RE: Dag Question regarding Cass.
If I have a Cass Server called primary and another Cass called Secondary in a secondary location and I have 100 users in a third site with Outlook profiles pointing to primary and want to point them to secondary, how would I go about it? http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ee332317.aspx See 'Configure Your Mailbox Database' Is it possible to have a non-associated name like Cass and just change the DNS, how would you do this? The reason this has come up is that I need to switch my Primary and Secondary sites to the other way round. Any advice would be much appreciated as usual. Read up on CAS Arrays, you don't mention anything about how the databases are distributed which makes it tough to answer... jlc --- To manage subscriptions click here: http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/ or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com with the body: unsubscribe exchangelist
RE: Dag Question regarding Cass.
Hi, The databases are all on one mailbox server in an active passive setup and in my primary site they point to a cass array. In the passive site I can create an array like your article suggests but I am thinking the users will still need to reconfigure their outlook profiles to the other site's cass array? From: Joseph L. Casale [mailto:jcas...@activenetwerx.com] Sent: 18 June 2012 11:19 To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Dag Question regarding Cass. If I have a Cass Server called primary and another Cass called Secondary in a secondary location and I have 100 users in a third site with Outlook profiles pointing to primary and want to point them to secondary, how would I go about it? http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ee332317.aspx See 'Configure Your Mailbox Database' Is it possible to have a non-associated name like Cass and just change the DNS, how would you do this? The reason this has come up is that I need to switch my Primary and Secondary sites to the other way round. Any advice would be much appreciated as usual. Read up on CAS Arrays, you don't mention anything about how the databases are distributed which makes it tough to answer... jlc --- To manage subscriptions click here: http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/ or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.commailto:listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com with the body: unsubscribe exchangelist -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean. --- To manage subscriptions click here: http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/ or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com with the body: unsubscribe exchangelist
RE: Dag Question regarding Cass.
* I also tried the Set-MailboxDatabase name -RPCClientAccessServer internal_only_CAS_Array_FQDN but it didn't auto configure the clients for that database, I thought it might of. From: Paul Cookman [mailto:paul.cook...@selection.co.uk] Sent: 18 June 2012 11:38 To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Dag Question regarding Cass. Hi, The databases are all on one mailbox server in an active passive setup and in my primary site they point to a cass array. In the passive site I can create an array like your article suggests but I am thinking the users will still need to reconfigure their outlook profiles to the other site's cass array? From: Joseph L. Casale [mailto:jcas...@activenetwerx.com]mailto:[mailto:jcas...@activenetwerx.com] Sent: 18 June 2012 11:19 To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Dag Question regarding Cass. If I have a Cass Server called primary and another Cass called Secondary in a secondary location and I have 100 users in a third site with Outlook profiles pointing to primary and want to point them to secondary, how would I go about it? http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ee332317.aspx See 'Configure Your Mailbox Database' Is it possible to have a non-associated name like Cass and just change the DNS, how would you do this? The reason this has come up is that I need to switch my Primary and Secondary sites to the other way round. Any advice would be much appreciated as usual. Read up on CAS Arrays, you don't mention anything about how the databases are distributed which makes it tough to answer... jlc --- To manage subscriptions click here: http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/ or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.commailto:listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com with the body: unsubscribe exchangelist -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean. --- To manage subscriptions click here: http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/ or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.commailto:listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com with the body: unsubscribe exchangelist --- To manage subscriptions click here: http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/ or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com with the body: unsubscribe exchangelist
RE: Dag Question regarding Cass.
No, once the mail profile has the name of a CAS array, it won't get updated if you change the RPCClientAccessServer property on the database. What I think most people do is have a short TTL on the DNS for their CAS Array name, then change the IP Address to point to a CAS array in the secondary site, prior to changing the RPCClientAccessServer name if they need to activate a secondary site. From: bounce-9525654-8066...@lyris.sunbelt-software.com [mailto:bounce-9525654-8066...@lyris.sunbelt-software.com] On Behalf Of Paul Cookman Sent: 18 June 2012 11:45 To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Dag Question regarding Cass. * I also tried the Set-MailboxDatabase name -RPCClientAccessServer internal_only_CAS_Array_FQDN but it didn't auto configure the clients for that database, I thought it might of. From: Paul Cookman [mailto:paul.cook...@selection.co.uk] Sent: 18 June 2012 11:38 To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Dag Question regarding Cass. Hi, The databases are all on one mailbox server in an active passive setup and in my primary site they point to a cass array. In the passive site I can create an array like your article suggests but I am thinking the users will still need to reconfigure their outlook profiles to the other site's cass array? From: Joseph L. Casale [mailto:jcas...@activenetwerx.com]mailto:[mailto:jcas...@activenetwerx.com] Sent: 18 June 2012 11:19 To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Dag Question regarding Cass. If I have a Cass Server called primary and another Cass called Secondary in a secondary location and I have 100 users in a third site with Outlook profiles pointing to primary and want to point them to secondary, how would I go about it? http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ee332317.aspx See 'Configure Your Mailbox Database' Is it possible to have a non-associated name like Cass and just change the DNS, how would you do this? The reason this has come up is that I need to switch my Primary and Secondary sites to the other way round. Any advice would be much appreciated as usual. Read up on CAS Arrays, you don't mention anything about how the databases are distributed which makes it tough to answer... jlc --- To manage subscriptions click here: http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/ or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.commailto:listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com with the body: unsubscribe exchangelist -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean. --- To manage subscriptions click here: http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/ or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.commailto:listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com with the body: unsubscribe exchangelist --- To manage subscriptions click here: http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/ or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.commailto:listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com with the body: unsubscribe exchangelist --- To manage subscriptions click here: http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/ or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com with the body: unsubscribe exchangelist
RE: Dag Question regarding Cass.
Richard is pretty much right on both counts. However you ask the question at an opportune time as Exchange 2010 SP2 UR3 has been released, which includes the fix (or new feature) which is useful in this situation. The following article by Ross Smith IV talks more about this including the before UR3 situation and post UR3 situation: http://blogs.technet.com/b/exchange/archive/2012/05/30/rpc-client-access-cross-site-connectivity-changes.aspx We also discuss UR3 and this feature in particular, in this week's episode of The UC Architects which will be available later today: http://www.theucarchitects.com/ Steve From: Sobey, Richard A [mailto:r.so...@imperial.ac.uk] Sent: 18 June 2012 11:55 To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Dag Question regarding Cass. No, once the mail profile has the name of a CAS array, it won't get updated if you change the RPCClientAccessServer property on the database. What I think most people do is have a short TTL on the DNS for their CAS Array name, then change the IP Address to point to a CAS array in the secondary site, prior to changing the RPCClientAccessServer name if they need to activate a secondary site. From: bounce-9525654-8066...@lyris.sunbelt-software.com [mailto:bounce-9525654-8066...@lyris.sunbelt-software.com] On Behalf Of Paul Cookman Sent: 18 June 2012 11:45 To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Dag Question regarding Cass. * I also tried the Set-MailboxDatabase name -RPCClientAccessServer internal_only_CAS_Array_FQDN but it didn't auto configure the clients for that database, I thought it might of. From: Paul Cookman [mailto:paul.cook...@selection.co.uk] Sent: 18 June 2012 11:38 To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Dag Question regarding Cass. Hi, The databases are all on one mailbox server in an active passive setup and in my primary site they point to a cass array. In the passive site I can create an array like your article suggests but I am thinking the users will still need to reconfigure their outlook profiles to the other site's cass array? From: Joseph L. Casale [mailto:jcas...@activenetwerx.com]mailto:[mailto:jcas...@activenetwerx.com] Sent: 18 June 2012 11:19 To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Dag Question regarding Cass. If I have a Cass Server called primary and another Cass called Secondary in a secondary location and I have 100 users in a third site with Outlook profiles pointing to primary and want to point them to secondary, how would I go about it? http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ee332317.aspx See 'Configure Your Mailbox Database' Is it possible to have a non-associated name like Cass and just change the DNS, how would you do this? The reason this has come up is that I need to switch my Primary and Secondary sites to the other way round. Any advice would be much appreciated as usual. Read up on CAS Arrays, you don't mention anything about how the databases are distributed which makes it tough to answer... jlc --- To manage subscriptions click here: http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/ or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.commailto:listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com with the body: unsubscribe exchangelist -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean. --- To manage subscriptions click here: http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/ or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.commailto:listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com with the body: unsubscribe exchangelist --- To manage subscriptions click here: http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/ or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.commailto:listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com with the body: unsubscribe exchangelist --- To manage subscriptions click here: http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/ or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.commailto:listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com with the body: unsubscribe exchangelist --- To manage subscriptions click here: http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/ or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com with the body: unsubscribe exchangelist
RE: Dag Question regarding Cass.
Owe I see, Like I am doing with the owa.domain.com, I have the URLs set the same and rely on DNS. So what you are saying is both cas arrays from both sites can have the same name? From: Sobey, Richard A [mailto:r.so...@imperial.ac.uk] Sent: 18 June 2012 11:55 To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Dag Question regarding Cass. No, once the mail profile has the name of a CAS array, it won't get updated if you change the RPCClientAccessServer property on the database. What I think most people do is have a short TTL on the DNS for their CAS Array name, then change the IP Address to point to a CAS array in the secondary site, prior to changing the RPCClientAccessServer name if they need to activate a secondary site. From: bounce-9525654-8066...@lyris.sunbelt-software.commailto:bounce-9525654-8066...@lyris.sunbelt-software.com [mailto:bounce-9525654-8066...@lyris.sunbelt-software.com]mailto:[mailto:bounce-9525654-8066...@lyris.sunbelt-software.com] On Behalf Of Paul Cookman Sent: 18 June 2012 11:45 To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Dag Question regarding Cass. * I also tried the Set-MailboxDatabase name -RPCClientAccessServer internal_only_CAS_Array_FQDN but it didn't auto configure the clients for that database, I thought it might of. From: Paul Cookman [mailto:paul.cook...@selection.co.uk]mailto:[mailto:paul.cook...@selection.co.uk] Sent: 18 June 2012 11:38 To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Dag Question regarding Cass. Hi, The databases are all on one mailbox server in an active passive setup and in my primary site they point to a cass array. In the passive site I can create an array like your article suggests but I am thinking the users will still need to reconfigure their outlook profiles to the other site's cass array? From: Joseph L. Casale [mailto:jcas...@activenetwerx.com]mailto:[mailto:jcas...@activenetwerx.com] Sent: 18 June 2012 11:19 To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Dag Question regarding Cass. If I have a Cass Server called primary and another Cass called Secondary in a secondary location and I have 100 users in a third site with Outlook profiles pointing to primary and want to point them to secondary, how would I go about it? http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ee332317.aspx See 'Configure Your Mailbox Database' Is it possible to have a non-associated name like Cass and just change the DNS, how would you do this? The reason this has come up is that I need to switch my Primary and Secondary sites to the other way round. Any advice would be much appreciated as usual. Read up on CAS Arrays, you don't mention anything about how the databases are distributed which makes it tough to answer... jlc --- To manage subscriptions click here: http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/ or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.commailto:listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com with the body: unsubscribe exchangelist -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean. --- To manage subscriptions click here: http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/ or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.commailto:listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com with the body: unsubscribe exchangelist --- To manage subscriptions click here: http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/ or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.commailto:listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com with the body: unsubscribe exchangelist --- To manage subscriptions click here: http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/ or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.commailto:listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com with the body: unsubscribe exchangelist -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean. --- To manage subscriptions click here: http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/ or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com with the body: unsubscribe exchangelist
RE: Dag Question regarding Cass.
I wonder if in a backhanded sort of way-if SP2 RU3 would do something Current - Clients connect to DB in primary site. Change - you said you need to switch primary and secondary sites around. If you're making the DB active in what is now the secondary site... [3] After applying Exchange 2010 RU3, customers' mailboxes that are moved between Active Directory sites will have their profiles updated correctly. Also, admins can control whether to allow the cross-site RPC connectivity (default) or to force Outlookhttp://searchexchange.techtarget.com/feature/Guide-Troubleshooting-Microsoft-Outlook to use the RPC Client Access Server array in the same Active Directory site as the activated and mounted database From: Sobey, Richard A [mailto:r.so...@imperial.ac.uk] Sent: Monday, June 18, 2012 6:55 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Dag Question regarding Cass. No, once the mail profile has the name of a CAS array, it won't get updated if you change the RPCClientAccessServer property on the database. What I think most people do is have a short TTL on the DNS for their CAS Array name, then change the IP Address to point to a CAS array in the secondary site, prior to changing the RPCClientAccessServer name if they need to activate a secondary site. From: bounce-9525654-8066...@lyris.sunbelt-software.commailto:bounce-9525654-8066...@lyris.sunbelt-software.com [mailto:bounce-9525654-8066...@lyris.sunbelt-software.com]mailto:[mailto:bounce-9525654-8066...@lyris.sunbelt-software.com] On Behalf Of Paul Cookman Sent: 18 June 2012 11:45 To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Dag Question regarding Cass. * I also tried the Set-MailboxDatabase name -RPCClientAccessServer internal_only_CAS_Array_FQDN but it didn't auto configure the clients for that database, I thought it might of. From: Paul Cookman [mailto:paul.cook...@selection.co.uk]mailto:[mailto:paul.cook...@selection.co.uk] Sent: 18 June 2012 11:38 To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Dag Question regarding Cass. Hi, The databases are all on one mailbox server in an active passive setup and in my primary site they point to a cass array. In the passive site I can create an array like your article suggests but I am thinking the users will still need to reconfigure their outlook profiles to the other site's cass array? From: Joseph L. Casale [mailto:jcas...@activenetwerx.com]mailto:[mailto:jcas...@activenetwerx.com] Sent: 18 June 2012 11:19 To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Dag Question regarding Cass. If I have a Cass Server called primary and another Cass called Secondary in a secondary location and I have 100 users in a third site with Outlook profiles pointing to primary and want to point them to secondary, how would I go about it? http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ee332317.aspx See 'Configure Your Mailbox Database' Is it possible to have a non-associated name like Cass and just change the DNS, how would you do this? The reason this has come up is that I need to switch my Primary and Secondary sites to the other way round. Any advice would be much appreciated as usual. Read up on CAS Arrays, you don't mention anything about how the databases are distributed which makes it tough to answer... jlc --- To manage subscriptions click here: http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/ or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.commailto:listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com with the body: unsubscribe exchangelist -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean. --- To manage subscriptions click here: http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/ or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.commailto:listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com with the body: unsubscribe exchangelist --- To manage subscriptions click here: http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/ or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.commailto:listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com with the body: unsubscribe exchangelist --- To manage subscriptions click here: http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/ or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.commailto:listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com with the body: unsubscribe exchangelist --- To manage subscriptions click here: http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/ or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com with the body: unsubscribe exchangelist
RE: Dag Question regarding Cass.
No it might be outlook.contoso.com and outlook-dr.contoso.com but in the event of a disaster you update outlook.contoso.com to the same IP as outlook-dr.contoso.com. But normally it only resolves to it's normal site. From: Paul Cookman [mailto:paul.cook...@selection.co.uk] Sent: 18 June 2012 12:09 To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Dag Question regarding Cass. Owe I see, Like I am doing with the owa.domain.com, I have the URLs set the same and rely on DNS. So what you are saying is both cas arrays from both sites can have the same name? From: Sobey, Richard A [mailto:r.so...@imperial.ac.uk] Sent: 18 June 2012 11:55 To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Dag Question regarding Cass. No, once the mail profile has the name of a CAS array, it won't get updated if you change the RPCClientAccessServer property on the database. What I think most people do is have a short TTL on the DNS for their CAS Array name, then change the IP Address to point to a CAS array in the secondary site, prior to changing the RPCClientAccessServer name if they need to activate a secondary site. From: bounce-9525654-8066...@lyris.sunbelt-software.commailto:bounce-9525654-8066...@lyris.sunbelt-software.com [mailto:bounce-9525654-8066...@lyris.sunbelt-software.com]mailto:[mailto:bounce-9525654-8066...@lyris.sunbelt-software.com] On Behalf Of Paul Cookman Sent: 18 June 2012 11:45 To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Dag Question regarding Cass. * I also tried the Set-MailboxDatabase name -RPCClientAccessServer internal_only_CAS_Array_FQDN but it didn't auto configure the clients for that database, I thought it might of. From: Paul Cookman [mailto:paul.cook...@selection.co.uk]mailto:[mailto:paul.cook...@selection.co.uk] Sent: 18 June 2012 11:38 To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Dag Question regarding Cass. Hi, The databases are all on one mailbox server in an active passive setup and in my primary site they point to a cass array. In the passive site I can create an array like your article suggests but I am thinking the users will still need to reconfigure their outlook profiles to the other site's cass array? From: Joseph L. Casale [mailto:jcas...@activenetwerx.com]mailto:[mailto:jcas...@activenetwerx.com] Sent: 18 June 2012 11:19 To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Dag Question regarding Cass. If I have a Cass Server called primary and another Cass called Secondary in a secondary location and I have 100 users in a third site with Outlook profiles pointing to primary and want to point them to secondary, how would I go about it? http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ee332317.aspx See 'Configure Your Mailbox Database' Is it possible to have a non-associated name like Cass and just change the DNS, how would you do this? The reason this has come up is that I need to switch my Primary and Secondary sites to the other way round. Any advice would be much appreciated as usual. Read up on CAS Arrays, you don't mention anything about how the databases are distributed which makes it tough to answer... jlc --- To manage subscriptions click here: http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/ or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.commailto:listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com with the body: unsubscribe exchangelist -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean. --- To manage subscriptions click here: http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/ or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.commailto:listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com with the body: unsubscribe exchangelist --- To manage subscriptions click here: http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/ or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.commailto:listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com with the body: unsubscribe exchangelist --- To manage subscriptions click here: http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/ or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.commailto:listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com with the body: unsubscribe exchangelist -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean. --- To manage subscriptions click here: http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/ or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.commailto:listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com with the body: unsubscribe exchangelist --- To manage subscriptions click here: http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/ or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com with the body: unsubscribe exchangelist
RE: DAG Question
Hi Philip If you can find it online check out Scott Schnoll's Mailbox High Availability in Exchange 2010 deep dive. It explains it really well. The issue with a single DAG solution in this scenario is as someone mentioned split brain. Regards [cid:image001.jpg@01CC9484.CA23F5D0] Peter Johnson I.T Architect United Kingdom: +44 1285 658542 South Africa: +27 11 252 1100 Swaziland: +268 2442 7000 Fax:+27 11 974 7130 Mobile: +2783 306 0019 peter.john...@peterstow.com www.peterstow.comhttp://www.peterstow.com This email message (including attachments) contains information which may be confidential and/or legally privileged. Unless you are the intended recipient, you may not use, copy or disclose to anyone the message or any information contained in the message or from any attachments that were sent with this email, and If you have received this email message in error, please advise the sender by email, and delete the message. Unauthorised disclosure and/or use of information contained in this email may result in civil and criminal liability. Everything in this e-mail and attachments relating to the official business of Peterstow Aquapower is proprietary to the company. Caution should be observed in placing any reliance upon any information contained in this e-mail, which is not intended to be a representation or inducement to make any decision in relation to Peterstow Aquapower. Any decision taken based on the information provided in this e-mail, should only be made after consultation with appropriate legal, regulatory, tax, technical, business, investment, financial, and accounting advisors. Neither the sender of the e-mail, nor Peterstow Aquapower shall be liable to any party for any direct, indirect or consequential damages, including, without limitation, loss of profit, interruption of business or loss of information, data or software or otherwise. The e-mail address of the sender may not be used, copied, sold, disclosed or incorporated into any database or mailing list for spamming and/or other marketing purposes without the prior consent of Peterstow Aquapower. No warranties are created or implied that an employee of Peterstow Aquapower and/or a contractor of Peterstow Aquapower is authorised to create and send this e-mail. [cid:image002.jpg@01CC9484.CA23F5D0] From: Michael B. Smith [mailto:mich...@smithcons.com] Sent: 26 October 2011 08:26 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: DAG Question The question doesn't compute. :) The issue, as I believe another poster pointed out, is that reaching quorum is impossible with an even number of live servers that don't have access to the FSW. The cluster will go offline. Warning: I don't know your design goals. Based on what little information I have, I would tend to suggest you have two DAGs, keeping the same server distribution. Site A has two servers for DAG-1, site B has two servers for DAG-1, the FSW for site A is in site A. Reverse that for DAG-2 being homed in site B. Regards, Michael B. Smith Consultant and Exchange MVP http://TheEssentialExchange.com From: Young, Philip [mailto:philip.yo...@covance.com]mailto:[mailto:philip.yo...@covance.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 26, 2011 10:41 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: DAG Question Ok thanks Michael. One reason for posting my question was that I could not find anyone else who had done it this way. I was told the reasoning behind this is that if even if we lost site A we would still have the 3 members in site B plus the fsw in Site C. is that logic flawed? Can you be more specific about what quorum issues we might face? BTW the intention is to have active mailboxes in both sites A and B. we are at the design/test phase so not written in stone yet. Regards Phil From: Michael B. Smith [mailto:mich...@smithcons.com]mailto:[mailto:mich...@smithcons.com] Sent: 26 October 2011 14:48 To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: DAG Question Yes. That could lead you to having quorum issues. Regards, Michael B. Smith Consultant and Exchange MVP http://TheEssentialExchange.com From: Young, Philip [mailto:philip.yo...@covance.com]mailto:[mailto:philip.yo...@covance.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 26, 2011 9:37 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: DAG Question We are planning an Exchange 2010 rollout and plan an 8-node DAG with 4 members in Site A and 4 in Site B and the FSW in Site C. Are there any drawbacks with doing it this way? Anybody have any good reasons why we shouldn't do this? Thanks in advance. Regards Phil --- To manage subscriptions click here: http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/ or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.commailto:listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com with the body: unsubscribe exchangelist - Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail transmission may contain confidential or legally privileged information
Re: DAG Question
But of the WAN link goes down between site A and site B, and both sites can still talk to the fsw in site C, you could potentially end up with a split brain DAG, which is Very Bad Mojo. Missy On Oct 26, 2011, at 3:34 PM, Young, Philip philip.yo...@covance.commailto:philip.yo...@covance.com wrote: Ok apologies to both you and John, I probably didn’t give enough info. My goal is to make sure what is planned works but I was not privy to early design meetings. The design is being proposed by a consultant/architect. I queried it and received the following reply Plan is for 8 member DAG split 4/4 between sites a and b. FSW will be housed in site C. This way if there's a site outage, surviving side will be able to contact FSW. If site a is down/unavailable and sites b and c are both up can quorum not be achieved that way.? Regards Phil From: Michael B. Smith [mailto:mich...@smithcons.com] Sent: 26 October 2011 19:26 To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: DAG Question The question doesn’t compute. :) The issue, as I believe another poster pointed out, is that reaching quorum is impossible with an even number of live servers that don’t have access to the FSW. The cluster will go offline. Warning: I don’t know your design goals. Based on what little information I have, I would tend to suggest you have two DAGs, keeping the same server distribution. Site A has two servers for DAG-1, site B has two servers for DAG-1, the FSW for site A is in site A. Reverse that for DAG-2 being homed in site B. Regards, Michael B. Smith Consultant and Exchange MVP http://TheEssentialExchange.com From: Young, Philip [mailto:philip.yo...@covance.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 26, 2011 10:41 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: DAG Question Ok thanks Michael. One reason for posting my question was that I could not find anyone else who had done it this way. I was told the reasoning behind this is that if even if we lost site A we would still have the 3 members in site B plus the fsw in Site C. is that logic flawed? Can you be more specific about what quorum issues we might face? BTW the intention is to have active mailboxes in both sites A and B. we are at the design/test phase so not written in stone yet. Regards Phil From: Michael B. Smith [mailto:mich...@smithcons.com]mailto:%5bmailto:mich...@smithcons.com%5d Sent: 26 October 2011 14:48 To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: DAG Question Yes. That could lead you to having quorum issues. Regards, Michael B. Smith Consultant and Exchange MVP http://TheEssentialExchange.comhttp://TheEssentialExchange.com From: Young, Philip [mailto:philip.yo...@covance.com]mailto:%5bmailto:philip.yo...@covance.com%5d Sent: Wednesday, October 26, 2011 9:37 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: DAG Question We are planning an Exchange 2010 rollout and plan an 8-node DAG with 4 members in Site A and 4 in Site B and the FSW in Site C. Are there any drawbacks with doing it this way? Anybody have any good reasons why we shouldn’t do this? Thanks in advance. Regards Phil --- To manage subscriptions click here: http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/ http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/ or send an email to mailto:listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.commailto:listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com with the body: unsubscribe exchangelist - Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail transmission may contain confidential or legally privileged information that is intended only for the individual or entity named in the e-mail address. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or reliance upon the contents of this e-mail is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail transmission in error, please reply to the sender, so that we can arrange for proper delivery, and then please delete the message from your inbox. Thank you. --- To manage subscriptions click here: http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/ http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/ or send an email to mailto:listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.commailto:listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com with the body: unsubscribe exchangelist --- To manage subscriptions click here: http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/ http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/ or send an email to mailto:listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.commailto:listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com with the body: unsubscribe exchangelist --- To manage subscriptions click here: http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/ http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/ or send an email to mailto:listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com listmana
RE: DAG Question
Thanks Peter, found the Tech Ed 2010 presentation for this ... useful info. Also found another link that described the exact scenario of 3rd datacenter and why not to do it here http://blogs.technet.com/b/exchange/archive/2011/05/31/exchange-2010-high-av ailability-misconceptions-addressed.aspx Thanks all I believe I now have all I need. Regards Phil From: Peter Johnson [mailto:peter.john...@peterstow.com] Sent: 27 October 2011 07:48 To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: DAG Question Hi Philip If you can find it online check out Scott Schnoll’s “Mailbox High Availability in Exchange 2010” deep dive. It explains it really well. The issue with a single DAG solution in this scenario is as someone mentioned “split brain”. Regards Peter Johnson I.T Architect United Kingdom: +44 1285 658542 South Africa: +27 11 252 1100 Swaziland: +268 2442 7000 Fax:+27 11 974 7130 Mobile: +2783 306 0019 peter.john...@peterstow.com www.peterstow.com This email message (including attachments) contains information which may be confidential and/or legally privileged. Unless you are the intended recipient, you may not use, copy or disclose to anyone the message or any information contained in the message or from any attachments that were sent with this email, and If you have received this email message in error, please advise the sender by email, and delete the message. Unauthorised disclosure and/or use of information contained in this email may result in civil and criminal liability. Everything in this e-mail and attachments relating to the official business of Peterstow Aquapower is proprietary to the company. Caution should be observed in placing any reliance upon any information contained in this e-mail, which is not intended to be a representation or inducement to make any decision in relation to Peterstow Aquapower. Any decision taken based on the information provided in this e-mail, should only be made after consultation with appropriate legal, regulatory, tax, technical, business, investment, financial, and accounting advisors. Neither the sender of the e-mail, nor Peterstow Aquapower shall be liable to any party for any direct, indirect or consequential damages, including, without limitation, loss of profit, interruption of business or loss of information, data or software or otherwise. The e-mail address of the sender may not be used, copied, sold, disclosed or incorporated into any database or mailing list for spamming and/or other marketing purposes without the prior consent of Peterstow Aquapower. No warranties are created or implied that an employee of Peterstow Aquapower and/or a contractor of Peterstow Aquapower is authorised to create and send this e-mail. From: Michael B. Smith [mailto:mich...@smithcons.com] Sent: 26 October 2011 08:26 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: DAG Question The question doesn’t compute. ☺ The issue, as I believe another poster pointed out, is that reaching quorum is impossible with an even number of live servers that don’t have access to the FSW. The cluster will go offline. Warning: I don’t know your design goals. Based on what little information I have, I would tend to suggest you have two DAGs, keeping the same server distribution. Site A has two servers for DAG-1, site B has two servers for DAG-1, the FSW for site A is in site A. Reverse that for DAG-2 being homed in site B. Regards, Michael B. Smith Consultant and Exchange MVP http://TheEssentialExchange.com From: Young, Philip [mailto:philip.yo...@covance.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 26, 2011 10:41 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: DAG Question Ok thanks Michael. One reason for posting my question was that I could not find anyone else who had done it this way. I was told the reasoning behind this is that if even if we lost site A we would still have the 3 members in site B plus the fsw in Site C. is that logic flawed? Can you be more specific about what quorum issues we might face? BTW the intention is to have active mailboxes in both sites A and B. we are at the design/test phase so not written in stone yet. Regards Phil From: Michael B. Smith [mailto:mich...@smithcons.com] Sent: 26 October 2011 14:48 To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: DAG Question Yes. That could lead you to having quorum issues. Regards, Michael B. Smith Consultant and Exchange MVP http://TheEssentialExchange.com From: Young, Philip [mailto:philip.yo...@covance.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 26, 2011 9:37 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: DAG Question We are planning an Exchange 2010 rollout and plan an 8-node DAG with 4 members in Site A and 4 in Site B and the FSW in Site C. Are there any drawbacks with doing it this way? Anybody have any good reasons why we shouldn’t do this? Thanks in advance. Regards Phil --- To manage subscriptions click here: http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/ or send
RE: DAG Question
I’m having real trouble getting my head around this. I’ve implemented – and tested – our DAG and it seems to work exactly as I want it to. *3 nodes in each datacentre (10Gig link between them; call them DC1 and DC2) * FSW in a third DC (another 10Gig link; DC3) When I was testing this, we cut off all the Exchange servers in DC1 from the network. DC2 mounted its databases fine. When we brought DC1 “back online” they didn’t try to mount themselves again (which is what I believe split brain to be). Is my situation quite different to the original poster’s, where I’ve got an odd number of nodes in each datacentre? I’m really curious about “misconception number 3” from Philip’s link below, as it makes no mention of a witness server being available. What if the DC with no connectivity to the primary site did have connectivity to the site where the witness server is, for example?) Sorry – I know this all sounds really dumb ☺ Richard From: bounce-9451031-8066...@lyris.sunbelt-software.com [mailto:bounce-9451031-8066...@lyris.sunbelt-software.com] On Behalf Of Young, Philip Sent: 27 October 2011 14:57 To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: DAG Question Thanks Peter, found the Tech Ed 2010 presentation for this ... useful info. Also found another link that described the exact scenario of 3rd datacenter and why not to do it here http://blogs.technet.com/b/exchange/archive/2011/05/31/exchange-2010-high-availability-misconceptions-addressed.aspx Thanks all I believe I now have all I need. Regards Phil From: Peter Johnson [mailto:peter.john...@peterstow.com] Sent: 27 October 2011 07:48 To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: DAG Question Hi Philip If you can find it online check out Scott Schnoll’s “Mailbox High Availability in Exchange 2010” deep dive. It explains it really well. The issue with a single DAG solution in this scenario is as someone mentioned “split brain”. Regards Peter Johnson I.T Architect United Kingdom: +44 1285 658542 South Africa: +27 11 252 1100 Swaziland: +268 2442 7000 Fax:+27 11 974 7130 Mobile: +2783 306 0019 peter.john...@peterstow.commailto:peter.john...@peterstow.com www.peterstow.comhttp://www.peterstow.com This email message (including attachments) contains information which may be confidential and/or legally privileged. Unless you are the intended recipient, you may not use, copy or disclose to anyone the message or any information contained in the message or from any attachments that were sent with this email, and If you have received this email message in error, please advise the sender by email, and delete the message. Unauthorised disclosure and/or use of information contained in this email may result in civil and criminal liability. Everything in this e-mail and attachments relating to the official business of Peterstow Aquapower is proprietary to the company. Caution should be observed in placing any reliance upon any information contained in this e-mail, which is not intended to be a representation or inducement to make any decision in relation to Peterstow Aquapower. Any decision taken based on the information provided in this e-mail, should only be made after consultation with appropriate legal, regulatory, tax, technical, business, investment, financial, and accounting advisors. Neither the sender of the e-mail, nor Peterstow Aquapower shall be liable to any party for any direct, indirect or consequential damages, including, without limitation, loss of profit, interruption of business or loss of information, data or software or otherwise. The e-mail address of the sender may not be used, copied, sold, disclosed or incorporated into any database or mailing list for spamming and/or other marketing purposes without the prior consent of Peterstow Aquapower. No warranties are created or implied that an employee of Peterstow Aquapower and/or a contractor of Peterstow Aquapower is authorised to create and send this e-mail. From: Michael B. Smith [mailto:mich...@smithcons.com] Sent: 26 October 2011 08:26 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: DAG Question The question doesn’t compute. ☺ The issue, as I believe another poster pointed out, is that reaching quorum is impossible with an even number of live servers that don’t have access to the FSW. The cluster will go offline. Warning: I don’t know your design goals. Based on what little information I have, I would tend to suggest you have two DAGs, keeping the same server distribution. Site A has two servers for DAG-1, site B has two servers for DAG-1, the FSW for site A is in site A. Reverse that for DAG-2 being homed in site B. Regards, Michael B. Smith Consultant and Exchange MVP http://TheEssentialExchange.com From: Young, Philip [mailto:philip.yo...@covance.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 26, 2011 10:41 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: DAG Question Ok thanks Michael. One reason for posting my question
RE: DAG Question
No, your situation isn’t really that different because of the odd number of servers. MSFT says that you should keep the FSW local to the primary datacenter for the DAG, and use an alternate FSW for the secondary datacenter. Also, you’ll want to enable DAC mode - http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/dd979790.aspx Missy From: Sobey, Richard A [mailto:r.so...@imperial.ac.uk] Sent: Thursday, October 27, 2011 10:54 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: DAG Question I’m having real trouble getting my head around this. I’ve implemented – and tested – our DAG and it seems to work exactly as I want it to. *3 nodes in each datacentre (10Gig link between them; call them DC1 and DC2) * FSW in a third DC (another 10Gig link; DC3) When I was testing this, we cut off all the Exchange servers in DC1 from the network. DC2 mounted its databases fine. When we brought DC1 “back online” they didn’t try to mount themselves again (which is what I believe split brain to be). Is my situation quite different to the original poster’s, where I’ve got an odd number of nodes in each datacentre? I’m really curious about “misconception number 3” from Philip’s link below, as it makes no mention of a witness server being available. What if the DC with no connectivity to the primary site did have connectivity to the site where the witness server is, for example?) Sorry – I know this all sounds really dumb ☺ Richard From: bounce-9451031-8066...@lyris.sunbelt-software.commailto:bounce-9451031-8066...@lyris.sunbelt-software.com [mailto:bounce-9451031-8066...@lyris.sunbelt-software.com]mailto:[mailto:bounce-9451031-8066...@lyris.sunbelt-software.com] On Behalf Of Young, Philip Sent: 27 October 2011 14:57 To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: DAG Question Thanks Peter, found the Tech Ed 2010 presentation for this ... useful info. Also found another link that described the exact scenario of 3rd datacenter and why not to do it here http://blogs.technet.com/b/exchange/archive/2011/05/31/exchange-2010-high-availability-misconceptions-addressed.aspx Thanks all I believe I now have all I need. Regards Phil From: Peter Johnson [mailto:peter.john...@peterstow.com] Sent: 27 October 2011 07:48 To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: DAG Question Hi Philip If you can find it online check out Scott Schnoll’s “Mailbox High Availability in Exchange 2010” deep dive. It explains it really well. The issue with a single DAG solution in this scenario is as someone mentioned “split brain”. Regards Peter Johnson I.T Architect United Kingdom: +44 1285 658542 South Africa: +27 11 252 1100 Swaziland: +268 2442 7000 Fax:+27 11 974 7130 Mobile: +2783 306 0019 peter.john...@peterstow.commailto:peter.john...@peterstow.com www.peterstow.comhttp://www.peterstow.com This email message (including attachments) contains information which may be confidential and/or legally privileged. Unless you are the intended recipient, you may not use, copy or disclose to anyone the message or any information contained in the message or from any attachments that were sent with this email, and If you have received this email message in error, please advise the sender by email, and delete the message. Unauthorised disclosure and/or use of information contained in this email may result in civil and criminal liability. Everything in this e-mail and attachments relating to the official business of Peterstow Aquapower is proprietary to the company. Caution should be observed in placing any reliance upon any information contained in this e-mail, which is not intended to be a representation or inducement to make any decision in relation to Peterstow Aquapower. Any decision taken based on the information provided in this e-mail, should only be made after consultation with appropriate legal, regulatory, tax, technical, business, investment, financial, and accounting advisors. Neither the sender of the e-mail, nor Peterstow Aquapower shall be liable to any party for any direct, indirect or consequential damages, including, without limitation, loss of profit, interruption of business or loss of information, data or software or otherwise. The e-mail address of the sender may not be used, copied, sold, disclosed or incorporated into any database or mailing list for spamming and/or other marketing purposes without the prior consent of Peterstow Aquapower. No warranties are created or implied that an employee of Peterstow Aquapower and/or a contractor of Peterstow Aquapower is authorised to create and send this e-mail. From: Michael B. Smith [mailto:mich...@smithcons.com] Sent: 26 October 2011 08:26 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: DAG Question The question doesn’t compute. ☺ The issue, as I believe another poster pointed out, is that reaching quorum is impossible with an even number of live servers that don’t have access to the FSW. The cluster will go offline
RE: DAG Question
+1 However, the reason why it mainly works is exactly because of what Richard surmised – an odd number of hosts. That means they can “vote”, and one side will win. Regards, Michael B. Smith Consultant and Exchange MVP http://TheEssentialExchange.com From: Missy Koslosky [mailto:mi...@notsoclever.com] Sent: Thursday, October 27, 2011 11:17 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: DAG Question No, your situation isn’t really that different because of the odd number of servers. MSFT says that you should keep the FSW local to the primary datacenter for the DAG, and use an alternate FSW for the secondary datacenter. Also, you’ll want to enable DAC mode - http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/dd979790.aspx Missy From: Sobey, Richard A [mailto:r.so...@imperial.ac.uk]mailto:[mailto:r.so...@imperial.ac.uk] Sent: Thursday, October 27, 2011 10:54 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: DAG Question I’m having real trouble getting my head around this. I’ve implemented – and tested – our DAG and it seems to work exactly as I want it to. *3 nodes in each datacentre (10Gig link between them; call them DC1 and DC2) * FSW in a third DC (another 10Gig link; DC3) When I was testing this, we cut off all the Exchange servers in DC1 from the network. DC2 mounted its databases fine. When we brought DC1 “back online” they didn’t try to mount themselves again (which is what I believe split brain to be). Is my situation quite different to the original poster’s, where I’ve got an odd number of nodes in each datacentre? I’m really curious about “misconception number 3” from Philip’s link below, as it makes no mention of a witness server being available. What if the DC with no connectivity to the primary site did have connectivity to the site where the witness server is, for example?) Sorry – I know this all sounds really dumb ☺ Richard From: bounce-9451031-8066...@lyris.sunbelt-software.commailto:bounce-9451031-8066...@lyris.sunbelt-software.com [mailto:bounce-9451031-8066...@lyris.sunbelt-software.com]mailto:[mailto:bounce-9451031-8066...@lyris.sunbelt-software.com] On Behalf Of Young, Philip Sent: 27 October 2011 14:57 To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: DAG Question Thanks Peter, found the Tech Ed 2010 presentation for this ... useful info. Also found another link that described the exact scenario of 3rd datacenter and why not to do it here http://blogs.technet.com/b/exchange/archive/2011/05/31/exchange-2010-high-availability-misconceptions-addressed.aspx Thanks all I believe I now have all I need. Regards Phil From: Peter Johnson [mailto:peter.john...@peterstow.com] Sent: 27 October 2011 07:48 To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: DAG Question Hi Philip If you can find it online check out Scott Schnoll’s “Mailbox High Availability in Exchange 2010” deep dive. It explains it really well. The issue with a single DAG solution in this scenario is as someone mentioned “split brain”. Regards Peter Johnson I.T Architect United Kingdom: +44 1285 658542 South Africa: +27 11 252 1100 Swaziland: +268 2442 7000 Fax:+27 11 974 7130 Mobile: +2783 306 0019 peter.john...@peterstow.commailto:peter.john...@peterstow.com www.peterstow.comhttp://www.peterstow.com This email message (including attachments) contains information which may be confidential and/or legally privileged. Unless you are the intended recipient, you may not use, copy or disclose to anyone the message or any information contained in the message or from any attachments that were sent with this email, and If you have received this email message in error, please advise the sender by email, and delete the message. Unauthorised disclosure and/or use of information contained in this email may result in civil and criminal liability. Everything in this e-mail and attachments relating to the official business of Peterstow Aquapower is proprietary to the company. Caution should be observed in placing any reliance upon any information contained in this e-mail, which is not intended to be a representation or inducement to make any decision in relation to Peterstow Aquapower. Any decision taken based on the information provided in this e-mail, should only be made after consultation with appropriate legal, regulatory, tax, technical, business, investment, financial, and accounting advisors. Neither the sender of the e-mail, nor Peterstow Aquapower shall be liable to any party for any direct, indirect or consequential damages, including, without limitation, loss of profit, interruption of business or loss of information, data or software or otherwise. The e-mail address of the sender may not be used, copied, sold, disclosed or incorporated into any database or mailing list for spamming and/or other marketing purposes without the prior consent of Peterstow Aquapower. No warranties are created or implied that an employee of Peterstow Aquapower and/or a contractor
RE: DAG Question
Yes. That could lead you to having quorum issues. Regards, Michael B. Smith Consultant and Exchange MVP http://TheEssentialExchange.com From: Young, Philip [mailto:philip.yo...@covance.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 26, 2011 9:37 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: DAG Question We are planning an Exchange 2010 rollout and plan an 8-node DAG with 4 members in Site A and 4 in Site B and the FSW in Site C. Are there any drawbacks with doing it this way? Anybody have any good reasons why we shouldn't do this? Thanks in advance. Regards Phil --- To manage subscriptions click here: http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/ or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com with the body: unsubscribe exchangelist
RE: DAG Question
Are all 8 nodes going to be active? If so, you will have issues with quorum. If you lose site-to-site connection they will all go off line as nether site will have majority node count. If you really need site A and B to be active, best bet would be to build 2 DAG's, with the FSW for each DAG in the same site. From: Young, Philip [mailto:philip.yo...@covance.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 26, 2011 9:37 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: DAG Question We are planning an Exchange 2010 rollout and plan an 8-node DAG with 4 members in Site A and 4 in Site B and the FSW in Site C. Are there any drawbacks with doing it this way? Anybody have any good reasons why we shouldn't do this? Thanks in advance. Regards Phil - Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail transmission may contain confidential or legally privileged information that is intended only for the individual or entity named in the e-mail address. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or reliance upon the contents of this e-mail is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail transmission in error, please reply to the sender, so that we can arrange for proper delivery, and then please delete the message from your inbox. Thank you. --- To manage subscriptions click here: http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/ or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.commailto:listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com with the body: unsubscribe exchangelist --- To manage subscriptions click here: http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/ or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com with the body: unsubscribe exchangelist
RE: DAG Question
Ok thanks Michael. One reason for posting my question was that I could not find anyone else who had done it this way. I was told the reasoning behind this is that if even if we lost site A we would still have the 3 members in site B plus the fsw in Site C. is that logic flawed? Can you be more specific about what quorum issues we might face? BTW the intention is to have active mailboxes in both sites A and B. we are at the design/test phase so not written in stone yet. Regards Phil _ From: Michael B. Smith [mailto:mich...@smithcons.com] Sent: 26 October 2011 14:48 To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: DAG Question Yes. That could lead you to having quorum issues. Regards, Michael B. Smith Consultant and Exchange MVP http://TheEssentialExchange.com From: Young, Philip [mailto:philip.yo...@covance.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 26, 2011 9:37 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: DAG Question We are planning an Exchange 2010 rollout and plan an 8-node DAG with 4 members in Site A and 4 in Site B and the FSW in Site C. Are there any drawbacks with doing it this way? Anybody have any good reasons why we shouldn't do this? Thanks in advance. Regards Phil --- To manage subscriptions click here: http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/ http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/ or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com mailto:listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com with the body: unsubscribe exchangelist - Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail transmission may contain confidential or legally privileged information that is intended only for the individual or entity named in the e-mail address. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or reliance upon the contents of this e-mail is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail transmission in error, please reply to the sender, so that we can arrange for proper delivery, and then please delete the message from your inbox. Thank you. --- To manage subscriptions click here: http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/ or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com with the body: unsubscribe exchangelist
RE: DAG Question
The question doesn't compute. :) The issue, as I believe another poster pointed out, is that reaching quorum is impossible with an even number of live servers that don't have access to the FSW. The cluster will go offline. Warning: I don't know your design goals. Based on what little information I have, I would tend to suggest you have two DAGs, keeping the same server distribution. Site A has two servers for DAG-1, site B has two servers for DAG-1, the FSW for site A is in site A. Reverse that for DAG-2 being homed in site B. Regards, Michael B. Smith Consultant and Exchange MVP http://TheEssentialExchange.com From: Young, Philip [mailto:philip.yo...@covance.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 26, 2011 10:41 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: DAG Question Ok thanks Michael. One reason for posting my question was that I could not find anyone else who had done it this way. I was told the reasoning behind this is that if even if we lost site A we would still have the 3 members in site B plus the fsw in Site C. is that logic flawed? Can you be more specific about what quorum issues we might face? BTW the intention is to have active mailboxes in both sites A and B. we are at the design/test phase so not written in stone yet. Regards Phil From: Michael B. Smith [mailto:mich...@smithcons.com]mailto:[mailto:mich...@smithcons.com] Sent: 26 October 2011 14:48 To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: DAG Question Yes. That could lead you to having quorum issues. Regards, Michael B. Smith Consultant and Exchange MVP http://TheEssentialExchange.com From: Young, Philip [mailto:philip.yo...@covance.com]mailto:[mailto:philip.yo...@covance.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 26, 2011 9:37 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: DAG Question We are planning an Exchange 2010 rollout and plan an 8-node DAG with 4 members in Site A and 4 in Site B and the FSW in Site C. Are there any drawbacks with doing it this way? Anybody have any good reasons why we shouldn't do this? Thanks in advance. Regards Phil --- To manage subscriptions click here: http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/ or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.commailto:listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com with the body: unsubscribe exchangelist - Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail transmission may contain confidential or legally privileged information that is intended only for the individual or entity named in the e-mail address. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or reliance upon the contents of this e-mail is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail transmission in error, please reply to the sender, so that we can arrange for proper delivery, and then please delete the message from your inbox. Thank you. --- To manage subscriptions click here: http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/ or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.commailto:listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com with the body: unsubscribe exchangelist --- To manage subscriptions click here: http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/ or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com with the body: unsubscribe exchangelist
RE: DAG Question
Ok apologies to both you and John, I probably didn't give enough info. My goal is to make sure what is planned works but I was not privy to early design meetings. The design is being proposed by a consultant/architect. I queried it and received the following reply Plan is for 8 member DAG split 4/4 between sites a and b. FSW will be housed in site C. This way if there's a site outage, surviving side will be able to contact FSW. If site a is down/unavailable and sites b and c are both up can quorum not be achieved that way.? Regards Phil _ From: Michael B. Smith [mailto:mich...@smithcons.com] Sent: 26 October 2011 19:26 To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: DAG Question The question doesn't compute. :-) The issue, as I believe another poster pointed out, is that reaching quorum is impossible with an even number of live servers that don't have access to the FSW. The cluster will go offline. Warning: I don't know your design goals. Based on what little information I have, I would tend to suggest you have two DAGs, keeping the same server distribution. Site A has two servers for DAG-1, site B has two servers for DAG-1, the FSW for site A is in site A. Reverse that for DAG-2 being homed in site B. Regards, Michael B. Smith Consultant and Exchange MVP http://TheEssentialExchange.com From: Young, Philip [mailto:philip.yo...@covance.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 26, 2011 10:41 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: DAG Question Ok thanks Michael. One reason for posting my question was that I could not find anyone else who had done it this way. I was told the reasoning behind this is that if even if we lost site A we would still have the 3 members in site B plus the fsw in Site C. is that logic flawed? Can you be more specific about what quorum issues we might face? BTW the intention is to have active mailboxes in both sites A and B. we are at the design/test phase so not written in stone yet. Regards Phil _ From: Michael B. Smith [mailto:mich...@smithcons.com] mailto:%5bmailto:mich...@smithcons.com%5d Sent: 26 October 2011 14:48 To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: DAG Question Yes. That could lead you to having quorum issues. Regards, Michael B. Smith Consultant and Exchange MVP http://TheEssentialExchange.com http://TheEssentialExchange.com From: Young, Philip [mailto:philip.yo...@covance.com] mailto:%5bmailto:philip.yo...@covance.com%5d Sent: Wednesday, October 26, 2011 9:37 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: DAG Question We are planning an Exchange 2010 rollout and plan an 8-node DAG with 4 members in Site A and 4 in Site B and the FSW in Site C. Are there any drawbacks with doing it this way? Anybody have any good reasons why we shouldn't do this? Thanks in advance. Regards Phil --- To manage subscriptions click here: http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/ http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/ or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com mailto:listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com with the body: unsubscribe exchangelist - Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail transmission may contain confidential or legally privileged information that is intended only for the individual or entity named in the e-mail address. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or reliance upon the contents of this e-mail is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail transmission in error, please reply to the sender, so that we can arrange for proper delivery, and then please delete the message from your inbox. Thank you. --- To manage subscriptions click here: http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/ http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/ or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com mailto:listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com with the body: unsubscribe exchangelist --- To manage subscriptions click here: http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/ http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/ or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com mailto:listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com with the body: unsubscribe exchangelist --- To manage subscriptions click here: http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/ or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com with the body: unsubscribe exchangelist
RE: DAG Question
Phil, If you are paying a consultant/architect to come up with that design I strongly suggest you replace him now because he does not know Exchange 2010. So what does this person suggest when site C goes down and you do not have a majority node count at site A and B. Even the base MS docs suggest that in a split site setup with active/active config to use 2 DAGs so a site link failure does not affect users at each site. From: Young, Philip [mailto:philip.yo...@covance.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 26, 2011 3:26 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: DAG Question Ok apologies to both you and John, I probably didn't give enough info. My goal is to make sure what is planned works but I was not privy to early design meetings. The design is being proposed by a consultant/architect. I queried it and received the following reply Plan is for 8 member DAG split 4/4 between sites a and b. FSW will be housed in site C. This way if there's a site outage, surviving side will be able to contact FSW. If site a is down/unavailable and sites b and c are both up can quorum not be achieved that way.? Regards Phil From: Michael B. Smith [mailto:mich...@smithcons.com]mailto:[mailto:mich...@smithcons.com] Sent: 26 October 2011 19:26 To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: DAG Question The question doesn't compute. :) The issue, as I believe another poster pointed out, is that reaching quorum is impossible with an even number of live servers that don't have access to the FSW. The cluster will go offline. Warning: I don't know your design goals. Based on what little information I have, I would tend to suggest you have two DAGs, keeping the same server distribution. Site A has two servers for DAG-1, site B has two servers for DAG-1, the FSW for site A is in site A. Reverse that for DAG-2 being homed in site B. Regards, Michael B. Smith Consultant and Exchange MVP http://TheEssentialExchange.com From: Young, Philip [mailto:philip.yo...@covance.com]mailto:[mailto:philip.yo...@covance.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 26, 2011 10:41 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: DAG Question Ok thanks Michael. One reason for posting my question was that I could not find anyone else who had done it this way. I was told the reasoning behind this is that if even if we lost site A we would still have the 3 members in site B plus the fsw in Site C. is that logic flawed? Can you be more specific about what quorum issues we might face? BTW the intention is to have active mailboxes in both sites A and B. we are at the design/test phase so not written in stone yet. Regards Phil From: Michael B. Smith [mailto:mich...@smithcons.com]mailto:%5bmailto:mich...@smithcons.com%5d Sent: 26 October 2011 14:48 To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: DAG Question Yes. That could lead you to having quorum issues. Regards, Michael B. Smith Consultant and Exchange MVP http://TheEssentialExchange.com From: Young, Philip [mailto:philip.yo...@covance.com]mailto:%5bmailto:philip.yo...@covance.com%5d Sent: Wednesday, October 26, 2011 9:37 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: DAG Question We are planning an Exchange 2010 rollout and plan an 8-node DAG with 4 members in Site A and 4 in Site B and the FSW in Site C. Are there any drawbacks with doing it this way? Anybody have any good reasons why we shouldn't do this? Thanks in advance. Regards Phil --- To manage subscriptions click here: http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/ or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.commailto:listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com with the body: unsubscribe exchangelist - Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail transmission may contain confidential or legally privileged information that is intended only for the individual or entity named in the e-mail address. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or reliance upon the contents of this e-mail is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail transmission in error, please reply to the sender, so that we can arrange for proper delivery, and then please delete the message from your inbox. Thank you. --- To manage subscriptions click here: http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/ or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.commailto:listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com with the body: unsubscribe exchangelist --- To manage subscriptions click here: http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/ or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.commailto:listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com with the body: unsubscribe exchangelist --- To manage subscriptions click here: http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/ or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.commailto:listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com
RE: DAG Question
One more thing, take a look at the Exchange 2010 Mailbox Server Role Calculator. The guys that work on this have done an excellent job and it can really help with a design. This version contains the active/active layout as well and even has a tab to show you the DB layout between servers. http://gallery.technet.microsoft.com/v144-of-the-Exchange-2010-1912958d From: Senter, John Sent: Wednesday, October 26, 2011 3:47 PM To: 'MS-Exchange Admin Issues' Subject: RE: DAG Question Phil, If you are paying a consultant/architect to come up with that design I strongly suggest you replace him now because he does not know Exchange 2010. So what does this person suggest when site C goes down and you do not have a majority node count at site A and B. Even the base MS docs suggest that in a split site setup with active/active config to use 2 DAGs so a site link failure does not affect users at each site. From: Young, Philip [mailto:philip.yo...@covance.com]mailto:[mailto:philip.yo...@covance.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 26, 2011 3:26 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: DAG Question Ok apologies to both you and John, I probably didn't give enough info. My goal is to make sure what is planned works but I was not privy to early design meetings. The design is being proposed by a consultant/architect. I queried it and received the following reply Plan is for 8 member DAG split 4/4 between sites a and b. FSW will be housed in site C. This way if there's a site outage, surviving side will be able to contact FSW. If site a is down/unavailable and sites b and c are both up can quorum not be achieved that way.? Regards Phil From: Michael B. Smith [mailto:mich...@smithcons.com]mailto:[mailto:mich...@smithcons.com] Sent: 26 October 2011 19:26 To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: DAG Question The question doesn't compute. :) The issue, as I believe another poster pointed out, is that reaching quorum is impossible with an even number of live servers that don't have access to the FSW. The cluster will go offline. Warning: I don't know your design goals. Based on what little information I have, I would tend to suggest you have two DAGs, keeping the same server distribution. Site A has two servers for DAG-1, site B has two servers for DAG-1, the FSW for site A is in site A. Reverse that for DAG-2 being homed in site B. Regards, Michael B. Smith Consultant and Exchange MVP http://TheEssentialExchange.com From: Young, Philip [mailto:philip.yo...@covance.com]mailto:[mailto:philip.yo...@covance.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 26, 2011 10:41 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: DAG Question Ok thanks Michael. One reason for posting my question was that I could not find anyone else who had done it this way. I was told the reasoning behind this is that if even if we lost site A we would still have the 3 members in site B plus the fsw in Site C. is that logic flawed? Can you be more specific about what quorum issues we might face? BTW the intention is to have active mailboxes in both sites A and B. we are at the design/test phase so not written in stone yet. Regards Phil From: Michael B. Smith [mailto:mich...@smithcons.com]mailto:%5bmailto:mich...@smithcons.com%5d Sent: 26 October 2011 14:48 To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: DAG Question Yes. That could lead you to having quorum issues. Regards, Michael B. Smith Consultant and Exchange MVP http://TheEssentialExchange.com From: Young, Philip [mailto:philip.yo...@covance.com]mailto:%5bmailto:philip.yo...@covance.com%5d Sent: Wednesday, October 26, 2011 9:37 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: DAG Question We are planning an Exchange 2010 rollout and plan an 8-node DAG with 4 members in Site A and 4 in Site B and the FSW in Site C. Are there any drawbacks with doing it this way? Anybody have any good reasons why we shouldn't do this? Thanks in advance. Regards Phil --- To manage subscriptions click here: http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/ or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.commailto:listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com with the body: unsubscribe exchangelist - Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail transmission may contain confidential or legally privileged information that is intended only for the individual or entity named in the e-mail address. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or reliance upon the contents of this e-mail is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail transmission in error, please reply to the sender, so that we can arrange for proper delivery, and then please delete the message from your inbox. Thank you. --- To manage subscriptions click here: http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/ or send an email to listmana
RE: DAG Question
Thanks John, Part of the problem is I'm on my own in the EMEA region and the rest of the project team are in the US so its sometimes hard for my voice to be heard but thanks for the info. I've got a feeling I'll have to prove it won't work in the lab before they'll accept it but we'll see! Regards Phil _ From: Senter, John [mailto:john.sen...@etrade.com] Sent: 26 October 2011 20:51 To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: DAG Question One more thing, take a look at the Exchange 2010 Mailbox Server Role Calculator. The guys that work on this have done an excellent job and it can really help with a design. This version contains the active/active layout as well and even has a tab to show you the DB layout between servers. http://gallery.technet.microsoft.com/v144-of-the-Exchange-2010-1912958d http://gallery.technet.microsoft.com/v144-of-the-Exchange-2010-1912958d From: Senter, John Sent: Wednesday, October 26, 2011 3:47 PM To: 'MS-Exchange Admin Issues' Subject: RE: DAG Question Phil, If you are paying a consultant/architect to come up with that design I strongly suggest you replace him now because he does not know Exchange 2010. So what does this person suggest when site C goes down and you do not have a majority node count at site A and B. Even the base MS docs suggest that in a split site setup with active/active config to use 2 DAGs so a site link failure does not affect users at each site. From: Young, Philip [mailto:philip.yo...@covance.com] mailto:%5bmailto:philip.yo...@covance.com%5d Sent: Wednesday, October 26, 2011 3:26 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: DAG Question Ok apologies to both you and John, I probably didn't give enough info. My goal is to make sure what is planned works but I was not privy to early design meetings. The design is being proposed by a consultant/architect. I queried it and received the following reply Plan is for 8 member DAG split 4/4 between sites a and b. FSW will be housed in site C. This way if there's a site outage, surviving side will be able to contact FSW. If site a is down/unavailable and sites b and c are both up can quorum not be achieved that way.? Regards Phil _ From: Michael B. Smith [mailto:mich...@smithcons.com] mailto:%5bmailto:mich...@smithcons.com%5d Sent: 26 October 2011 19:26 To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: DAG Question The question doesn't compute. :-) The issue, as I believe another poster pointed out, is that reaching quorum is impossible with an even number of live servers that don't have access to the FSW. The cluster will go offline. Warning: I don't know your design goals. Based on what little information I have, I would tend to suggest you have two DAGs, keeping the same server distribution. Site A has two servers for DAG-1, site B has two servers for DAG-1, the FSW for site A is in site A. Reverse that for DAG-2 being homed in site B. Regards, Michael B. Smith Consultant and Exchange MVP http://TheEssentialExchange.com http://TheEssentialExchange.com From: Young, Philip [mailto:philip.yo...@covance.com] mailto:%5bmailto:philip.yo...@covance.com%5d Sent: Wednesday, October 26, 2011 10:41 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: DAG Question Ok thanks Michael. One reason for posting my question was that I could not find anyone else who had done it this way. I was told the reasoning behind this is that if even if we lost site A we would still have the 3 members in site B plus the fsw in Site C. is that logic flawed? Can you be more specific about what quorum issues we might face? BTW the intention is to have active mailboxes in both sites A and B. we are at the design/test phase so not written in stone yet. Regards Phil _ From: Michael B. Smith [mailto:mich...@smithcons.com] mailto:%5bmailto:mich...@smithcons.com%5d Sent: 26 October 2011 14:48 To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: DAG Question Yes. That could lead you to having quorum issues. Regards, Michael B. Smith Consultant and Exchange MVP http://TheEssentialExchange.com http://TheEssentialExchange.com From: Young, Philip [mailto:philip.yo...@covance.com] mailto:%5bmailto:philip.yo...@covance.com%5d Sent: Wednesday, October 26, 2011 9:37 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: DAG Question We are planning an Exchange 2010 rollout and plan an 8-node DAG with 4 members in Site A and 4 in Site B and the FSW in Site C. Are there any drawbacks with doing it this way? Anybody have any good reasons why we shouldn't do this? Thanks in advance. Regards Phil --- To manage subscriptions click here: http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/ http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/ or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com mailto:listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com with the body: unsubscribe exchangelist - Confidentiality Notice
RE: DAG Question
+1 That design is not supported. Google split brain failure for generic information about what happens without quorum. Regards, Michael B. Smith Consultant and Exchange MVP http://TheEssentialExchange.com From: Senter, John [mailto:john.sen...@etrade.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 26, 2011 3:47 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: DAG Question Phil, If you are paying a consultant/architect to come up with that design I strongly suggest you replace him now because he does not know Exchange 2010. So what does this person suggest when site C goes down and you do not have a majority node count at site A and B. Even the base MS docs suggest that in a split site setup with active/active config to use 2 DAGs so a site link failure does not affect users at each site. From: Young, Philip [mailto:philip.yo...@covance.com]mailto:[mailto:philip.yo...@covance.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 26, 2011 3:26 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: DAG Question Ok apologies to both you and John, I probably didn't give enough info. My goal is to make sure what is planned works but I was not privy to early design meetings. The design is being proposed by a consultant/architect. I queried it and received the following reply Plan is for 8 member DAG split 4/4 between sites a and b. FSW will be housed in site C. This way if there's a site outage, surviving side will be able to contact FSW. If site a is down/unavailable and sites b and c are both up can quorum not be achieved that way.? Regards Phil From: Michael B. Smith [mailto:mich...@smithcons.com]mailto:[mailto:mich...@smithcons.com] Sent: 26 October 2011 19:26 To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: DAG Question The question doesn't compute. :) The issue, as I believe another poster pointed out, is that reaching quorum is impossible with an even number of live servers that don't have access to the FSW. The cluster will go offline. Warning: I don't know your design goals. Based on what little information I have, I would tend to suggest you have two DAGs, keeping the same server distribution. Site A has two servers for DAG-1, site B has two servers for DAG-1, the FSW for site A is in site A. Reverse that for DAG-2 being homed in site B. Regards, Michael B. Smith Consultant and Exchange MVP http://TheEssentialExchange.com From: Young, Philip [mailto:philip.yo...@covance.com]mailto:[mailto:philip.yo...@covance.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 26, 2011 10:41 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: DAG Question Ok thanks Michael. One reason for posting my question was that I could not find anyone else who had done it this way. I was told the reasoning behind this is that if even if we lost site A we would still have the 3 members in site B plus the fsw in Site C. is that logic flawed? Can you be more specific about what quorum issues we might face? BTW the intention is to have active mailboxes in both sites A and B. we are at the design/test phase so not written in stone yet. Regards Phil From: Michael B. Smith [mailto:mich...@smithcons.com]mailto:%5bmailto:mich...@smithcons.com%5d Sent: 26 October 2011 14:48 To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: DAG Question Yes. That could lead you to having quorum issues. Regards, Michael B. Smith Consultant and Exchange MVP http://TheEssentialExchange.com From: Young, Philip [mailto:philip.yo...@covance.com]mailto:%5bmailto:philip.yo...@covance.com%5d Sent: Wednesday, October 26, 2011 9:37 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: DAG Question We are planning an Exchange 2010 rollout and plan an 8-node DAG with 4 members in Site A and 4 in Site B and the FSW in Site C. Are there any drawbacks with doing it this way? Anybody have any good reasons why we shouldn't do this? Thanks in advance. Regards Phil --- To manage subscriptions click here: http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/ or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.commailto:listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com with the body: unsubscribe exchangelist - Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail transmission may contain confidential or legally privileged information that is intended only for the individual or entity named in the e-mail address. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or reliance upon the contents of this e-mail is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail transmission in error, please reply to the sender, so that we can arrange for proper delivery, and then please delete the message from your inbox. Thank you. --- To manage subscriptions click here: http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/ or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.commailto:listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com with the body: unsubscribe exchangelist --- To manage subscriptions click
RE: DAG Question
DAG shouldn't be a problem. We have a box at one of our remote sites setup this way. If you wanted to do a CAS Array, it won't work. DAGs use Windows Clustering Service, and CAS uses Network Load Balancing Service which don't like to coexist on the same box. Plus NLB across subnets won't work. You'll need Windows Server Enterprise to get the clustering services for your DAG though. From: phil levine [mailto:plevin...@yahoo.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 17, 2010 8:49 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: DAG Question I know that this question has probably been asked several times but i can't find the answer: I have several small sites that I need Exchange 2010 servers in and wanted to know if I could put CAS/HUB role on a MB server and use DAG for the databases? These sites are geographically dispersed but i want some sort of resilience for them and want to save some money on hardware. Thanks. Phil --- To manage subscriptions click here: http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/ or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com with the body: unsubscribe exchangelist --- To manage subscriptions click here: http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/ or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com with the body: unsubscribe exchangelist
RE: DAG Question
thanks. --- On Wed, 11/17/10, Todd Arnett tarn...@lastar.com wrote: From: Todd Arnett tarn...@lastar.com Subject: RE: DAG Question To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues exchangelist@lyris.sunbelt-software.com Date: Wednesday, November 17, 2010, 10:08 AM DAG shouldn’t be a problem. We have a box at one of our remote sites setup this way. If you wanted to do a CAS Array, it won’t work. DAGs use Windows Clustering Service, and CAS uses Network Load Balancing Service which don’t like to coexist on the same box. Plus NLB across subnets won’t work. You’ll need Windows Server Enterprise to get the clustering services for your DAG though. From: phil levine [mailto:plevin...@yahoo.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 17, 2010 8:49 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: DAG Question I know that this question has probably been asked several times but i can't find the answer: I have several small sites that I need Exchange 2010 servers in and wanted to know if I could put CAS/HUB role on a MB server and use DAG for the databases? These sites are geographically dispersed but i want some sort of resilience for them and want to save some money on hardware. Thanks. Phil --- To manage subscriptions click here: http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/ or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com with the body: unsubscribe exchangelist --- To manage subscriptions click here: http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/ or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com with the body: unsubscribe exchangelist --- To manage subscriptions click here: http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/ or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com with the body: unsubscribe exchangelist
RE: DAG Question
So you can build a CAS Array on Server Standard? Dave Wade Business Services I.C.T. 0161 474 5456 From: Todd Arnett [mailto:tarn...@lastar.com] Sent: 17 November 2010 15:09 To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: DAG Question DAG shouldn't be a problem. We have a box at one of our remote sites setup this way. If you wanted to do a CAS Array, it won't work. DAGs use Windows Clustering Service, and CAS uses Network Load Balancing Service which don't like to coexist on the same box. Plus NLB across subnets won't work. You'll need Windows Server Enterprise to get the clustering services for your DAG though. From: phil levine [mailto:plevin...@yahoo.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 17, 2010 8:49 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: DAG Question I know that this question has probably been asked several times but i can't find the answer: I have several small sites that I need Exchange 2010 servers in and wanted to know if I could put CAS/HUB role on a MB server and use DAG for the databases? These sites are geographically dispersed but i want some sort of resilience for them and want to save some money on hardware. Thanks. Phil --- To manage subscriptions click here: http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/ or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com with the body: unsubscribe exchangelist --- To manage subscriptions click here: http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/ or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com with the body: unsubscribe exchangelist ** Do you know someone who makes you Proud of Stockport? Is there someone who goes out of their way to make our borough a special place? Then nominate them for an award in our 2011 citizen awards by going to www.stockport.gov.uk/proudofstockport Entries close on Friday 26 November. This email, and any files transmitted with it, is confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. As a public body, the Council may be required to disclose this email, or any response to it, under the Freedom of Information Act 2000, unless the information in it is covered by one of the exemptions in the Act. If you receive this email in error please notify Stockport ICT, Business Services via email.qu...@stockport.gov.uk and then permanently remove it from your system. Thank you. http://www.stockport.gov.uk ** --- To manage subscriptions click here: http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/ or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com with the body: unsubscribe exchangelist
RE: DAG Question
Yes. A RPCCAA is nothing more than a logical entity. Regards, Michael B. Smith Consultant and Exchange MVP http://TheEssentialExchange.com From: Dave Wade [mailto:dave.w...@stockport.gov.uk] Sent: Wednesday, November 17, 2010 10:17 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: DAG Question So you can build a CAS Array on Server Standard? Dave Wade Business Services I.C.T. 0161 474 5456 From: Todd Arnett [mailto:tarn...@lastar.com] Sent: 17 November 2010 15:09 To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: DAG Question DAG shouldn't be a problem. We have a box at one of our remote sites setup this way. If you wanted to do a CAS Array, it won't work. DAGs use Windows Clustering Service, and CAS uses Network Load Balancing Service which don't like to coexist on the same box. Plus NLB across subnets won't work. You'll need Windows Server Enterprise to get the clustering services for your DAG though. From: phil levine [mailto:plevin...@yahoo.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 17, 2010 8:49 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: DAG Question I know that this question has probably been asked several times but i can't find the answer: I have several small sites that I need Exchange 2010 servers in and wanted to know if I could put CAS/HUB role on a MB server and use DAG for the databases? These sites are geographically dispersed but i want some sort of resilience for them and want to save some money on hardware. Thanks. Phil --- To manage subscriptions click here: http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/ or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.commailto:listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com with the body: unsubscribe exchangelist --- To manage subscriptions click here: http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/ or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.commailto:listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com with the body: unsubscribe exchangelist ** Do you know someone who makes you Proud of Stockport? Is there someone who goes out of their way to make our borough a special place? Then nominate them for an award in our 2011 citizen awards by going to www.stockport.gov.uk/proudofstockporthttp://www.stockport.gov.uk/proudofstockport Entries close on Friday 26 November. This email, and any files transmitted with it, is confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. As a public body, the Council may be required to disclose this email, or any response to it, under the Freedom of Information Act 2000, unless the information in it is covered by one of the exemptions in the Act. If you receive this email in error please notify Stockport ICT, Business Services via email.qu...@stockport.gov.ukmailto:email.qu...@stockport.gov.uk and then permanently remove it from your system. Thank you. http://www.stockport.gov.uk ** --- To manage subscriptions click here: http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/ or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.commailto:listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com with the body: unsubscribe exchangelist --- To manage subscriptions click here: http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/ or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com with the body: unsubscribe exchangelist
RE: DAG Question
Correct. From: Dave Wade [mailto:dave.w...@stockport.gov.uk] Sent: Wednesday, November 17, 2010 10:17 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: DAG Question So you can build a CAS Array on Server Standard? Dave Wade Business Services I.C.T. 0161 474 5456 From: Todd Arnett [mailto:tarn...@lastar.com] Sent: 17 November 2010 15:09 To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: DAG Question DAG shouldn't be a problem. We have a box at one of our remote sites setup this way. If you wanted to do a CAS Array, it won't work. DAGs use Windows Clustering Service, and CAS uses Network Load Balancing Service which don't like to coexist on the same box. Plus NLB across subnets won't work. You'll need Windows Server Enterprise to get the clustering services for your DAG though. From: phil levine [mailto:plevin...@yahoo.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 17, 2010 8:49 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: DAG Question I know that this question has probably been asked several times but i can't find the answer: I have several small sites that I need Exchange 2010 servers in and wanted to know if I could put CAS/HUB role on a MB server and use DAG for the databases? These sites are geographically dispersed but i want some sort of resilience for them and want to save some money on hardware. Thanks. Phil --- To manage subscriptions click here: http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/ or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com with the body: unsubscribe exchangelist --- To manage subscriptions click here: http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/ or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com with the body: unsubscribe exchangelist ** Do you know someone who makes you Proud of Stockport? Is there someone who goes out of their way to make our borough a special place? Then nominate them for an award in our 2011 citizen awards by going to www.stockport.gov.uk/proudofstockport Entries close on Friday 26 November. This email, and any files transmitted with it, is confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. As a public body, the Council may be required to disclose this email, or any response to it, under the Freedom of Information Act 2000, unless the information in it is covered by one of the exemptions in the Act. If you receive this email in error please notify Stockport ICT, Business Services via email.qu...@stockport.gov.uk and then permanently remove it from your system. Thank you. http://www.stockport.gov.uk ** --- To manage subscriptions click here: http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/ or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com with the body: unsubscribe exchangelist --- To manage subscriptions click here: http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/ or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com with the body: unsubscribe exchangelist
RE: DAG Question
You can also use an external load balancer, such as IAS/TMG or a third-party solution (Cisco, Coyote Point, Kemp Technologies, etc. etc.) Regards, Michael B. Smith Consultant and Exchange MVP http://TheEssentialExchange.com From: Todd Arnett [mailto:tarn...@lastar.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 17, 2010 10:09 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: DAG Question DAG shouldn't be a problem. We have a box at one of our remote sites setup this way. If you wanted to do a CAS Array, it won't work. DAGs use Windows Clustering Service, and CAS uses Network Load Balancing Service which don't like to coexist on the same box. Plus NLB across subnets won't work. You'll need Windows Server Enterprise to get the clustering services for your DAG though. From: phil levine [mailto:plevin...@yahoo.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 17, 2010 8:49 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: DAG Question I know that this question has probably been asked several times but i can't find the answer: I have several small sites that I need Exchange 2010 servers in and wanted to know if I could put CAS/HUB role on a MB server and use DAG for the databases? These sites are geographically dispersed but i want some sort of resilience for them and want to save some money on hardware. Thanks. Phil --- To manage subscriptions click here: http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/ or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.commailto:listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com with the body: unsubscribe exchangelist --- To manage subscriptions click here: http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/ or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.commailto:listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com with the body: unsubscribe exchangelist --- To manage subscriptions click here: http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/ or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com with the body: unsubscribe exchangelist
Re: DAG Question
Michael, To your knowledge, does NetScaler fall into that list? - Sean On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 8:52 AM, Michael B. Smith mich...@smithcons.comwrote: You can also use an external load balancer, such as IAS/TMG or a third-party solution (Cisco, Coyote Point, Kemp Technologies, etc. etc.) Regards, Michael B. Smith Consultant and Exchange MVP http://TheEssentialExchange.com http://theessentialexchange.com/ *From:* Todd Arnett [mailto:tarn...@lastar.com] *Sent:* Wednesday, November 17, 2010 10:09 AM *To:* MS-Exchange Admin Issues *Subject:* RE: DAG Question DAG shouldn’t be a problem. We have a box at one of our remote sites setup this way. If you wanted to do a CAS Array, it won’t work. DAGs use Windows Clustering Service, and CAS uses Network Load Balancing Service which don’t like to coexist on the same box. Plus NLB across subnets won’t work. You’ll need Windows Server Enterprise to get the clustering services for your DAG though. *From:* phil levine [mailto:plevin...@yahoo.com] *Sent:* Wednesday, November 17, 2010 8:49 AM *To:* MS-Exchange Admin Issues *Subject:* DAG Question I know that this question has probably been asked several times but i can't find the answer: I have several small sites that I need Exchange 2010 servers in and wanted to know if I could put CAS/HUB role on a MB server and use DAG for the databases? These sites are geographically dispersed but i want some sort of resilience for them and want to save some money on hardware. Thanks. Phil --- To manage subscriptions click here: http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/ or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com with the body: unsubscribe exchangelist --- To manage subscriptions click here: http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/ or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com with the body: unsubscribe exchangelist --- To manage subscriptions click here: http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/ or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com with the body: unsubscribe exchangelist --- To manage subscriptions click here: http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/ or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com with the body: unsubscribe exchangelist
RE: DAG Question
I don't know if Citrix has submitted the NetScaler for compliance testing, but yes - it is an excellent load balancer. Regards, Michael B. Smith Consultant and Exchange MVP http://TheEssentialExchange.com From: Sean Martin [mailto:seanmarti...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 17, 2010 12:55 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: Re: DAG Question Michael, To your knowledge, does NetScaler fall into that list? - Sean On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 8:52 AM, Michael B. Smith mich...@smithcons.commailto:mich...@smithcons.com wrote: You can also use an external load balancer, such as IAS/TMG or a third-party solution (Cisco, Coyote Point, Kemp Technologies, etc. etc.) Regards, Michael B. Smith Consultant and Exchange MVP http://TheEssentialExchange.comhttp://theessentialexchange.com/ From: Todd Arnett [mailto:tarn...@lastar.commailto:tarn...@lastar.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 17, 2010 10:09 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: DAG Question DAG shouldn't be a problem. We have a box at one of our remote sites setup this way. If you wanted to do a CAS Array, it won't work. DAGs use Windows Clustering Service, and CAS uses Network Load Balancing Service which don't like to coexist on the same box. Plus NLB across subnets won't work. You'll need Windows Server Enterprise to get the clustering services for your DAG though. From: phil levine [mailto:plevin...@yahoo.commailto:plevin...@yahoo.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 17, 2010 8:49 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: DAG Question I know that this question has probably been asked several times but i can't find the answer: I have several small sites that I need Exchange 2010 servers in and wanted to know if I could put CAS/HUB role on a MB server and use DAG for the databases? These sites are geographically dispersed but i want some sort of resilience for them and want to save some money on hardware. Thanks. Phil --- To manage subscriptions click here: http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/ or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.commailto:listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com with the body: unsubscribe exchangelist --- To manage subscriptions click here: http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/ or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.commailto:listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com with the body: unsubscribe exchangelist --- To manage subscriptions click here: http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/ or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.commailto:listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com with the body: unsubscribe exchangelist --- To manage subscriptions click here: http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/ or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.commailto:listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com with the body: unsubscribe exchangelist --- To manage subscriptions click here: http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/ or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com with the body: unsubscribe exchangelist
Re: DAG Question
Got it, thanks. - Sean On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 9:01 AM, Michael B. Smith mich...@smithcons.comwrote: I don’t know if Citrix has submitted the NetScaler for “compliance” testing, but yes – it is an excellent load balancer. Regards, Michael B. Smith Consultant and Exchange MVP http://TheEssentialExchange.com http://theessentialexchange.com/ *From:* Sean Martin [mailto:seanmarti...@gmail.com] *Sent:* Wednesday, November 17, 2010 12:55 PM *To:* MS-Exchange Admin Issues *Subject:* Re: DAG Question Michael, To your knowledge, does NetScaler fall into that list? - Sean On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 8:52 AM, Michael B. Smith mich...@smithcons.com wrote: You can also use an external load balancer, such as IAS/TMG or a third-party solution (Cisco, Coyote Point, Kemp Technologies, etc. etc.) Regards, Michael B. Smith Consultant and Exchange MVP http://TheEssentialExchange.com http://theessentialexchange.com/ *From:* Todd Arnett [mailto:tarn...@lastar.com] *Sent:* Wednesday, November 17, 2010 10:09 AM *To:* MS-Exchange Admin Issues *Subject:* RE: DAG Question DAG shouldn’t be a problem. We have a box at one of our remote sites setup this way. If you wanted to do a CAS Array, it won’t work. DAGs use Windows Clustering Service, and CAS uses Network Load Balancing Service which don’t like to coexist on the same box. Plus NLB across subnets won’t work. You’ll need Windows Server Enterprise to get the clustering services for your DAG though. *From:* phil levine [mailto:plevin...@yahoo.com] *Sent:* Wednesday, November 17, 2010 8:49 AM *To:* MS-Exchange Admin Issues *Subject:* DAG Question I know that this question has probably been asked several times but i can't find the answer: I have several small sites that I need Exchange 2010 servers in and wanted to know if I could put CAS/HUB role on a MB server and use DAG for the databases? These sites are geographically dispersed but i want some sort of resilience for them and want to save some money on hardware. Thanks. Phil --- To manage subscriptions click here: http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/ or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com with the body: unsubscribe exchangelist --- To manage subscriptions click here: http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/ or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com with the body: unsubscribe exchangelist --- To manage subscriptions click here: http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/ or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com with the body: unsubscribe exchangelist --- To manage subscriptions click here: http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/ or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com with the body: unsubscribe exchangelist --- To manage subscriptions click here: http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/ or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com with the body: unsubscribe exchangelist --- To manage subscriptions click here: http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/ or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com with the body: unsubscribe exchangelist
Re: DAG Question
I would think that if it's a known downtime, I'd personally manually make the one that's going to stay up the Active node. But it should failover automatically, that's what the DAG is for. phil levine plevin...@yahoo.com 10/20/2010 7:46 AM quick question that i feel kinda silly about asking; if i have several DAG's setup and my firewall in one location is taken down this weekend will the DAG automatically pick up in the second location or do i need to manually mount the databases in the second location? these are all RTM servers, no SP1 yet. thanks phil --- To manage subscriptions click here: http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/ or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com with the body: unsubscribe exchangelist --- To manage subscriptions click here: http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/ or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com with the body: unsubscribe exchangelist
RE: DAG Question
WHY should it fail over? Just 'cuz you take a firewall down doesn't mean that anything is wrong with the DAG! (Or anything else exchange related.) If you have a planned site outage, not because of an Exchange server planned downtime, you should absolutely do a manual failover. Regards, Michael B. Smith Consultant and Exchange MVP http://TheEssentialExchange.com -Original Message- From: Joseph Heaton [mailto:jhea...@dfg.ca.gov] Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2010 10:50 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: Re: DAG Question I would think that if it's a known downtime, I'd personally manually make the one that's going to stay up the Active node. But it should failover automatically, that's what the DAG is for. phil levine plevin...@yahoo.com 10/20/2010 7:46 AM quick question that i feel kinda silly about asking; if i have several DAG's setup and my firewall in one location is taken down this weekend will the DAG automatically pick up in the second location or do i need to manually mount the databases in the second location? these are all RTM servers, no SP1 yet. thanks phil --- To manage subscriptions click here: http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/ or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com with the body: unsubscribe exchangelist --- To manage subscriptions click here: http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/ or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com with the body: unsubscribe exchangelist --- To manage subscriptions click here: http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/ or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com with the body: unsubscribe exchangelist
Re: DAG Question
i was thinking the same thing but was not sure because the server will be up and running but wont be able to communicate with the other nodes. my thought was also to just manually fail them over to the active site. thanks --- On Wed, 10/20/10, Joseph Heaton jhea...@dfg.ca.gov wrote: From: Joseph Heaton jhea...@dfg.ca.gov Subject: Re: DAG Question To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues exchangelist@lyris.sunbelt-software.com Date: Wednesday, October 20, 2010, 10:50 AM I would think that if it's a known downtime, I'd personally manually make the one that's going to stay up the Active node. But it should failover automatically, that's what the DAG is for. phil levine plevin...@yahoo.com 10/20/2010 7:46 AM quick question that i feel kinda silly about asking; if i have several DAG's setup and my firewall in one location is taken down this weekend will the DAG automatically pick up in the second location or do i need to manually mount the databases in the second location? these are all RTM servers, no SP1 yet. thanks phil --- To manage subscriptions click here: http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/ or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com with the body: unsubscribe exchangelist --- To manage subscriptions click here: http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/ or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com with the body: unsubscribe exchangelist --- To manage subscriptions click here: http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/ or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com with the body: unsubscribe exchangelist
