XP Pro & Win2KPro, plus some OWA.
-Original Message-
From: Midgley, Ian [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2003 09:24
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Clustering... is it worth it?
What client configurations are you thinking of supporting?
We have a central
much better :( .
Anyone got any good ideas other than Exchange 2003?
-Original Message-
From: Slinger, Gary [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 02 July 2003 04:33
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Clustering... is it worth it?
(Can't resist - it's a 4-node cluster, with a pas
sday, July 01, 2003 6:16 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Clustering... is it worth it?
only 16,000 users? on an 8-node cluster?
-Original Message-
From: William Lefkovics [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, June 27, 2003 8:11 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Re: Clusteri
ubject: RE: Clustering... is it worth it?
only 16,000 users? on an 8-node cluster?
-Original Message-
From: William Lefkovics [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, June 27, 2003 8:11 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Re: Clustering... is it worth it?
But do consider revisiting this with 2
only 16,000 users? on an 8-node cluster?
-Original Message-
From: William Lefkovics [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, June 27, 2003 8:11 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Re: Clustering... is it worth it?
But do consider revisiting this with 2003.
With Microsoft running 16,000
And I don't wear make up.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Slinger, Gary
Sent: Monday, June 30, 2003 6:15 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Clustering... is it worth it?
You're confusing me with Andi...
Oh, wait -
You're confusing me with Andi...
Oh, wait - wrong list. Never mind :)
-Original Message-
From: Erik Sojka [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, June 30, 2003 08:42
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Clustering... is it worth it?
you two kiss and make up now.
> -
you two kiss and make up now.
> -Original Message-
> From: William Lefkovics [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Saturday, June 28, 2003 1:40 AM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: Clustering... is it worth it?
>
>
> You are totally right. Cochran
orked out, they have been pretty solid.
2k3 may be a different kettle of fish.
My $0.02
G.
- Original Message -
From: "Martin Blackstone" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, June 28, 2003 11:34 AM
Subject: RE:
03 9:55 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Clustering... is it worth it?
OK, I'll try it another way - the presentation that I heard at Tech-Ed,
matched up against my notes, indicated that it was:
A) 4 x 4-way servers, active, plus
B) 1 x 4-way server, passive, plus
C) 2 x 2-way server
ly capable of basic math. 8, to my
recollection, notes, and thoughts of the PPT, is wrong.,
-Original Message-
From: William Lefkovics [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, June 28, 2003 12:58 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Clustering... is it worth it?
The PPT would be wrong
The PPT would be wrong then as 4+1+2 <> 8
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Slinger, Gary
Sent: Friday, June 27, 2003 9:45 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Clustering... is it worth it?
The TechEd PPT was 4-1-2; other tha
The TechEd PPT was 4-1-2; other than that, concur.
-Original Message-
From: William Lefkovics [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, June 27, 2003 9:21 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Re: Clustering... is it worth it?
Definitely Active/Passive.
The 8-node cluster I mentioned it
: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Clustering... is it worth it?
I believe they have always recommended an Active/Active cluster.
Paul Roubicheux sais the E2K3 clusters awesomely.
-Original Message-
From: Schneider, Bryan D [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, June 27, 2003 6:14 PM
I believe they have always recommended an Active/Active cluster.
Paul Roubicheux sais the E2K3 clusters awesomely.
-Original Message-
From: Schneider, Bryan D [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, June 27, 2003 6:14 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Clustering... is it worth
MAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, June 27, 2003 6:13 PM
Subject: RE: Clustering... is it worth it?
> You have the benefit of quick recovery in event of hardware failure on the
server (not likely typically). But, it is really nice for maintenance where
you have to apply patches, security upd
Havent they recommended Active/Passive for awhile now?
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Schneider, Bryan D
Sent: Friday, June 27, 2003 9:14 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Clustering... is it worth it?
You have the benefit of
iscussions
Cc:
Subject: Re: Clustering... is it worth it?
But do consider revisiting this with 2003.
With Microsoft running 16,000 users on an 8-node cluster now.
Windows2003 and Exchange2003 of course.
>
Sent: Friday, June 27, 2003 5:04 PM
Subject: RE: Clustering... is it worth it?
> That's pretty much the argument against clustering.
> In fact, many folks will tell you that Exchange needs much more hand
holding
> in a cluster.
>
> -Original Message-
> From: MSX
ering... is it worth it?
Upper management here is inquiring about clustering our exchange server.
We already have our PRIV, PUB and DIR on a SAN. I don't see the benefit.
If the server itself fails, I can rebuild it in an hour. If the database
corrupts it would have taken the cluster down to
ssage-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of MSX dude
Sent: Friday, June 27, 2003 7:50 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Clustering... is it worth it?
Upper management here is inquiring about clustering our exchange server. We
already have our PRIV, PUB and DIR on
Upper management here is inquiring about clustering our exchange server.
We already have our PRIV, PUB and DIR on a SAN. I don't see the benefit.
If the server itself fails, I can rebuild it in an hour. If the database
corrupts it would have taken the cluster down too.
I have searched the inter
22 matches
Mail list logo