RE: Exchange 2010 Design Questions
Pretty sure it's that the various sizing calculators from Microsoft always base figures on physical/actual number of cores. When you introduce HT, you're not really giving yourself double the number of CPUs in raw performance, so any planning based on the calculators goes out the window. We disable it on our servers, but only as the recommendation. Richard From: bounce-9546388-8066...@lyris.sunbelt-software.com [mailto:bounce-9546388-8066...@lyris.sunbelt-software.com] On Behalf Of Sean Martin Sent: 06 September 2012 00:33 To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: Exchange 2010 Design Questions Hello all, I'm a little more than a year removed from any real Exchange management but I am loosely involved with my company's re-vitalized effort to migrate from Exchange 2003 to Exchange 2010. We recently had an Exchange PFE onsite to assist with a high-level design for our environment. One of the recommendations kind of threw me for a loop and I wanted to get some feedback from those of you running Exchange 2010. Disable Hyper-threading - http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/dd346699.aspx: The article states: Hyperthreading causes capacity planning and monitoring challenges, and as a result, the expected gain in CPU overhead is likely not justified. Hyperthreading should be disabled by default for production Exchange servers and only enabled if absolutely necessary as a temporary measure to increase CPU capacity until additional hardware can be obtained. What capacity planning and monitoring challenges are introduced? We've been running hyper-threaded multi-core servers for many, many years and I can't think of any challenges that were introduced. Is there a specific scenario I'm not thinking about that is specific to Exchange capacity planning or monitoring? FWIW, we have 6 physical servers which will be evenly distributed between two active sites based on the latest design. Servers are Dell PowerEdge M610 blade servers with dual 6-core procs, 24GB memory, QLogic 8GB HBAs* connecting to Compellent Storage. *3 servers at one site will actually leverage infiniband (4x40GB) connectivity to Xsigo directors which will distribute vHBAs and vNICs. Any insight would be appreciated. - Sean --- 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: Exchange 2010 Design Questions
http://blogs.technet.com/b/jeff_stokes/archive/2010/09/15/to-hyper-thread-or-not-that-is-the-question.aspx The issue with HT is that, since it is scheduled as separate processor, but doesn't have unique cache assigned to it, in certain memory intensive operations it can cause reduced performance. From: Steve Goodman [mailto:st...@stevieg.org] Sent: Thursday, September 6, 2012 6:20 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Exchange 2010 Design Questions I agree with Richard - the capacity planning challenge is that the number of cores from the calculator doesn't differentiate between HT cores and normal cores. So your design is going to be for actual cores and in expected peak usage you gain little from have the HT features enabled. Steve From: Sobey, Richard A [mailto:r.so...@imperial.ac.uk]mailto:[mailto:r.so...@imperial.ac.uk] Sent: 06 September 2012 10:30 To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Exchange 2010 Design Questions Pretty sure it's that the various sizing calculators from Microsoft always base figures on physical/actual number of cores. When you introduce HT, you're not really giving yourself double the number of CPUs in raw performance, so any planning based on the calculators goes out the window. We disable it on our servers, but only as the recommendation. Richard From: bounce-9546388-8066...@lyris.sunbelt-software.commailto:bounce-9546388-8066...@lyris.sunbelt-software.com [mailto:bounce-9546388-8066...@lyris.sunbelt-software.com]mailto:[mailto:bounce-9546388-8066...@lyris.sunbelt-software.com] On Behalf Of Sean Martin Sent: 06 September 2012 00:33 To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: Exchange 2010 Design Questions Hello all, I'm a little more than a year removed from any real Exchange management but I am loosely involved with my company's re-vitalized effort to migrate from Exchange 2003 to Exchange 2010. We recently had an Exchange PFE onsite to assist with a high-level design for our environment. One of the recommendations kind of threw me for a loop and I wanted to get some feedback from those of you running Exchange 2010. Disable Hyper-threading - http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/dd346699.aspx: The article states: Hyperthreading causes capacity planning and monitoring challenges, and as a result, the expected gain in CPU overhead is likely not justified. Hyperthreading should be disabled by default for production Exchange servers and only enabled if absolutely necessary as a temporary measure to increase CPU capacity until additional hardware can be obtained. What capacity planning and monitoring challenges are introduced? We've been running hyper-threaded multi-core servers for many, many years and I can't think of any challenges that were introduced. Is there a specific scenario I'm not thinking about that is specific to Exchange capacity planning or monitoring? FWIW, we have 6 physical servers which will be evenly distributed between two active sites based on the latest design. Servers are Dell PowerEdge M610 blade servers with dual 6-core procs, 24GB memory, QLogic 8GB HBAs* connecting to Compellent Storage. *3 servers at one site will actually leverage infiniband (4x40GB) connectivity to Xsigo directors which will distribute vHBAs and vNICs. Any insight would be appreciated. - Sean --- 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: Exchange 2010 Design Questions
Thanks for the responses. I can appreciate the technical reasoning that Michael pointed out, but I'm also curious if this reasoning holds true with current Westmere or Sandy Bridge chipsets. In regards to the recommendation from Microsoft, it comes across as if they don't trust the person implementing Exchange to know their own hardware. Almost as if they picture someone opening task manager and determining they have 24 processors because that's how many they see. Anyway, thanks again for the insight. I believe our hardware configuration provides more than enough processing power for our environment so we'll probably just stick with the recommendation. - Sean On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 5:26 AM, Michael B. Smith mich...@smithcons.comwrote: http://blogs.technet.com/b/jeff_stokes/archive/2010/09/15/to-hyper-thread-or-not-that-is-the-question.aspx ** ** The issue with HT is that, since it is scheduled as separate processor, but doesn’t have unique cache assigned to it, in certain memory intensive operations it can cause reduced performance. ** ** *From:* Steve Goodman [mailto:st...@stevieg.org] *Sent:* Thursday, September 6, 2012 6:20 AM *To:* MS-Exchange Admin Issues *Subject:* RE: Exchange 2010 Design Questions ** ** I agree with Richard – the “capacity planning challenge” is that the number of cores from the calculator doesn’t differentiate between HT cores and normal cores. So your design is going to be for actual cores and in expected peak usage you gain little from have the HT features enabled. ** ** Steve ** ** *From:* Sobey, Richard A [mailto:r.so...@imperial.ac.uk] *Sent:* 06 September 2012 10:30 *To:* MS-Exchange Admin Issues *Subject:* RE: Exchange 2010 Design Questions ** ** Pretty sure it’s that the various sizing calculators from Microsoft always base figures on physical/actual number of cores. When you introduce HT, you’re not really giving yourself double the number of CPUs in raw performance, so any planning based on the calculators goes out the window. ** ** We disable it on our servers, but only as the recommendation. ** ** Richard ** ** *From:* bounce-9546388-8066...@lyris.sunbelt-software.com [mailto:bounce-9546388-8066...@lyris.sunbelt-software.com] *On Behalf Of *Sean Martin *Sent:* 06 September 2012 00:33 *To:* MS-Exchange Admin Issues *Subject:* Exchange 2010 Design Questions ** ** Hello all, I'm a little more than a year removed from any real Exchange management but I am loosely involved with my company's re-vitalized effort to migrate from Exchange 2003 to Exchange 2010. We recently had an Exchange PFE onsite to assist with a high-level design for our environment. One of the recommendations kind of threw me for a loop and I wanted to get some feedback from those of you running Exchange 2010. Disable Hyper-threading - http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/dd346699.aspx: The article states: *Hyperthreading causes capacity planning and monitoring challenges, and as a result, the expected gain in CPU overhead is likely not justified. Hyperthreading should be disabled by default for production Exchange servers and only enabled if absolutely necessary as a temporary measure to increase CPU capacity until additional hardware can be obtained.* What capacity planning and monitoring challenges are introduced? We've been running hyper-threaded multi-core servers for many, many years and I can't think of any challenges that were introduced. Is there a specific scenario I'm not thinking about that is specific to Exchange capacity planning or monitoring? FWIW, we have 6 physical servers which will be evenly distributed between two active sites based on the latest design. Servers are Dell PowerEdge M610 blade servers with dual 6-core procs, 24GB memory, QLogic 8GB HBAs* connecting to Compellent Storage. *3 servers at one site will actually leverage infiniband (4x40GB) connectivity to Xsigo directors which will distribute vHBAs and vNICs. Any insight would be appreciated. - Sean --- 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
Re: Exchange 2010 Design Questions
Thanks for the feedback. We'resupporting just over 2000 mailboxes in this environment so we felt memory configurations were sufficient. - Sean On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 5:14 PM, pramatow...@mediageneral.com wrote: We have 6500 mbx, ~2G worth in them, 6 servers in two sites, 3 active DB's on each server, each DB had a copy local and a copy in the cross-site (hope that makes sense). Avg mbx 250mb, range from a couple mb to 10G. The smaller mbx's are throwaways, the larger are generic shared mbx's. Virtually all are running in cached mode, 2K3, 2K7 with a smattering of 2K10 clients. Probably 4500 clients are at the far end of dual or quad T1's with a cable modem B/U, QOS on all the links so mail gets at most 40-50%. Intra site is 10G, intra site is 250-300Mb (I think) That's a bit of background, the servers are Dell 510's , dual 6 core procs hyperthreaded so 24 cores each server. (2.66 Xeon fwiw) kicker? Each DB and logs for each DB are on a 7500 rpm drive (circular logging) eek. Have never had an issue with cpu in that config. Saw things that recommended turning off hyperthreading, was ready to do so if necessary but looking at day to day ops, maintenance, us running scripts, doing junk on a server, it just never was necessary. Now the only thing I'd wonder is your memory- we're at 48G in each server, not sure if 24 would work for us. Ymmv. Blackberry *From*: Sean Martin [mailto:seanmarti...@gmail.com] *Sent*: Wednesday, September 05, 2012 07:32 PM *To*: MS-Exchange Admin Issues exchangelist@lyris.sunbelt-software.com *Subject*: Exchange 2010 Design Questions Hello all, I'm a little more than a year removed from any real Exchange management but I am loosely involved with my company's re-vitalized effort to migrate from Exchange 2003 to Exchange 2010. We recently had an Exchange PFE onsite to assist with a high-level design for our environment. One of the recommendations kind of threw me for a loop and I wanted to get some feedback from those of you running Exchange 2010. Disable Hyper-threading - http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/dd346699.aspx: The article states: *Hyperthreading causes capacity planning and monitoring challenges, and as a result, the expected gain in CPU overhead is likely not justified. Hyperthreading should be disabled by default for production Exchange servers and only enabled if absolutely necessary as a temporary measure to increase CPU capacity until additional hardware can be obtained.* What capacity planning and monitoring challenges are introduced? We've been running hyper-threaded multi-core servers for many, many years and I can't think of any challenges that were introduced. Is there a specific scenario I'm not thinking about that is specific to Exchange capacity planning or monitoring? FWIW, we have 6 physical servers which will be evenly distributed between two active sites based on the latest design. Servers are Dell PowerEdge M610 blade servers with dual 6-core procs, 24GB memory, QLogic 8GB HBAs* connecting to Compellent Storage. *3 servers at one site will actually leverage infiniband (4x40GB) connectivity to Xsigo directors which will distribute vHBAs and vNICs. Any insight would be appreciated. - Sean --- 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: Exchange 2010 Design Questions
Ah. Yeah, I posted all that excess just to say what we had, how it was configured, and so on. I understand the reasoning behind not using HT (and know I don't *have* 24 procs). Just lucky enough that we never ran into problems using it configured that way:) Cheers, Paul Blackberry From: Sean Martin [mailto:seanmarti...@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2012 11:18 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues exchangelist@lyris.sunbelt-software.com Subject: Re: Exchange 2010 Design Questions Thanks for the feedback. We'resupporting just over 2000 mailboxes in this environment so we felt memory configurations were sufficient. - Sean On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 5:14 PM, pramatow...@mediageneral.commailto:pramatow...@mediageneral.com wrote: We have 6500 mbx, ~2G worth in them, 6 servers in two sites, 3 active DB's on each server, each DB had a copy local and a copy in the cross-site (hope that makes sense). Avg mbx 250mb, range from a couple mb to 10G. The smaller mbx's are throwaways, the larger are generic shared mbx's. Virtually all are running in cached mode, 2K3, 2K7 with a smattering of 2K10 clients. Probably 4500 clients are at the far end of dual or quad T1's with a cable modem B/U, QOS on all the links so mail gets at most 40-50%. Intra site is 10G, intra site is 250-300Mb (I think) That's a bit of background, the servers are Dell 510's , dual 6 core procs hyperthreaded so 24 cores each server. (2.66 Xeon fwiw) kicker? Each DB and logs for each DB are on a 7500 rpm drive (circular logging) eek. Have never had an issue with cpu in that config. Saw things that recommended turning off hyperthreading, was ready to do so if necessary but looking at day to day ops, maintenance, us running scripts, doing junk on a server, it just never was necessary. Now the only thing I'd wonder is your memory- we're at 48G in each server, not sure if 24 would work for us. Ymmv. Blackberry From: Sean Martin [mailto:seanmarti...@gmail.commailto:seanmarti...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2012 07:32 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues exchangelist@lyris.sunbelt-software.commailto:exchangelist@lyris.sunbelt-software.com Subject: Exchange 2010 Design Questions Hello all, I'm a little more than a year removed from any real Exchange management but I am loosely involved with my company's re-vitalized effort to migrate from Exchange 2003 to Exchange 2010. We recently had an Exchange PFE onsite to assist with a high-level design for our environment. One of the recommendations kind of threw me for a loop and I wanted to get some feedback from those of you running Exchange 2010. Disable Hyper-threading - http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/dd346699.aspx: The article states: Hyperthreading causes capacity planning and monitoring challenges, and as a result, the expected gain in CPU overhead is likely not justified. Hyperthreading should be disabled by default for production Exchange servers and only enabled if absolutely necessary as a temporary measure to increase CPU capacity until additional hardware can be obtained. What capacity planning and monitoring challenges are introduced? We've been running hyper-threaded multi-core servers for many, many years and I can't think of any challenges that were introduced. Is there a specific scenario I'm not thinking about that is specific to Exchange capacity planning or monitoring? FWIW, we have 6 physical servers which will be evenly distributed between two active sites based on the latest design. Servers are Dell PowerEdge M610 blade servers with dual 6-core procs, 24GB memory, QLogic 8GB HBAs* connecting to Compellent Storage. *3 servers at one site will actually leverage infiniband (4x40GB) connectivity to Xsigo directors which will distribute vHBAs and vNICs. Any insight would be appreciated. - Sean --- 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: Exchange 2010 Design Questions
We have 6500 mbx, ~2G worth in them, 6 servers in two sites, 3 active DB's on each server, each DB had a copy local and a copy in the cross-site (hope that makes sense). Avg mbx 250mb, range from a couple mb to 10G. The smaller mbx's are throwaways, the larger are generic shared mbx's. Virtually all are running in cached mode, 2K3, 2K7 with a smattering of 2K10 clients. Probably 4500 clients are at the far end of dual or quad T1's with a cable modem B/U, QOS on all the links so mail gets at most 40-50%. Intra site is 10G, intra site is 250-300Mb (I think) That's a bit of background, the servers are Dell 510's , dual 6 core procs hyperthreaded so 24 cores each server. (2.66 Xeon fwiw) kicker? Each DB and logs for each DB are on a 7500 rpm drive (circular logging) eek. Have never had an issue with cpu in that config. Saw things that recommended turning off hyperthreading, was ready to do so if necessary but looking at day to day ops, maintenance, us running scripts, doing junk on a server, it just never was necessary. Now the only thing I'd wonder is your memory- we're at 48G in each server, not sure if 24 would work for us. Ymmv. Blackberry From: Sean Martin [mailto:seanmarti...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2012 07:32 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues exchangelist@lyris.sunbelt-software.com Subject: Exchange 2010 Design Questions Hello all, I'm a little more than a year removed from any real Exchange management but I am loosely involved with my company's re-vitalized effort to migrate from Exchange 2003 to Exchange 2010. We recently had an Exchange PFE onsite to assist with a high-level design for our environment. One of the recommendations kind of threw me for a loop and I wanted to get some feedback from those of you running Exchange 2010. Disable Hyper-threading - http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/dd346699.aspx: The article states: Hyperthreading causes capacity planning and monitoring challenges, and as a result, the expected gain in CPU overhead is likely not justified. Hyperthreading should be disabled by default for production Exchange servers and only enabled if absolutely necessary as a temporary measure to increase CPU capacity until additional hardware can be obtained. What capacity planning and monitoring challenges are introduced? We've been running hyper-threaded multi-core servers for many, many years and I can't think of any challenges that were introduced. Is there a specific scenario I'm not thinking about that is specific to Exchange capacity planning or monitoring? FWIW, we have 6 physical servers which will be evenly distributed between two active sites based on the latest design. Servers are Dell PowerEdge M610 blade servers with dual 6-core procs, 24GB memory, QLogic 8GB HBAs* connecting to Compellent Storage. *3 servers at one site will actually leverage infiniband (4x40GB) connectivity to Xsigo directors which will distribute vHBAs and vNICs. Any insight would be appreciated. - Sean --- 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: Exchange 2010 Design Questions
I meant ~2Tb data in there (first line). Blackberry From: Ramatowski, Paul M. Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2012 09:14 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues exchangelist@lyris.sunbelt-software.com Subject: Re: Exchange 2010 Design Questions We have 6500 mbx, ~2G worth in them, 6 servers in two sites, 3 active DB's on each server, each DB had a copy local and a copy in the cross-site (hope that makes sense). Avg mbx 250mb, range from a couple mb to 10G. The smaller mbx's are throwaways, the larger are generic shared mbx's. Virtually all are running in cached mode, 2K3, 2K7 with a smattering of 2K10 clients. Probably 4500 clients are at the far end of dual or quad T1's with a cable modem B/U, QOS on all the links so mail gets at most 40-50%. Intra site is 10G, intra site is 250-300Mb (I think) That's a bit of background, the servers are Dell 510's , dual 6 core procs hyperthreaded so 24 cores each server. (2.66 Xeon fwiw) kicker? Each DB and logs for each DB are on a 7500 rpm drive (circular logging) eek. Have never had an issue with cpu in that config. Saw things that recommended turning off hyperthreading, was ready to do so if necessary but looking at day to day ops, maintenance, us running scripts, doing junk on a server, it just never was necessary. Now the only thing I'd wonder is your memory- we're at 48G in each server, not sure if 24 would work for us. Ymmv. Blackberry From: Sean Martin [mailto:seanmarti...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2012 07:32 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues exchangelist@lyris.sunbelt-software.com Subject: Exchange 2010 Design Questions Hello all, I'm a little more than a year removed from any real Exchange management but I am loosely involved with my company's re-vitalized effort to migrate from Exchange 2003 to Exchange 2010. We recently had an Exchange PFE onsite to assist with a high-level design for our environment. One of the recommendations kind of threw me for a loop and I wanted to get some feedback from those of you running Exchange 2010. Disable Hyper-threading - http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/dd346699.aspx: The article states: Hyperthreading causes capacity planning and monitoring challenges, and as a result, the expected gain in CPU overhead is likely not justified. Hyperthreading should be disabled by default for production Exchange servers and only enabled if absolutely necessary as a temporary measure to increase CPU capacity until additional hardware can be obtained. What capacity planning and monitoring challenges are introduced? We've been running hyper-threaded multi-core servers for many, many years and I can't think of any challenges that were introduced. Is there a specific scenario I'm not thinking about that is specific to Exchange capacity planning or monitoring? FWIW, we have 6 physical servers which will be evenly distributed between two active sites based on the latest design. Servers are Dell PowerEdge M610 blade servers with dual 6-core procs, 24GB memory, QLogic 8GB HBAs* connecting to Compellent Storage. *3 servers at one site will actually leverage infiniband (4x40GB) connectivity to Xsigo directors which will distribute vHBAs and vNICs. Any insight would be appreciated. - Sean --- 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: Exchange 2010 design
Sent from my LG phone pramatow...@mediageneral.com pramatow...@mediageneral.com wrote: We went WNLB for a couple of reasons- $ and it was supported happily for our size/needs. Pretty sure it still is but MS doesn't seem to like it nearly as much as they used to-I'd guess based on real world experience? Today, those size/needs would steer towards HLB. IIRC it was a pain for us to set up and get going properly- whether that was WNLB, me, or just all the #$^! that was going on at the time, I dunno. Once it was going I guess it LB's well enough as long as all the boxes were up. not that it was a regular occurrence by any means but if we lost/had to reboot a box it did screw with all the connections on that box. Had to fiddle with patching too (drainstopping etc) but so it goes. Also unless we missed something obvious, the only health checking you have is basically a ping test, HLB goes past that. Stuff I've done resulting in 0 client complaints- Pulled power on the active Kemp Rebooted a CAS Powered down CAS My other response in this thread I rated at .0002 Paul Cents. This one I'll rate at a full .02 PC- Given you're going there anyway, get the network guys to make their decision and skip WNLB altogether:) Paul From: sms adm [sms...@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, June 17, 2011 4:35 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: Re: Exchange 2010 design How reliable was your WNLB? We're planning to do the same ... start with WNLB and move to HW NLB when our network guys decide what they will buy and when. Thx in advance On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 3:58 PM, pramatow...@mediageneral.commailto:pramatow...@mediageneral.com wrote: Been running E2010 for a year now- We’re getting rid of WNLB, putting four Kemp loadmaster 2200’s into place, a high availability pair in each AD site Did one site yesterday, the other is planned for next week.We’re ~7K mailboxes with 2 real mbx/hub and 3 virtual cas in each site. ~1400 BB’s, few hundred EAS devs. Are you stuck on F5 for some reason? Not that I have any long experience with Kemp or anything but they seem to be pretty nice boxes for a very reasonable price… From: Ryan Finnesey [mailto:ryan.finne...@harrierinvestments.commailto:ryan.finne...@harrierinvestments.com] Sent: Friday, June 17, 2011 1:21 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Cc: neil.hob...@microsoft.commailto:neil.hob...@microsoft.com Subject: RE: Exchange 2010 design I need to do something very similar I need to decide if we want to use hardware from F5 or use NLB for an Exchange 2010 deployment. Thank you for the helpful links. Cheers Ryan From: Neil Hobson [mailto:neil.hob...@microsoft.commailto:neil.hob...@microsoft.com] Sent: Monday, June 13, 2011 10:30 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Exchange 2010 design In addition to what Phil said in his reply, for a good overview of the load balancing options I’d recommend reading this topic : http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ff625247.aspx FYI, if you go down the hardware load balancer route, here’s the page that lists the hardware load balancers that have completed solution testing with Exchange 2010 : http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/exchange/gg176682.aspx HTH, Neil From: Laurence Bryant [mailto:l...@cem.dur.ac.ukmailto:l...@cem.dur.ac.uk] Sent: 13 June 2011 13:59 To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: Exchange 2010 design Hi Everyone, I'm a bit new to this so my apologies if I've not understood something correctly. I'm trying to plan new hardware to deploy Exchange 2010 (100 users, average mailbox size 500MB) and am looking at using two servers with CAS, HT and Mailbox roles installed on both and using DAG for high availability. I was thinking of using Windows NLB for load balancing,but have read that this can't be used with DAG (http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/dd979781.aspx). My question is, if I set up two additional servers with NLB installed and moved the CAS and HT roles to them, would this solution then provide the load balancing I'm looking for? Alternatively, would I be better off with two highly redundant servers and use one for Mailbox and one for CAS and HT? Thanks for any advice! Laurence --- 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
RE: Exchange 2010 design
No we are not stuck on F5 at all, we are looking at them first because of the very good relationship F5 has with Microsoft. Cheers Ryan From: pramatow...@mediageneral.com [mailto:pramatow...@mediageneral.com] Sent: Friday, June 17, 2011 3:59 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Exchange 2010 design Been running E2010 for a year now- We're getting rid of WNLB, putting four Kemp loadmaster 2200's into place, a high availability pair in each AD site Did one site yesterday, the other is planned for next week. We're ~7K mailboxes with 2 real mbx/hub and 3 virtual cas in each site. ~1400 BB's, few hundred EAS devs. Are you stuck on F5 for some reason? Not that I have any long experience with Kemp or anything but they seem to be pretty nice boxes for a very reasonable price... From: Ryan Finnesey [mailto:ryan.finne...@harrierinvestments.com] Sent: Friday, June 17, 2011 1:21 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Cc: neil.hob...@microsoft.com Subject: RE: Exchange 2010 design I need to do something very similar I need to decide if we want to use hardware from F5 or use NLB for an Exchange 2010 deployment. Thank you for the helpful links. Cheers Ryan From: Neil Hobson [mailto:neil.hob...@microsoft.com] Sent: Monday, June 13, 2011 10:30 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Exchange 2010 design In addition to what Phil said in his reply, for a good overview of the load balancing options I'd recommend reading this topic : http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ff625247.aspx FYI, if you go down the hardware load balancer route, here's the page that lists the hardware load balancers that have completed solution testing with Exchange 2010 : http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/exchange/gg176682.aspx HTH, Neil From: Laurence Bryant [mailto:l...@cem.dur.ac.uk] Sent: 13 June 2011 13:59 To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: Exchange 2010 design Hi Everyone, I'm a bit new to this so my apologies if I've not understood something correctly. I'm trying to plan new hardware to deploy Exchange 2010 (100 users, average mailbox size 500MB) and am looking at using two servers with CAS, HT and Mailbox roles installed on both and using DAG for high availability. I was thinking of using Windows NLB for load balancing,but have read that this can't be used with DAG (http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/dd979781.aspx). My question is, if I set up two additional servers with NLB installed and moved the CAS and HT roles to them, would this solution then provide the load balancing I'm looking for? Alternatively, would I be better off with two highly redundant servers and use one for Mailbox and one for CAS and HT? Thanks for any advice! Laurence --- 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: Exchange 2010 design
Ah. We've got some F5 gear too (not mine to touch) but they were too pricy for this project. Kemp's on the approved list too, and the price was right. Our network guy opened a case with them asking about one arm vs. two arm setup. fairly basic but we wanted to do it right the first time. Quick to respond, right on time with the explanations and answers. Documentation (for me anyway) was nice, setup is straightforward, they're working as advertised. Maybe it's the same with all of them. I don't know- this is my first hands on with these hardware bits. My .0002 is if they fit your need they're worth the look:) Paul From: Ryan Finnesey [ryan.finne...@harrierinvestments.com] Sent: Saturday, June 18, 2011 2:39 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Exchange 2010 design No we are not stuck on F5 at all, we are looking at them first because of the very good relationship F5 has with Microsoft. Cheers Ryan From: pramatow...@mediageneral.com [mailto:pramatow...@mediageneral.com] Sent: Friday, June 17, 2011 3:59 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Exchange 2010 design Been running E2010 for a year now- We’re getting rid of WNLB, putting four Kemp loadmaster 2200’s into place, a high availability pair in each AD site Did one site yesterday, the other is planned for next week.We’re ~7K mailboxes with 2 real mbx/hub and 3 virtual cas in each site. ~1400 BB’s, few hundred EAS devs. Are you stuck on F5 for some reason? Not that I have any long experience with Kemp or anything but they seem to be pretty nice boxes for a very reasonable price… From: Ryan Finnesey [mailto:ryan.finne...@harrierinvestments.com] Sent: Friday, June 17, 2011 1:21 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Cc: neil.hob...@microsoft.com Subject: RE: Exchange 2010 design I need to do something very similar I need to decide if we want to use hardware from F5 or use NLB for an Exchange 2010 deployment. Thank you for the helpful links. Cheers Ryan From: Neil Hobson [mailto:neil.hob...@microsoft.com] Sent: Monday, June 13, 2011 10:30 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Exchange 2010 design In addition to what Phil said in his reply, for a good overview of the load balancing options I’d recommend reading this topic : http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ff625247.aspx FYI, if you go down the hardware load balancer route, here’s the page that lists the hardware load balancers that have completed solution testing with Exchange 2010 : http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/exchange/gg176682.aspx HTH, Neil From: Laurence Bryant [mailto:l...@cem.dur.ac.uk] Sent: 13 June 2011 13:59 To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: Exchange 2010 design Hi Everyone, I'm a bit new to this so my apologies if I've not understood something correctly. I'm trying to plan new hardware to deploy Exchange 2010 (100 users, average mailbox size 500MB) and am looking at using two servers with CAS, HT and Mailbox roles installed on both and using DAG for high availability. I was thinking of using Windows NLB for load balancing,but have read that this can't be used with DAG (http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/dd979781.aspx). My question is, if I set up two additional servers with NLB installed and moved the CAS and HT roles to them, would this solution then provide the load balancing I'm looking for? Alternatively, would I be better off with two highly redundant servers and use one for Mailbox and one for CAS and HT? Thanks for any advice! Laurence --- 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.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: Exchange 2010 design
We went WNLB for a couple of reasons- $ and it was supported happily for our size/needs. Pretty sure it still is but MS doesn't seem to like it nearly as much as they used to-I'd guess based on real world experience? Today, those size/needs would steer towards HLB. IIRC it was a pain for us to set up and get going properly- whether that was WNLB, me, or just all the #$^! that was going on at the time, I dunno. Once it was going I guess it LB's well enough as long as all the boxes were up. not that it was a regular occurrence by any means but if we lost/had to reboot a box it did screw with all the connections on that box. Had to fiddle with patching too (drainstopping etc) but so it goes. Also unless we missed something obvious, the only health checking you have is basically a ping test, HLB goes past that. Stuff I've done resulting in 0 client complaints- Pulled power on the active Kemp Rebooted a CAS Powered down CAS My other response in this thread I rated at .0002 Paul Cents. This one I'll rate at a full .02 PC- Given you're going there anyway, get the network guys to make their decision and skip WNLB altogether:) Paul From: sms adm [sms...@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, June 17, 2011 4:35 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: Re: Exchange 2010 design How reliable was your WNLB? We're planning to do the same ... start with WNLB and move to HW NLB when our network guys decide what they will buy and when. Thx in advance On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 3:58 PM, pramatow...@mediageneral.commailto:pramatow...@mediageneral.com wrote: Been running E2010 for a year now- We’re getting rid of WNLB, putting four Kemp loadmaster 2200’s into place, a high availability pair in each AD site Did one site yesterday, the other is planned for next week.We’re ~7K mailboxes with 2 real mbx/hub and 3 virtual cas in each site. ~1400 BB’s, few hundred EAS devs. Are you stuck on F5 for some reason? Not that I have any long experience with Kemp or anything but they seem to be pretty nice boxes for a very reasonable price… From: Ryan Finnesey [mailto:ryan.finne...@harrierinvestments.commailto:ryan.finne...@harrierinvestments.com] Sent: Friday, June 17, 2011 1:21 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Cc: neil.hob...@microsoft.commailto:neil.hob...@microsoft.com Subject: RE: Exchange 2010 design I need to do something very similar I need to decide if we want to use hardware from F5 or use NLB for an Exchange 2010 deployment. Thank you for the helpful links. Cheers Ryan From: Neil Hobson [mailto:neil.hob...@microsoft.commailto:neil.hob...@microsoft.com] Sent: Monday, June 13, 2011 10:30 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Exchange 2010 design In addition to what Phil said in his reply, for a good overview of the load balancing options I’d recommend reading this topic : http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ff625247.aspx FYI, if you go down the hardware load balancer route, here’s the page that lists the hardware load balancers that have completed solution testing with Exchange 2010 : http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/exchange/gg176682.aspx HTH, Neil From: Laurence Bryant [mailto:l...@cem.dur.ac.ukmailto:l...@cem.dur.ac.uk] Sent: 13 June 2011 13:59 To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: Exchange 2010 design Hi Everyone, I'm a bit new to this so my apologies if I've not understood something correctly. I'm trying to plan new hardware to deploy Exchange 2010 (100 users, average mailbox size 500MB) and am looking at using two servers with CAS, HT and Mailbox roles installed on both and using DAG for high availability. I was thinking of using Windows NLB for load balancing,but have read that this can't be used with DAG (http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/dd979781.aspx). My question is, if I set up two additional servers with NLB installed and moved the CAS and HT roles to them, would this solution then provide the load balancing I'm looking for? Alternatively, would I be better off with two highly redundant servers and use one for Mailbox and one for CAS and HT? Thanks for any advice! Laurence --- 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
RE: Exchange 2010 design
Thanks for the replies, they set me off on a lot of reading. Unfortunatly I've been told that a hardware load balancer is out of the question at the moment, but I did find this link for a highly available 500 mailbox design (http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/en/details.aspx?FamilyID=e0e93251-fc04-4 a18-8aa0-23817b6d0c97 http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/en/details.aspx?FamilyID=e0e93251-fc04-4 a18-8aa0-23817b6d0c97 ) in my list archive, for an MS white paper which seems to describe an implementation that would fit with what I've been required to do. My only question would be, how real world are these white papers, if I followed a similar route would I end up with a practical solution? Thanks again, Laurence _ From: Neil Hobson [mailto:neil.hob...@microsoft.com] Sent: 13 June 2011 15:30 To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Exchange 2010 design In addition to what Phil said in his reply, for a good overview of the load balancing options I'd recommend reading this topic : http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ff625247.aspx http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ff625247.aspx FYI, if you go down the hardware load balancer route, here's the page that lists the hardware load balancers that have completed solution testing with Exchange 2010 : http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/exchange/gg176682.aspx http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/exchange/gg176682.aspx HTH, Neil From: Laurence Bryant [mailto:l...@cem.dur.ac.uk] Sent: 13 June 2011 13:59 To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: Exchange 2010 design Hi Everyone, I'm a bit new to this so my apologies if I've not understood something correctly. I'm trying to plan new hardware to deploy Exchange 2010 (100 users, average mailbox size 500MB) and am looking at using two servers with CAS, HT and Mailbox roles installed on both and using DAG for high availability. I was thinking of using Windows NLB for load balancing,but have read that this can't be used with DAG (http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/dd979781.aspx http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/dd979781.aspx ). My question is, if I set up two additional servers with NLB installed and moved the CAS and HT roles to them, would this solution then provide the load balancing I'm looking for? Alternatively, would I be better off with two highly redundant servers and use one for Mailbox and one for CAS and HT? Thanks for any advice! Laurence --- 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: Exchange 2010 design
*Disclaimer* I have not tried running NLB in my Exchange 2010 environment. I used NLB in my Exchange 2003 environment and it performed quite well. I have 70,000 mailboxes (and a very heavy non-MAPI user profile) and used NLB on my 3 front-end servers to load-balance OWA, OMA, IMAP, POP, and authenticated SMTP traffic. The solution was in place 4 years and worked flawlessly to the end. -jim James Rupprecht The University of Kansas Exchange/Active Directory Administrator From: Laurence Bryant [mailto:l...@cem.dur.ac.uk] Sent: Friday, June 17, 2011 10:55 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Exchange 2010 design Thanks for the replies, they set me off on a lot of reading. Unfortunatly I've been told that a hardware load balancer is out of the question at the moment, but I did find this link for a highly available 500 mailbox design (http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/en/details.aspx?FamilyID=e0e93251-fc04-4a18-8aa0-23817b6d0c97) in my list archive, for an MS white paper which seems to describe an implementation that would fit with what I've been required to do. My only question would be, how real world are these white papers, if I followed a similar route would I end up with a practical solution? Thanks again, Laurence From: Neil Hobson [mailto:neil.hob...@microsoft.com] Sent: 13 June 2011 15:30 To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Exchange 2010 design In addition to what Phil said in his reply, for a good overview of the load balancing options I'd recommend reading this topic : http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ff625247.aspx FYI, if you go down the hardware load balancer route, here's the page that lists the hardware load balancers that have completed solution testing with Exchange 2010 : http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/exchange/gg176682.aspx HTH, Neil From: Laurence Bryant [mailto:l...@cem.dur.ac.uk] Sent: 13 June 2011 13:59 To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: Exchange 2010 design Hi Everyone, I'm a bit new to this so my apologies if I've not understood something correctly. I'm trying to plan new hardware to deploy Exchange 2010 (100 users, average mailbox size 500MB) and am looking at using two servers with CAS, HT and Mailbox roles installed on both and using DAG for high availability. I was thinking of using Windows NLB for load balancing,but have read that this can't be used with DAG (http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/dd979781.aspx). My question is, if I set up two additional servers with NLB installed and moved the CAS and HT roles to them, would this solution then provide the load balancing I'm looking for? Alternatively, would I be better off with two highly redundant servers and use one for Mailbox and one for CAS and HT? Thanks for any advice! Laurence --- 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: Exchange 2010 design
That looks like a good paper, and the solution looks appropriate. One thing to make sure you're aware of when using NLB; you can't have NLB and Windows Clustering on the same server. So if you are using NLB for your CAS and you think you may want to use DAG for your mailbox server(s), the roles will have to be on separate servers. DAMIEN SOLODOW Systems Engineer 317.447.6033 (office) 317.447.6014 (fax) HARRISON COLLEGE From: Laurence Bryant [mailto:l...@cem.dur.ac.uk] Sent: Friday, June 17, 2011 11:55 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Exchange 2010 design Thanks for the replies, they set me off on a lot of reading. Unfortunatly I've been told that a hardware load balancer is out of the question at the moment, but I did find this link for a highly available 500 mailbox design (http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/en/details.aspx?FamilyID=e0e93251-fc04-4a18-8aa0-23817b6d0c97) in my list archive, for an MS white paper which seems to describe an implementation that would fit with what I've been required to do. My only question would be, how real world are these white papers, if I followed a similar route would I end up with a practical solution? Thanks again, Laurence From: Neil Hobson [mailto:neil.hob...@microsoft.com] Sent: 13 June 2011 15:30 To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Exchange 2010 design In addition to what Phil said in his reply, for a good overview of the load balancing options I'd recommend reading this topic : http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ff625247.aspx FYI, if you go down the hardware load balancer route, here's the page that lists the hardware load balancers that have completed solution testing with Exchange 2010 : http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/exchange/gg176682.aspx HTH, Neil From: Laurence Bryant [mailto:l...@cem.dur.ac.uk] Sent: 13 June 2011 13:59 To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: Exchange 2010 design Hi Everyone, I'm a bit new to this so my apologies if I've not understood something correctly. I'm trying to plan new hardware to deploy Exchange 2010 (100 users, average mailbox size 500MB) and am looking at using two servers with CAS, HT and Mailbox roles installed on both and using DAG for high availability. I was thinking of using Windows NLB for load balancing,but have read that this can't be used with DAG (http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/dd979781.aspx). My question is, if I set up two additional servers with NLB installed and moved the CAS and HT roles to them, would this solution then provide the load balancing I'm looking for? Alternatively, would I be better off with two highly redundant servers and use one for Mailbox and one for CAS and HT? Thanks for any advice! Laurence --- 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: Exchange 2010 design
I downloaded and read that and it seems pretty substantial and seems to cover the main points. I would expect if you followed it diligently you would end up with a working and supportable solution. It also explains fairly well what the key points of an Exchange design are and is pretty clear on where you can and can't make compromises. The solution in the paper is quite neat. It gets round the four physical server issue by using two servers with virtualization. I think this will also save you cash as a Windows Server Enterprise Licence (which you need for the clustering to build the DAG) allows you to run up to four copies of windows in the same physical machine. However you still need four Exchange licences (but even for a big config only two need to be Enterprise). I note the paper skirts round this. However there are however some tools available that simplify the some of the calculations I found (but didn't try) these:- http://www.ibm.com/partnerworld/wps/sizing/sizingguide/guide_redirect.js p?guide_id=sgq71003253131900102ssoId=unauthenticated http://h71028.www7.hp.com/ActiveAnswers/us/en/sizers/microsoft-exchange- server-2010.html http://blogs.technet.com/b/exchange/archive/2009/11/09/3408737.aspx Hope this helps Dave Wade Corporate and Support Services I.C.T. 0161 474 5456 From: Laurence Bryant [mailto:l...@cem.dur.ac.uk] Sent: 17 June 2011 16:55 To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Exchange 2010 design Thanks for the replies, they set me off on a lot of reading. Unfortunatly I've been told that a hardware load balancer is out of the question at the moment, but I did find this link for a highly available 500 mailbox design (http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/en/details.aspx?FamilyID=e0e93251-fc 04-4a18-8aa0-23817b6d0c97) in my list archive, for an MS white paper which seems to describe an implementation that would fit with what I've been required to do. My only question would be, how real world are these white papers, if I followed a similar route would I end up with a practical solution? Thanks again, Laurence From: Neil Hobson [mailto:neil.hob...@microsoft.com] Sent: 13 June 2011 15:30 To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Exchange 2010 design In addition to what Phil said in his reply, for a good overview of the load balancing options I'd recommend reading this topic : http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ff625247.aspx FYI, if you go down the hardware load balancer route, here's the page that lists the hardware load balancers that have completed solution testing with Exchange 2010 : http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/exchange/gg176682.aspx HTH, Neil From: Laurence Bryant [mailto:l...@cem.dur.ac.uk] Sent: 13 June 2011 13:59 To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: Exchange 2010 design Hi Everyone, I'm a bit new to this so my apologies if I've not understood something correctly. I'm trying to plan new hardware to deploy Exchange 2010 (100 users, average mailbox size 500MB) and am looking at using two servers with CAS, HT and Mailbox roles installed on both and using DAG for high availability. I was thinking of using Windows NLB for load balancing,but have read that this can't be used with DAG (http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/dd979781.aspx). My question is, if I set up two additional servers with NLB installed and moved the CAS and HT roles to them, would this solution then provide the load balancing I'm looking for? Alternatively, would I be better off with two highly redundant servers and use one for Mailbox and one for CAS and HT? Thanks for any advice! Laurence --- 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 ** This email, and any files transmitted with it, is confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom
RE: Exchange 2010 design
From: Damien Solodow [mailto:damien.solo...@harrison.edu] Sent: 17 June 2011 17:24 To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Exchange 2010 design That looks like a good paper, and the solution looks appropriate. One thing to make sure you're aware of when using NLB; you can't have NLB and Windows Clustering on the same server. So if you are using NLB for your CAS and you think you may want to use DAG for your mailbox server(s), the roles will have to be on separate servers. It has a neat solution to that. It uses four virtual servers on two physical boxes. DAMIEN SOLODOW Systems Engineer 317.447.6033 (office) 317.447.6014 (fax) HARRISON COLLEGE From: Laurence Bryant [mailto:l...@cem.dur.ac.uk] Sent: Friday, June 17, 2011 11:55 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Exchange 2010 design Thanks for the replies, they set me off on a lot of reading. Unfortunatly I've been told that a hardware load balancer is out of the question at the moment, but I did find this link for a highly available 500 mailbox design (http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/en/details.aspx?FamilyID=e0e93251-fc 04-4a18-8aa0-23817b6d0c97) in my list archive, for an MS white paper which seems to describe an implementation that would fit with what I've been required to do. My only question would be, how real world are these white papers, if I followed a similar route would I end up with a practical solution? Thanks again, Laurence From: Neil Hobson [mailto:neil.hob...@microsoft.com] Sent: 13 June 2011 15:30 To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Exchange 2010 design In addition to what Phil said in his reply, for a good overview of the load balancing options I'd recommend reading this topic : http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ff625247.aspx FYI, if you go down the hardware load balancer route, here's the page that lists the hardware load balancers that have completed solution testing with Exchange 2010 : http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/exchange/gg176682.aspx HTH, Neil From: Laurence Bryant [mailto:l...@cem.dur.ac.uk] Sent: 13 June 2011 13:59 To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: Exchange 2010 design Hi Everyone, I'm a bit new to this so my apologies if I've not understood something correctly. I'm trying to plan new hardware to deploy Exchange 2010 (100 users, average mailbox size 500MB) and am looking at using two servers with CAS, HT and Mailbox roles installed on both and using DAG for high availability. I was thinking of using Windows NLB for load balancing,but have read that this can't be used with DAG (http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/dd979781.aspx). My question is, if I set up two additional servers with NLB installed and moved the CAS and HT roles to them, would this solution then provide the load balancing I'm looking for? Alternatively, would I be better off with two highly redundant servers and use one for Mailbox and one for CAS and HT? Thanks for any advice! Laurence --- 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 ** 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
RE: Exchange 2010 design
I need to do something very similar I need to decide if we want to use hardware from F5 or use NLB for an Exchange 2010 deployment. Thank you for the helpful links. Cheers Ryan From: Neil Hobson [mailto:neil.hob...@microsoft.com] Sent: Monday, June 13, 2011 10:30 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Exchange 2010 design In addition to what Phil said in his reply, for a good overview of the load balancing options I'd recommend reading this topic : http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ff625247.aspx FYI, if you go down the hardware load balancer route, here's the page that lists the hardware load balancers that have completed solution testing with Exchange 2010 : http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/exchange/gg176682.aspx HTH, Neil From: Laurence Bryant [mailto:l...@cem.dur.ac.uk] Sent: 13 June 2011 13:59 To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: Exchange 2010 design Hi Everyone, I'm a bit new to this so my apologies if I've not understood something correctly. I'm trying to plan new hardware to deploy Exchange 2010 (100 users, average mailbox size 500MB) and am looking at using two servers with CAS, HT and Mailbox roles installed on both and using DAG for high availability. I was thinking of using Windows NLB for load balancing,but have read that this can't be used with DAG (http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/dd979781.aspx). My question is, if I set up two additional servers with NLB installed and moved the CAS and HT roles to them, would this solution then provide the load balancing I'm looking for? Alternatively, would I be better off with two highly redundant servers and use one for Mailbox and one for CAS and HT? Thanks for any advice! Laurence --- 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: Exchange 2010 design
Been running E2010 for a year now- We're getting rid of WNLB, putting four Kemp loadmaster 2200's into place, a high availability pair in each AD site Did one site yesterday, the other is planned for next week.We're ~7K mailboxes with 2 real mbx/hub and 3 virtual cas in each site. ~1400 BB's, few hundred EAS devs. Are you stuck on F5 for some reason? Not that I have any long experience with Kemp or anything but they seem to be pretty nice boxes for a very reasonable price... From: Ryan Finnesey [mailto:ryan.finne...@harrierinvestments.com] Sent: Friday, June 17, 2011 1:21 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Cc: neil.hob...@microsoft.com Subject: RE: Exchange 2010 design I need to do something very similar I need to decide if we want to use hardware from F5 or use NLB for an Exchange 2010 deployment. Thank you for the helpful links. Cheers Ryan From: Neil Hobson [mailto:neil.hob...@microsoft.com] Sent: Monday, June 13, 2011 10:30 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Exchange 2010 design In addition to what Phil said in his reply, for a good overview of the load balancing options I'd recommend reading this topic : http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ff625247.aspx FYI, if you go down the hardware load balancer route, here's the page that lists the hardware load balancers that have completed solution testing with Exchange 2010 : http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/exchange/gg176682.aspx HTH, Neil From: Laurence Bryant [mailto:l...@cem.dur.ac.uk] Sent: 13 June 2011 13:59 To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: Exchange 2010 design Hi Everyone, I'm a bit new to this so my apologies if I've not understood something correctly. I'm trying to plan new hardware to deploy Exchange 2010 (100 users, average mailbox size 500MB) and am looking at using two servers with CAS, HT and Mailbox roles installed on both and using DAG for high availability. I was thinking of using Windows NLB for load balancing,but have read that this can't be used with DAG (http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/dd979781.aspx). My question is, if I set up two additional servers with NLB installed and moved the CAS and HT roles to them, would this solution then provide the load balancing I'm looking for? Alternatively, would I be better off with two highly redundant servers and use one for Mailbox and one for CAS and HT? Thanks for any advice! Laurence --- 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: Exchange 2010 design
How reliable was your WNLB? We're planning to do the same ... start with WNLB and move to HW NLB when our network guys decide what they will buy and when. Thx in advance On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 3:58 PM, pramatow...@mediageneral.com wrote: ** ** Been running E2010 for a year now- We’re getting rid of WNLB, putting four Kemp loadmaster 2200’s into place, a high availability pair in each AD site Did one site yesterday, the other is planned for next week.We’re ~7K mailboxes with 2 real mbx/hub and 3 virtual cas in each site. ~1400 BB’s, few hundred EAS devs. ** ** Are you stuck on F5 for some reason? Not that I have any long experience with Kemp or anything but they seem to be pretty nice boxes for a very reasonable price… ** ** ** ** ** ** *From:* Ryan Finnesey [mailto:ryan.finne...@harrierinvestments.com] *Sent:* Friday, June 17, 2011 1:21 PM *To:* MS-Exchange Admin Issues *Cc:* neil.hob...@microsoft.com *Subject:* RE: Exchange 2010 design ** ** I need to do something very similar I need to decide if we want to use hardware from F5 or use NLB for an Exchange 2010 deployment. Thank you for the helpful links. ** ** Cheers Ryan ** ** ** ** *From:* Neil Hobson [mailto:neil.hob...@microsoft.com] *Sent:* Monday, June 13, 2011 10:30 AM *To:* MS-Exchange Admin Issues *Subject:* RE: Exchange 2010 design ** ** In addition to what Phil said in his reply, for a good overview of the load balancing options I’d recommend reading this topic : http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ff625247.aspx ** ** FYI, if you go down the hardware load balancer route, here’s the page that lists the hardware load balancers that have completed solution testing with Exchange 2010 : http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/exchange/gg176682.aspx* *** ** ** HTH, ** ** Neil ** ** *From:* Laurence Bryant [mailto:l...@cem.dur.ac.uk] *Sent:* 13 June 2011 13:59 *To:* MS-Exchange Admin Issues *Subject:* Exchange 2010 design ** ** Hi Everyone, I'm a bit new to this so my apologies if I've not understood something correctly. I'm trying to plan new hardware to deploy Exchange 2010 (100 users, average mailbox size 500MB) and am looking at using two servers with CAS, HT and Mailbox roles installed on both and using DAG for high availability. I was thinking of using Windows NLB for load balancing,but have read that this can't be used with DAG ( http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/dd979781.aspx). My question is, if I set up two additional servers with NLB installed and moved the CAS and HT roles to them, would this solution then provide the load balancing I'm looking for? Alternatively, would I be better off with two highly redundant servers and use one for Mailbox and one for CAS and HT? Thanks for any advice! Laurence --- 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 -- smsadm --- 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: Exchange 2010 design
Laurence, If you're going to have all three roles, CAS/HT/MB, on each server, you need a hardware load balancer. You can get a decent one for under $2k. If you go with the CAS/HT role on one server and the MB role on the other, you won't have any fault tolerance other than any level of RAID you may use. Philip Carpinteria, CA From: Laurence Bryant [mailto:l...@cem.dur.ac.uk] Sent: Monday, June 13, 2011 5:59 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: Exchange 2010 design Hi Everyone, I'm a bit new to this so my apologies if I've not understood something correctly. I'm trying to plan new hardware to deploy Exchange 2010 (100 users, average mailbox size 500MB) and am looking at using two servers with CAS, HT and Mailbox roles installed on both and using DAG for high availability. I was thinking of using Windows NLB for load balancing,but have read that this can't be used with DAG (http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/dd979781.aspx). My question is, if I set up two additional servers with NLB installed and moved the CAS and HT roles to them, would this solution then provide the load balancing I'm looking for? Alternatively, would I be better off with two highly redundant servers and use one for Mailbox and one for CAS and HT? Thanks for any advice! Laurence --- 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: Exchange 2010 design
In addition to what Phil said in his reply, for a good overview of the load balancing options I'd recommend reading this topic : http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ff625247.aspx FYI, if you go down the hardware load balancer route, here's the page that lists the hardware load balancers that have completed solution testing with Exchange 2010 : http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/exchange/gg176682.aspx HTH, Neil From: Laurence Bryant [mailto:l...@cem.dur.ac.uk] Sent: 13 June 2011 13:59 To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: Exchange 2010 design Hi Everyone, I'm a bit new to this so my apologies if I've not understood something correctly. I'm trying to plan new hardware to deploy Exchange 2010 (100 users, average mailbox size 500MB) and am looking at using two servers with CAS, HT and Mailbox roles installed on both and using DAG for high availability. I was thinking of using Windows NLB for load balancing,but have read that this can't be used with DAG (http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/dd979781.aspx). My question is, if I set up two additional servers with NLB installed and moved the CAS and HT roles to them, would this solution then provide the load balancing I'm looking for? Alternatively, would I be better off with two highly redundant servers and use one for Mailbox and one for CAS and HT? Thanks for any advice! Laurence --- 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
