussions > > Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering > > > > > > Only if you have crappy DNS servers. > > > > -- > > Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE > > Sr. Systems Administrator > > Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity > > Atlanta, GA > > > > > > > -Original Message- > > > From: Andrey Fyodorov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 11:10 AM > > > To: Exchange Discussions > > > Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering > > > > > > > > > I vaguely remember talking about it in the past. Although we > > > were talking about domain controllers. I thought that on the > > > Exchange server I should still have it running. > > > > > > -Original Message- > > > From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 11:06 AM > > > To: Exchange Discussions > > > Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering > > > > > > > > > Just disable the DNS Client service - it only causes > > problems anyway. > > > > > > -- > > > Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE > > > Sr. Systems Administrator > > > Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity > > > Atlanta, GA > > > > > > > > > > -Original Message- > > > > From: Andrey Fyodorov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > > Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 10:46 AM > > > > To: Exchange Discussions > > > > Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering > > > > > > > > > > > > I did just that. > > > > > > > > From personal experience I prefer to reboot the machine after > > > > stopping the service (as opposed to simply restarting the > > > > services). Sometimes the Information Store service takes > > > > hours to stop. And if a full backup is running at the same > > > > time (because it got delayed for whatever reason), IS will > > > never stop. > > > > > > > > There was a period of time when I had to restart the back-end > > > > Exchange server every night after applying SP2. Otherwise OWA > > > > refused to work correctly the following day. > > > > > > > > But then I discovered that doing ipconfig /flushdns once in a > > > > while solved that problem. > > > > > > > > -----Original Message- > > > > From: Great Cthulhu Jones [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > > Sent: Saturday, October 12, 2002 9:02 AM > > > > To: Exchange Discussions > > > > Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering > > > > > > > > > > > > Heck, just write a batch file that stops
RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering
Doing fine, doing fine. Cthough'ng'aa chewed up her first gas giant yesterday. I'll post pics soon. How's you and yours? (:= -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Roger Seielstad Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 3:04 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering As always, I bow to your greatness. How's the little tentacles? -- Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity Atlanta, GA > -Original Message- > From: Great Cthulhu Jones [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 4:00 PM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering > > > My passive/passive/passive/passive Datacenter cluster has a > perfect 100% > downtime. Top that, I say! We even keep the power cables in a > separate area > to prevent any accidental uptime. > > (:= > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of > Roger Seielstad > Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 12:45 PM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering > > > Then you don't need it active anywhere. > > -- > Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE > Sr. Systems Administrator > Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity > Atlanta, GA > > > > -Original Message- > > From: Andrey Fyodorov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 11:14 AM > > To: Exchange Discussions > > Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering > > > > > > Only the best. Microsoft DNS, active-directory integrated. :) > > > > -Original Message----- > > From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 11:11 AM > > To: Exchange Discussions > > Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering > > > > > > Only if you have crappy DNS servers. > > > > -- > > Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE > > Sr. Systems Administrator > > Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity > > Atlanta, GA > > > > > > > -Original Message- > > > From: Andrey Fyodorov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 11:10 AM > > > To: Exchange Discussions > > > Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering > > > > > > > > > I vaguely remember talking about it in the past. Although we > > > were talking about domain controllers. I thought that on the > > > Exchange server I should still have it running. > > > > > > -Original Message- > > > From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 11:06 AM > > > To: Exchange Discussions > > > Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering > > > > > > > > > Just disable the DNS Client service - it only causes > > problems anyway. > > > > > > -- > > > Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE > > > Sr. Systems Administrator > > > Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity > > > Atlanta, GA > > > > > > > > > > -Original Message- > > > > From: Andrey Fyodorov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > > Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 10:46 AM > > > > To: Exchange Discussions > > > > Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering > > > > > > > > > > > > I did just that. > > > > > > > > From personal experience I prefer to reboot the machine after > > > > stopping the service (as opposed to simply restarting the > > > > services). Sometimes the Information Store service takes > > > > hours to stop. And if a full backup is running at the same > > > > time (because it got delayed for whatever reason), IS will > > > never stop. > > > > > > > > There was a period of time when I had to restart the back-end > > > > Exchange server every night after applying SP2. Otherwise OWA > > > > refused to work correctly the following day. > > > > > > > > But then I discovered that doing ipconfig /flushdns once in a > > > > while solved that problem. > > > > > > > > -Ori
RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering
You must be a different type of a customer. -Original Message- From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 4:03 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering As a customer, I appreciate when I'm shown that I was wrong when planning to spend 100% more than I have to. Makes me want to use that provider again. -- Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity Atlanta, GA > -Original Message- > From: Andrey Fyodorov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 3:49 PM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering > > > When a customer wants it AND wants to pay money for it... > customer is always right. :) > > Customers hate when one proves them wrong. > > -Original Message- > From: Andy David [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 12:14 PM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering > > > Perhaps it would be better if you educated that customer on better > alternatives. > Just as an aside, during Tony Redmond's session last week he > asked how many > in the audience were using clusters and I swear, a third of > the people there > raised their hands. I would have thought it a lot less. > > > > > -Original Message- > From: Andrey Fyodorov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 11:54 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering > > > I prefer not to mess with Exchange clustering unless a > customer insists on > having a dedicated Exchange cluster. > > -Original Message- > From: Ed Crowley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 11:35 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering > > > And when you deploy an Exchange cluster, that's exactly what you get! > > Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP kcCC+I > Tech Consultant > hp Services > Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups! > > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of > Andrey Fyodorov > Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 8:15 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering > > > No I am just preparing for the worst-case scenario. > > > -Original Message- > From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 11:11 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering > > > If you're basing your life around 4 identical boxes that all > experience > hardware failures that close together, I suggest you switch hardware > vendors. Fast. > > Keep in mind, too, that A/A/A/P means you're running Datacenter. > > -- > Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE > Sr. Systems Administrator > Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity > Atlanta, GA > > > > -Original Message- > > From: Andrey Fyodorov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 11:04 AM > > To: Exchange Discussions > > Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering > > > > > > 3 Storage Groups on each node, right? :) > > > > I like the idea of a/a/a/p, but that's a one trick pony. You > > better hope that the other two nodes are not going to fail soon. > > > > -Original Message- > > From: Great Cthulhu Jones [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 10:59 AM > > To: Exchange Discussions > > Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering > > > > > > Which meant if you had 3 databases on each cluster, the other > > active node > > would fail as soon as it failed to mount one store too many. > > > > That's why MS now pushes a/a/a/p clustering. a/a was an unmitigated > > disaster. > > > > (:= > > > > -Original Message- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of > > Andrey Fyodorov > > Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 9:32 AM > > To: Exchange Discussions > > Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering > > > > > > No, according to the theory you can get more users on > > Active/Active because > > both cluster nodes are being used to do something useful. But >
RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering
Nothing planet shattering. Just the usual. -- Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity Atlanta, GA > -Original Message- > From: Great Cthulhu Jones [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 4:16 PM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering > > > Doing fine, doing fine. Cthough'ng'aa chewed up her first gas giant > yesterday. I'll post pics soon. > > How's you and yours? > > (:= > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of > Roger Seielstad > Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 3:04 PM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering > > > As always, I bow to your greatness. > > How's the little tentacles? > > -- > Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE > Sr. Systems Administrator > Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity > Atlanta, GA > > > > -Original Message- > > From: Great Cthulhu Jones [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 4:00 PM > > To: Exchange Discussions > > Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering > > > > > > My passive/passive/passive/passive Datacenter cluster has a > > perfect 100% > > downtime. Top that, I say! We even keep the power cables in a > > separate area > > to prevent any accidental uptime. > > > > (:= > > > > -----Original Message- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of > > Roger Seielstad > > Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 12:45 PM > > To: Exchange Discussions > > Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering > > > > > > Then you don't need it active anywhere. > > > > -- > > Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE > > Sr. Systems Administrator > > Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity > > Atlanta, GA > > > > > > > -Original Message- > > > From: Andrey Fyodorov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 11:14 AM > > > To: Exchange Discussions > > > Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering > > > > > > > > > Only the best. Microsoft DNS, active-directory integrated. :) > > > > > > -Original Message- > > > From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 11:11 AM > > > To: Exchange Discussions > > > Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering > > > > > > > > > Only if you have crappy DNS servers. > > > > > > -- > > > Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE > > > Sr. Systems Administrator > > > Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity > > > Atlanta, GA > > > > > > > > > > -Original Message- > > > > From: Andrey Fyodorov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > > Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 11:10 AM > > > > To: Exchange Discussions > > > > Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering > > > > > > > > > > > > I vaguely remember talking about it in the past. Although we > > > > were talking about domain controllers. I thought that on the > > > > Exchange server I should still have it running. > > > > > > > > -Original Message- > > > > From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > > Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 11:06 AM > > > > To: Exchange Discussions > > > > Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering > > > > > > > > > > > > Just disable the DNS Client service - it only causes > > > problems anyway. > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE > > > > Sr. Systems Administrator > > > > Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity > > > > Atlanta, GA > > > > > > > > > > > > > -Original Message- > > > > > From: Andrey Fyodorov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > > > Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 10:46 AM > > > > > To: Exchange Discussions > > > > > Sub
RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering
An intelligent one? If that makes me different, so be it. I'm also the first to send an arse clown out the door for recommending solutions that are way out of line. Like Exchange clusters. -- Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity Atlanta, GA > -Original Message- > From: Andrey Fyodorov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 4:25 PM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering > > > You must be a different type of a customer. > > -Original Message- > From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 4:03 PM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering > > > As a customer, I appreciate when I'm shown that I was wrong > when planning to > spend 100% more than I have to. Makes me want to use that > provider again. > > -- > Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE > Sr. Systems Administrator > Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity > Atlanta, GA > > > > -Original Message- > > From: Andrey Fyodorov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 3:49 PM > > To: Exchange Discussions > > Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering > > > > > > When a customer wants it AND wants to pay money for it... > > customer is always right. :) > > > > Customers hate when one proves them wrong. > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Andy David [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 12:14 PM > > To: Exchange Discussions > > Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering > > > > > > Perhaps it would be better if you educated that customer on better > > alternatives. > > Just as an aside, during Tony Redmond's session last week he > > asked how many > > in the audience were using clusters and I swear, a third of > > the people there > > raised their hands. I would have thought it a lot less. > > > > > > > > > > -Original Message- > > From: Andrey Fyodorov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 11:54 AM > > To: Exchange Discussions > > Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering > > > > > > I prefer not to mess with Exchange clustering unless a > > customer insists on > > having a dedicated Exchange cluster. > > > > -Original Message- > > From: Ed Crowley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 11:35 AM > > To: Exchange Discussions > > Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering > > > > > > And when you deploy an Exchange cluster, that's exactly > what you get! > > > > Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP kcCC+I > > Tech Consultant > > hp Services > > Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups! > > > > > > -Original Message- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of > > Andrey Fyodorov > > Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 8:15 AM > > To: Exchange Discussions > > Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering > > > > > > No I am just preparing for the worst-case scenario. > > > > > > -Original Message- > > From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 11:11 AM > > To: Exchange Discussions > > Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering > > > > > > If you're basing your life around 4 identical boxes that all > > experience > > hardware failures that close together, I suggest you switch hardware > > vendors. Fast. > > > > Keep in mind, too, that A/A/A/P means you're running Datacenter. > > > > -- > > Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE > > Sr. Systems Administrator > > Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity > > Atlanta, GA > > > > > > > -Original Message- > > > From: Andrey Fyodorov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 11:04 AM > > > To: Exchange Discussions > > > Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering > > > > > > > > > 3 Storage Groups on each node, right? :) > > > > > > I like the idea of a/a/a/p,
RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering
Is this the one? Kind of looked like the type of thing your training could inspire... http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap021014.html -Original Message- From: Great Cthulhu Jones [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 1:16 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering Doing fine, doing fine. Cthough'ng'aa chewed up her first gas giant yesterday. I'll post pics soon. How's you and yours? (:= -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Roger Seielstad Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 3:04 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering As always, I bow to your greatness. How's the little tentacles? -- Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity Atlanta, GA > -Original Message- > From: Great Cthulhu Jones [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 4:00 PM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering > > > My passive/passive/passive/passive Datacenter cluster has a perfect > 100% downtime. Top that, I say! We even keep the power cables in a > separate area > to prevent any accidental uptime. > > (:= > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Roger > Seielstad > Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 12:45 PM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering > > > Then you don't need it active anywhere. > > -- > Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE > Sr. Systems Administrator > Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity > Atlanta, GA > > > > -Original Message- > > From: Andrey Fyodorov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 11:14 AM > > To: Exchange Discussions > > Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering > > > > > > Only the best. Microsoft DNS, active-directory integrated. :) > > > > -----Original Message- > > From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 11:11 AM > > To: Exchange Discussions > > Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering > > > > > > Only if you have crappy DNS servers. > > > > -- > > Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE > > Sr. Systems Administrator > > Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity > > Atlanta, GA > > > > > > > -Original Message- > > > From: Andrey Fyodorov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 11:10 AM > > > To: Exchange Discussions > > > Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering > > > > > > > > > I vaguely remember talking about it in the past. Although we were > > > talking about domain controllers. I thought that on the Exchange > > > server I should still have it running. > > > > > > -Original Message- > > > From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 11:06 AM > > > To: Exchange Discussions > > > Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering > > > > > > > > > Just disable the DNS Client service - it only causes > > problems anyway. > > > > > > -- > > > Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE > > > Sr. Systems Administrator > > > Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity > > > Atlanta, GA > > > > > > > > > > -Original Message- > > > > From: Andrey Fyodorov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > > Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 10:46 AM > > > > To: Exchange Discussions > > > > Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering > > > > > > > > > > > > I did just that. > > > > > > > > From personal experience I prefer to reboot the machine after > > > > stopping the service (as opposed to simply restarting the > > > > services). Sometimes the Information Store service takes hours > > > > to stop. And if a full backup is running at the same time > > > > (because it got delayed for whatever reason), IS will > > > never stop. > > > > > > > > There was a period of time when I had to restart the back-end > > > >
RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering
Depends on how you tell him... RIGHT WAY: Hey, looks like we can save a little money here... WRONG WAY: You set it up stupid. I'm smarter than you. (:= -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Andrey Fyodorov Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 3:25 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering You must be a different type of a customer. -Original Message- From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 4:03 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering As a customer, I appreciate when I'm shown that I was wrong when planning to spend 100% more than I have to. Makes me want to use that provider again. -- Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity Atlanta, GA > -Original Message- > From: Andrey Fyodorov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 3:49 PM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering > > > When a customer wants it AND wants to pay money for it... > customer is always right. :) > > Customers hate when one proves them wrong. > > -Original Message- > From: Andy David [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 12:14 PM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering > > > Perhaps it would be better if you educated that customer on better > alternatives. > Just as an aside, during Tony Redmond's session last week he > asked how many > in the audience were using clusters and I swear, a third of > the people there > raised their hands. I would have thought it a lot less. > > > > > -Original Message- > From: Andrey Fyodorov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 11:54 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering > > > I prefer not to mess with Exchange clustering unless a > customer insists on > having a dedicated Exchange cluster. > > -Original Message----- > From: Ed Crowley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 11:35 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering > > > And when you deploy an Exchange cluster, that's exactly what you get! > > Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP kcCC+I > Tech Consultant > hp Services > Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups! > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of > Andrey Fyodorov > Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 8:15 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering > > > No I am just preparing for the worst-case scenario. > > > -Original Message- > From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 11:11 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering > > > If you're basing your life around 4 identical boxes that all > experience > hardware failures that close together, I suggest you switch hardware > vendors. Fast. > > Keep in mind, too, that A/A/A/P means you're running Datacenter. > > -- > Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE > Sr. Systems Administrator > Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity > Atlanta, GA > > > > -Original Message- > > From: Andrey Fyodorov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 11:04 AM > > To: Exchange Discussions > > Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering > > > > > > 3 Storage Groups on each node, right? :) > > > > I like the idea of a/a/a/p, but that's a one trick pony. You > > better hope that the other two nodes are not going to fail soon. > > > > -Original Message- > > From: Great Cthulhu Jones [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 10:59 AM > > To: Exchange Discussions > > Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering > > > > > > Which meant if you had 3 databases on each cluster, the other > > active node > > would fail as soon as it failed to mount one store too many. > > > > That's why MS now pushes a/a/a/p clustering. a/a was an unmitigated > > disaster. > > > > (:= > > > > -Original Message- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of > > Andrey Fyodorov > &
RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering
Can you please be my customer? -Original Message- From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 4:28 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering An intelligent one? If that makes me different, so be it. I'm also the first to send an arse clown out the door for recommending solutions that are way out of line. Like Exchange clusters. -- Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity Atlanta, GA > -Original Message- > From: Andrey Fyodorov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 4:25 PM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering > > > You must be a different type of a customer. > > -Original Message- > From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 4:03 PM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering > > > As a customer, I appreciate when I'm shown that I was wrong > when planning to > spend 100% more than I have to. Makes me want to use that > provider again. > > -- > Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE > Sr. Systems Administrator > Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity > Atlanta, GA > > > > -Original Message- > > From: Andrey Fyodorov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 3:49 PM > > To: Exchange Discussions > > Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering > > > > > > When a customer wants it AND wants to pay money for it... > > customer is always right. :) > > > > Customers hate when one proves them wrong. > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Andy David [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 12:14 PM > > To: Exchange Discussions > > Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering > > > > > > Perhaps it would be better if you educated that customer on better > > alternatives. > > Just as an aside, during Tony Redmond's session last week he > > asked how many > > in the audience were using clusters and I swear, a third of > > the people there > > raised their hands. I would have thought it a lot less. > > > > > > > > > > -Original Message- > > From: Andrey Fyodorov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 11:54 AM > > To: Exchange Discussions > > Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering > > > > > > I prefer not to mess with Exchange clustering unless a > > customer insists on > > having a dedicated Exchange cluster. > > > > -Original Message- > > From: Ed Crowley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 11:35 AM > > To: Exchange Discussions > > Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering > > > > > > And when you deploy an Exchange cluster, that's exactly > what you get! > > > > Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP kcCC+I > > Tech Consultant > > hp Services > > Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups! > > > > > > -Original Message- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of > > Andrey Fyodorov > > Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 8:15 AM > > To: Exchange Discussions > > Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering > > > > > > No I am just preparing for the worst-case scenario. > > > > > > -Original Message- > > From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 11:11 AM > > To: Exchange Discussions > > Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering > > > > > > If you're basing your life around 4 identical boxes that all > > experience > > hardware failures that close together, I suggest you switch hardware > > vendors. Fast. > > > > Keep in mind, too, that A/A/A/P means you're running Datacenter. > > > > -- > > Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE > > Sr. Systems Administrator > > Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity > > Atlanta, GA > > > > > > > -Original Message- > > > From: Andrey Fyodorov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 11:04 AM > > > To: Exchan
RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering
I'm sure CJ and others would support me in saying that I don't need the services of Exchange consultants. -- Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity Atlanta, GA > -Original Message- > From: Andrey Fyodorov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 4:31 PM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering > > > Can you please be my customer? > > -Original Message- > From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 4:28 PM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering > > > An intelligent one? If that makes me different, so be it. > > I'm also the first to send an arse clown out the door for recommending > solutions that are way out of line. Like Exchange clusters. > > -- > Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE > Sr. Systems Administrator > Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity > Atlanta, GA > > > > -Original Message- > > From: Andrey Fyodorov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 4:25 PM > > To: Exchange Discussions > > Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering > > > > > > You must be a different type of a customer. > > > > -Original Message- > > From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 4:03 PM > > To: Exchange Discussions > > Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering > > > > > > As a customer, I appreciate when I'm shown that I was wrong > > when planning to > > spend 100% more than I have to. Makes me want to use that > > provider again. > > > > -- > > Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE > > Sr. Systems Administrator > > Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity > > Atlanta, GA > > > > > > > -Original Message- > > > From: Andrey Fyodorov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 3:49 PM > > > To: Exchange Discussions > > > Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering > > > > > > > > > When a customer wants it AND wants to pay money for it... > > > customer is always right. :) > > > > > > Customers hate when one proves them wrong. > > > > > > -Original Message- > > > From: Andy David [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 12:14 PM > > > To: Exchange Discussions > > > Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering > > > > > > > > > Perhaps it would be better if you educated that customer on better > > > alternatives. > > > Just as an aside, during Tony Redmond's session last week he > > > asked how many > > > in the audience were using clusters and I swear, a third of > > > the people there > > > raised their hands. I would have thought it a lot less. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message- > > > From: Andrey Fyodorov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 11:54 AM > > > To: Exchange Discussions > > > Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering > > > > > > > > > I prefer not to mess with Exchange clustering unless a > > > customer insists on > > > having a dedicated Exchange cluster. > > > > > > -Original Message- > > > From: Ed Crowley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 11:35 AM > > > To: Exchange Discussions > > > Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering > > > > > > > > > And when you deploy an Exchange cluster, that's exactly > > what you get! > > > > > > Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP kcCC+I > > > Tech Consultant > > > hp Services > > > Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups! > > > > > > > > > -Original Message- > > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of > > > Andrey Fyodorov > > > Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 8:15 AM > > > To: Exchange Discussions > > > Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering > > > > >
RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering
I try to talk them out of it and so far have a perfect record. Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP kcCC+I Tech Consultant hp Services Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups! -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Andrey Fyodorov Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 8:54 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering I prefer not to mess with Exchange clustering unless a customer insists on having a dedicated Exchange cluster. -Original Message- From: Ed Crowley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 11:35 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering And when you deploy an Exchange cluster, that's exactly what you get! Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP kcCC+I Tech Consultant hp Services Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups! -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Andrey Fyodorov Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 8:15 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering No I am just preparing for the worst-case scenario. -Original Message- From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 11:11 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering If you're basing your life around 4 identical boxes that all experience hardware failures that close together, I suggest you switch hardware vendors. Fast. Keep in mind, too, that A/A/A/P means you're running Datacenter. -- Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity Atlanta, GA > -Original Message- > From: Andrey Fyodorov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 11:04 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering > > > 3 Storage Groups on each node, right? :) > > I like the idea of a/a/a/p, but that's a one trick pony. You better > hope that the other two nodes are not going to fail soon. > > -Original Message- > From: Great Cthulhu Jones [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 10:59 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering > > > Which meant if you had 3 databases on each cluster, the other active > node would fail as soon as it failed to mount one store too many. > > That's why MS now pushes a/a/a/p clustering. a/a was an unmitigated > disaster. > > (:= > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Andrey > Fyodorov > Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 9:32 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering > > > No, according to the theory you can get more users on Active/Active > because both cluster nodes are being used to do something useful. But > if one fails, > the other node better be able to take on the load. > > > > > > -----Original Message- > From: Dennis Depp [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Friday, October 11, 2002 2:50 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering > > > Stay away from active/active. Go Active/passive instead. You can get > more users on Active/Passive. > > Denny > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Imran Iqbal > Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2002 5:36 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering > > > We are currently an Exchange 5.5 site, as part of our move to Exchange > 2000 I am considering setting up Exchange on a 2 node Active Active > cluster and would be interested in hearing anyone views or real world > experiences with similar setups. Each server would have about 800 > active users and would probably be connected to a SAN for the shared > storage. > > I have heard that there were memory issues with this setup pre SP3. I > would like to know if there are any other problems and if it is worth > doing > > Thanks in advance > > > Imran > > _ > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > _ > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > Archives:
RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering
...And nearly all of them were there to find out how to make their clusters work right. I'm certain they went away disappointed. Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP kcCC+I Tech Consultant hp Services Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups! -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Andy David Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 9:14 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering Perhaps it would be better if you educated that customer on better alternatives. Just as an aside, during Tony Redmond's session last week he asked how many in the audience were using clusters and I swear, a third of the people there raised their hands. I would have thought it a lot less. -Original Message- From: Andrey Fyodorov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 11:54 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering I prefer not to mess with Exchange clustering unless a customer insists on having a dedicated Exchange cluster. -Original Message- From: Ed Crowley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 11:35 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering And when you deploy an Exchange cluster, that's exactly what you get! Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP kcCC+I Tech Consultant hp Services Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups! -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Andrey Fyodorov Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 8:15 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering No I am just preparing for the worst-case scenario. -Original Message- From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 11:11 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering If you're basing your life around 4 identical boxes that all experience hardware failures that close together, I suggest you switch hardware vendors. Fast. Keep in mind, too, that A/A/A/P means you're running Datacenter. -- Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity Atlanta, GA > -Original Message- > From: Andrey Fyodorov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 11:04 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering > > > 3 Storage Groups on each node, right? :) > > I like the idea of a/a/a/p, but that's a one trick pony. You better > hope that the other two nodes are not going to fail soon. > > -Original Message- > From: Great Cthulhu Jones [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 10:59 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering > > > Which meant if you had 3 databases on each cluster, the other active > node would fail as soon as it failed to mount one store too many. > > That's why MS now pushes a/a/a/p clustering. a/a was an unmitigated > disaster. > > (:= > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Andrey > Fyodorov > Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 9:32 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering > > > No, according to the theory you can get more users on Active/Active > because both cluster nodes are being used to do something useful. But > if one fails, > the other node better be able to take on the load. > > > > > > -----Original Message- > From: Dennis Depp [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Friday, October 11, 2002 2:50 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering > > > Stay away from active/active. Go Active/passive instead. You can get > more users on Active/Passive. > > Denny > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Imran Iqbal > Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2002 5:36 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering > > > We are currently an Exchange 5.5 site, as part of our move to Exchange > 2000 I am considering setting up Exchange on a 2 node Active Active > cluster and would be interested in hearing anyone views or real world > experiences with similar setups. Each server would have about 800 > active users and would probably be connected to a SAN for the shared > storage. > > I have heard that there were memory issues with this setup pre SP3. I > would like to know if there are any other problems and if it is wo
RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering
I tout the virtues of single-node clusters. Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP kcCC+I Tech Consultant hp Services Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups! -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Great Cthulhu Jones Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 1:00 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering My passive/passive/passive/passive Datacenter cluster has a perfect 100% downtime. Top that, I say! We even keep the power cables in a separate area to prevent any accidental uptime. (:= -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Roger Seielstad Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 12:45 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering Then you don't need it active anywhere. -- Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity Atlanta, GA > -Original Message- > From: Andrey Fyodorov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 11:14 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering > > > Only the best. Microsoft DNS, active-directory integrated. :) > > -Original Message- > From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 11:11 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering > > > Only if you have crappy DNS servers. > > -- > Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE > Sr. Systems Administrator > Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity > Atlanta, GA > > > > -Original Message- > > From: Andrey Fyodorov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 11:10 AM > > To: Exchange Discussions > > Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering > > > > > > I vaguely remember talking about it in the past. Although we were > > talking about domain controllers. I thought that on the Exchange > > server I should still have it running. > > > > -Original Message----- > > From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 11:06 AM > > To: Exchange Discussions > > Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering > > > > > > Just disable the DNS Client service - it only causes > problems anyway. > > > > -- > > Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE > > Sr. Systems Administrator > > Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity > > Atlanta, GA > > > > > > > -Original Message- > > > From: Andrey Fyodorov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 10:46 AM > > > To: Exchange Discussions > > > Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering > > > > > > > > > I did just that. > > > > > > From personal experience I prefer to reboot the machine after > > > stopping the service (as opposed to simply restarting the > > > services). Sometimes the Information Store service takes hours to > > > stop. And if a full backup is running at the same time (because it > > > got delayed for whatever reason), IS will > > never stop. > > > > > > There was a period of time when I had to restart the back-end > > > Exchange server every night after applying SP2. Otherwise OWA > > > refused to work correctly the following day. > > > > > > But then I discovered that doing ipconfig /flushdns once in a > > > while solved that problem. > > > > > > -Original Message- > > > From: Great Cthulhu Jones [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > Sent: Saturday, October 12, 2002 9:02 AM > > > To: Exchange Discussions > > > Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering > > > > > > > > > Heck, just write a batch file that stops all services and bounces > > > the box Sunday at 2AM and you don't even have to call it in to an > > > operator. Five > > > nines, indeed. The box only really needs to be up when people > > > are using it. > > > > > > (:= > > > > > > -Original Message- > > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of > Ed Crowley > > > Sent: Friday, October 11, 2002 9:00 PM > > > To: Exchange Discussions > > > Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering > > > >
RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering
You can take my word for it that he's a very informed and intelligent customer. Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP kcCC+I Tech Consultant hp Services Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups! -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Roger Seielstad Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 1:28 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering An intelligent one? If that makes me different, so be it. I'm also the first to send an arse clown out the door for recommending solutions that are way out of line. Like Exchange clusters. -- Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity Atlanta, GA > -Original Message- > From: Andrey Fyodorov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 4:25 PM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering > > > You must be a different type of a customer. > > -Original Message- > From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 4:03 PM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering > > > As a customer, I appreciate when I'm shown that I was wrong > when planning to > spend 100% more than I have to. Makes me want to use that > provider again. > > -- > Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE > Sr. Systems Administrator > Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity > Atlanta, GA > > > > -Original Message- > > From: Andrey Fyodorov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 3:49 PM > > To: Exchange Discussions > > Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering > > > > > > When a customer wants it AND wants to pay money for it... > > customer is always right. :) > > > > Customers hate when one proves them wrong. > > > > -Original Message- > > From: Andy David [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 12:14 PM > > To: Exchange Discussions > > Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering > > > > > > Perhaps it would be better if you educated that customer on better > > alternatives. Just as an aside, during Tony Redmond's session last > > week he asked how many > > in the audience were using clusters and I swear, a third of > > the people there > > raised their hands. I would have thought it a lot less. > > > > > > > > > > -Original Message- > > From: Andrey Fyodorov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 11:54 AM > > To: Exchange Discussions > > Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering > > > > > > I prefer not to mess with Exchange clustering unless a > > customer insists on > > having a dedicated Exchange cluster. > > > > -Original Message- > > From: Ed Crowley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 11:35 AM > > To: Exchange Discussions > > Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering > > > > > > And when you deploy an Exchange cluster, that's exactly > what you get! > > > > Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP kcCC+I > > Tech Consultant > > hp Services > > Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups! > > > > > > -Original Message- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of > > Andrey Fyodorov > > Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 8:15 AM > > To: Exchange Discussions > > Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering > > > > > > No I am just preparing for the worst-case scenario. > > > > > > -Original Message- > > From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 11:11 AM > > To: Exchange Discussions > > Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering > > > > > > If you're basing your life around 4 identical boxes that all > > experience > > hardware failures that close together, I suggest you switch hardware > > vendors. Fast. > > > > Keep in mind, too, that A/A/A/P means you're running Datacenter. > > > > -- > > Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE > > Sr. Systems Administrator > > Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity > > Atlanta, GA > > > > > > &
RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering
Let me know if you change your mind! I enjoyed working with (for) you! Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP kcCC+I Tech Consultant hp Services Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups! -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Roger Seielstad Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 1:35 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering I'm sure CJ and others would support me in saying that I don't need the services of Exchange consultants. -- Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity Atlanta, GA > -Original Message- > From: Andrey Fyodorov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 4:31 PM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering > > > Can you please be my customer? > > -Original Message- > From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 4:28 PM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering > > > An intelligent one? If that makes me different, so be it. > > I'm also the first to send an arse clown out the door for recommending > solutions that are way out of line. Like Exchange clusters. > > -- > Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE > Sr. Systems Administrator > Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity > Atlanta, GA > > > > -Original Message- > > From: Andrey Fyodorov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 4:25 PM > > To: Exchange Discussions > > Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering > > > > > > You must be a different type of a customer. > > > > -Original Message- > > From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 4:03 PM > > To: Exchange Discussions > > Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering > > > > > > As a customer, I appreciate when I'm shown that I was wrong > > when planning to > > spend 100% more than I have to. Makes me want to use that > > provider again. > > > > -- > > Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE > > Sr. Systems Administrator > > Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity > > Atlanta, GA > > > > > > > -Original Message- > > > From: Andrey Fyodorov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 3:49 PM > > > To: Exchange Discussions > > > Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering > > > > > > > > > When a customer wants it AND wants to pay money for it... > > > customer is always right. :) > > > > > > Customers hate when one proves them wrong. > > > > > > -Original Message- > > > From: Andy David [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 12:14 PM > > > To: Exchange Discussions > > > Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering > > > > > > > > > Perhaps it would be better if you educated that customer on better > > > alternatives. Just as an aside, during Tony Redmond's session last > > > week he asked how many > > > in the audience were using clusters and I swear, a third of > > > the people there > > > raised their hands. I would have thought it a lot less. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message- > > > From: Andrey Fyodorov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 11:54 AM > > > To: Exchange Discussions > > > Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering > > > > > > > > > I prefer not to mess with Exchange clustering unless a > > > customer insists on > > > having a dedicated Exchange cluster. > > > > > > -Original Message- > > > From: Ed Crowley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 11:35 AM > > > To: Exchange Discussions > > > Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering > > > > > > > > > And when you deploy an Exchange cluster, that's exactly > > what you get! > > > > > > Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP kcCC+I > > > Tech Consultant > > > hp Services > > > Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backup
RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering
I am not a consultant. -Original Message- From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 4:35 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering I'm sure CJ and others would support me in saying that I don't need the services of Exchange consultants. -- Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity Atlanta, GA > -Original Message- > From: Andrey Fyodorov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 4:31 PM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering > > > Can you please be my customer? > > -Original Message- > From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 4:28 PM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering > > > An intelligent one? If that makes me different, so be it. > > I'm also the first to send an arse clown out the door for recommending > solutions that are way out of line. Like Exchange clusters. > > -- > Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE > Sr. Systems Administrator > Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity > Atlanta, GA > > > > -Original Message- > > From: Andrey Fyodorov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 4:25 PM > > To: Exchange Discussions > > Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering > > > > > > You must be a different type of a customer. > > > > -Original Message- > > From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 4:03 PM > > To: Exchange Discussions > > Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering > > > > > > As a customer, I appreciate when I'm shown that I was wrong > > when planning to > > spend 100% more than I have to. Makes me want to use that > > provider again. > > > > -- > > Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE > > Sr. Systems Administrator > > Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity > > Atlanta, GA > > > > > > > -Original Message- > > > From: Andrey Fyodorov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 3:49 PM > > > To: Exchange Discussions > > > Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering > > > > > > > > > When a customer wants it AND wants to pay money for it... > > > customer is always right. :) > > > > > > Customers hate when one proves them wrong. > > > > > > -Original Message- > > > From: Andy David [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 12:14 PM > > > To: Exchange Discussions > > > Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering > > > > > > > > > Perhaps it would be better if you educated that customer on better > > > alternatives. > > > Just as an aside, during Tony Redmond's session last week he > > > asked how many > > > in the audience were using clusters and I swear, a third of > > > the people there > > > raised their hands. I would have thought it a lot less. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message- > > > From: Andrey Fyodorov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 11:54 AM > > > To: Exchange Discussions > > > Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering > > > > > > > > > I prefer not to mess with Exchange clustering unless a > > > customer insists on > > > having a dedicated Exchange cluster. > > > > > > -Original Message- > > > From: Ed Crowley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 11:35 AM > > > To: Exchange Discussions > > > Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering > > > > > > > > > And when you deploy an Exchange cluster, that's exactly > > what you get! > > > > > > Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP kcCC+I > > > Tech Consultant > > > hp Services > > > Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups! > > > > > > > > > -Original Message- > > > From: [E
RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering
Like it! Do you mind if I borrow that phrase?! -Original Message- From: Ed Crowley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 14 October 2002 22:05 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering I tout the virtues of single-node clusters. Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP kcCC+I Tech Consultant hp Services Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups! BBCi at http://www.bbc.co.uk/ This e-mail (and any attachments) is confidential and may contain personal views which are not the views of the BBC unless specifically stated. If you have received it in error, please delete it from your system, do not use, copy or disclose the information in any way nor act in reliance on it and notify the sender immediately. Please note that the BBC monitors e-mails sent or received. Further communication will signify your consent to this. _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering
Yes that is the theory, but there is a limit of 1900 users on an Active/Active cluster. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Andrey Fyodorov Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 10:32 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering No, according to the theory you can get more users on Active/Active because both cluster nodes are being used to do something useful. But if one fails, the other node better be able to take on the load. -Original Message- From: Dennis Depp [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, October 11, 2002 2:50 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering Stay away from active/active. Go Active/passive instead. You can get more users on Active/Passive. Denny -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Imran Iqbal Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2002 5:36 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering We are currently an Exchange 5.5 site, as part of our move to Exchange 2000 I am considering setting up Exchange on a 2 node Active Active cluster and would be interested in hearing anyone views or real world experiences with similar setups. Each server would have about 800 active users and would probably be connected to a SAN for the shared storage. I have heard that there were memory issues with this setup pre SP3. I would like to know if there are any other problems and if it is worth doing Thanks in advance Imran _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering
Um, well, there is that one. Yeah. Gotta sell the bosses on it first. -- Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity Atlanta, GA > -Original Message- > From: Ed Crowley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 5:07 PM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering > > > Let me know if you change your mind! I enjoyed working with > (for) you! > > Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP kcCC+I > Tech Consultant > hp Services > Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups! > > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of > Roger Seielstad > Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 1:35 PM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering > > > I'm sure CJ and others would support me in saying that I > don't need the > services of Exchange consultants. > > -- > Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE > Sr. Systems Administrator > Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity > Atlanta, GA > > > > -Original Message- > > From: Andrey Fyodorov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 4:31 PM > > To: Exchange Discussions > > Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering > > > > > > Can you please be my customer? > > > > -Original Message----- > > From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 4:28 PM > > To: Exchange Discussions > > Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering > > > > > > An intelligent one? If that makes me different, so be it. > > > > I'm also the first to send an arse clown out the door for > recommending > > > solutions that are way out of line. Like Exchange clusters. > > > > -- > > Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE > > Sr. Systems Administrator > > Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity > > Atlanta, GA > > > > > > > -Original Message- > > > From: Andrey Fyodorov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 4:25 PM > > > To: Exchange Discussions > > > Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering > > > > > > > > > You must be a different type of a customer. > > > > > > -Original Message- > > > From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 4:03 PM > > > To: Exchange Discussions > > > Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering > > > > > > > > > As a customer, I appreciate when I'm shown that I was wrong > > > when planning to > > > spend 100% more than I have to. Makes me want to use that > > > provider again. > > > > > > -- > > > Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE > > > Sr. Systems Administrator > > > Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity > > > Atlanta, GA > > > > > > > > > > -Original Message- > > > > From: Andrey Fyodorov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > > Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 3:49 PM > > > > To: Exchange Discussions > > > > Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering > > > > > > > > > > > > When a customer wants it AND wants to pay money for it... > > > > customer is always right. :) > > > > > > > > Customers hate when one proves them wrong. > > > > > > > > -Original Message- > > > > From: Andy David [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > > Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 12:14 PM > > > > To: Exchange Discussions > > > > Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering > > > > > > > > > > > > Perhaps it would be better if you educated that > customer on better > > > > > alternatives. Just as an aside, during Tony Redmond's > session last > > > > > week he asked how many > > > > in the audience were using clusters and I swear, a third of > > > > the people there > > > > raised their hands. I would have thought it a lot less. > > > > > > > > > > &g
RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering
Well guys I enjoyed this conversation and thank you a lot for bringing me up to speed in the cluster part of Exchange. -Original Message- From: Dennis Depp [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, October 15, 2002 6:30 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering Yes that is the theory, but there is a limit of 1900 users on an Active/Active cluster. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Andrey Fyodorov Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 10:32 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering No, according to the theory you can get more users on Active/Active because both cluster nodes are being used to do something useful. But if one fails, the other node better be able to take on the load. -Original Message- From: Dennis Depp [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, October 11, 2002 2:50 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering Stay away from active/active. Go Active/passive instead. You can get more users on Active/Passive. Denny -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Imran Iqbal Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2002 5:36 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering We are currently an Exchange 5.5 site, as part of our move to Exchange 2000 I am considering setting up Exchange on a 2 node Active Active cluster and would be interested in hearing anyone views or real world experiences with similar setups. Each server would have about 800 active users and would probably be connected to a SAN for the shared storage. I have heard that there were memory issues with this setup pre SP3. I would like to know if there are any other problems and if it is worth doing Thanks in advance Imran _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering
With attribution, yes. Ed Crowley MCSE+I MVP Technical Consultant hp Services "There are seldom good technological solutions to behavioral problems." -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Mark Harford Sent: Tuesday, October 15, 2002 12:43 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering Like it! Do you mind if I borrow that phrase?! -Original Message- From: Ed Crowley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 14 October 2002 22:05 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering I tout the virtues of single-node clusters. Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP kcCC+I Tech Consultant hp Services Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups! BBCi at http://www.bbc.co.uk/ This e-mail (and any attachments) is confidential and may contain personal views which are not the views of the BBC unless specifically stated. If you have received it in error, please delete it from your system, do not use, copy or disclose the information in any way nor act in reliance on it and notify the sender immediately. Please note that the BBC monitors e-mails sent or received. Further communication will signify your consent to this. _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering
We have one customer running a couple of active-active clusters with Exchange 5.5 SP4 on one node and another database app on the second. For the most part this works okay, but when one one node or the other fails over and you have both apps running on one node - performance drops like a lead brick. In this case both main apps are databases and that can't be good. Nate Couch EDS Messaging > -- > From: Ed Crowley > Reply To: Exchange Discussions > Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2002 16:11 > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering > > I think at this stage of its development clustering provides very poor > business value. It really protects you from very few failure scenarios. > Instead, I'd make sure I had the most highly internally redundant system > I could afford, buy a capable recovery and hot standby server, and > practice my disaster recovery skills. > > Ed Crowley MCSE+I MVP > Technical Consultant > hp Services > "There are seldom good technological solutions to behavioral problems." > > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:bounce-exchange-94760@;ls.swynk.com] On Behalf Of Imran Iqbal > Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2002 2:36 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering > > > We are currently an Exchange 5.5 site, as part of our move to Exchange > 2000 I am considering setting up Exchange on a 2 node Active Active > cluster and would be interested in hearing anyone views or real world > experiences with similar setups. Each server would have about 800 > active users and would probably be connected to a SAN for the shared > storage. > > I have heard that there were memory issues with this setup pre SP3. I > would like to know if there are any other problems and if it is worth > doing > > Thanks in advance > > > Imran > > _ > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > To unsubscribe: mailto:leave-exchange@;ls.swynk.com > 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:leave-exchange@;ls.swynk.com > 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:leave-exchange@;ls.swynk.com Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering
It's a pretty steep price to pay to avoid an occasional Sunday morning reboot. Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP kcCC+I Tech Consultant hp Services Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups! -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:bounce-exchange-94760@;ls.swynk.com] On Behalf Of Dennis Depp Sent: Friday, October 11, 2002 12:15 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering I've looked into Exchange Active/Passive clustering for our Exchange 2000 servers. The largest Exchange problem that causes downtime is corruption in the database. I agree with Ed that clustering cannot help in this senario. However, even with high quality hardware, you still have to deal with the 58 security patches and one Windows 2000 service pack that have been issued this year. Granted not all the 58 security patches are Windows 2000 related, but a large number of them are. An active/passive cluster gives me the capability of installing hotfixes and service packs without impacting my Exchange server even for a reboot. Also I can install the hotfixes during the day on the passive node and then failover that evening. If there is a problem, I can fail back to the unpatched node. The reduction in reboots and late hours makes an Active/passive cluster very appealing. However, clusters do add a level of complexity. Unless you understand clusters and how they operate, this added complexity can decrease uptime instead of increase it. Denny -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:bounce-exchange-95221@;ls.swynk.com] On Behalf Of Ed Crowley Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2002 5:11 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering I think at this stage of its development clustering provides very poor business value. It really protects you from very few failure scenarios. Instead, I'd make sure I had the most highly internally redundant system I could afford, buy a capable recovery and hot standby server, and practice my disaster recovery skills. Ed Crowley MCSE+I MVP Technical Consultant hp Services "There are seldom good technological solutions to behavioral problems." -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:bounce-exchange-94760@;ls.swynk.com] On Behalf Of Imran Iqbal Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2002 2:36 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering We are currently an Exchange 5.5 site, as part of our move to Exchange 2000 I am considering setting up Exchange on a 2 node Active Active cluster and would be interested in hearing anyone views or real world experiences with similar setups. Each server would have about 800 active users and would probably be connected to a SAN for the shared storage. I have heard that there were memory issues with this setup pre SP3. I would like to know if there are any other problems and if it is worth doing Thanks in advance Imran _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:leave-exchange@;ls.swynk.com 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:leave-exchange@;ls.swynk.com 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:leave-exchange@;ls.swynk.com 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:leave-exchange@;ls.swynk.com Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering
It's a pretty steep price to pay to avoid an occasional Sunday morning reboot. Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP kcCC+I Tech Consultant hp Services Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups! -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:bounce-exchange-94760@;ls.swynk.com] On Behalf Of Dennis Depp Sent: Friday, October 11, 2002 12:15 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering I've looked into Exchange Active/Passive clustering for our Exchange 2000 servers. The largest Exchange problem that causes downtime is corruption in the database. I agree with Ed that clustering cannot help in this senario. However, even with high quality hardware, you still have to deal with the 58 security patches and one Windows 2000 service pack that have been issued this year. Granted not all the 58 security patches are Windows 2000 related, but a large number of them are. An active/passive cluster gives me the capability of installing hotfixes and service packs without impacting my Exchange server even for a reboot. Also I can install the hotfixes during the day on the passive node and then failover that evening. If there is a problem, I can fail back to the unpatched node. The reduction in reboots and late hours makes an Active/passive cluster very appealing. However, clusters do add a level of complexity. Unless you understand clusters and how they operate, this added complexity can decrease uptime instead of increase it. Denny -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:bounce-exchange-95221@;ls.swynk.com] On Behalf Of Ed Crowley Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2002 5:11 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering I think at this stage of its development clustering provides very poor business value. It really protects you from very few failure scenarios. Instead, I'd make sure I had the most highly internally redundant system I could afford, buy a capable recovery and hot standby server, and practice my disaster recovery skills. Ed Crowley MCSE+I MVP Technical Consultant hp Services "There are seldom good technological solutions to behavioral problems." -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:bounce-exchange-94760@;ls.swynk.com] On Behalf Of Imran Iqbal Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2002 2:36 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering We are currently an Exchange 5.5 site, as part of our move to Exchange 2000 I am considering setting up Exchange on a 2 node Active Active cluster and would be interested in hearing anyone views or real world experiences with similar setups. Each server would have about 800 active users and would probably be connected to a SAN for the shared storage. I have heard that there were memory issues with this setup pre SP3. I would like to know if there are any other problems and if it is worth doing Thanks in advance Imran _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:leave-exchange@;ls.swynk.com 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:leave-exchange@;ls.swynk.com 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:leave-exchange@;ls.swynk.com 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:leave-exchange@;ls.swynk.com Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
