Is OWA an option?
Serdar Soysal
-Original Message-
From: Miller, Robert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2002 2:58 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Consolidating Exchange Servers
All,
Looking for some feedback / possible horror stories on the topic of serve
It all depends on client load per circuit.
64k for 5 moderate users isn't unattainable, assuming a no other significant
traffic on the WAN. We have a number of sales offices that support 30+
users, generally about 15 at any given time, doing Exchange across 128/256k
frame links. But its all depen
I've run Outlook over some pretty think links. Available bandwidth and user
types are the important factors. Without statistics on current bandwidth
utilization and availability, your boss's idea is like naked beer slides.
Fun in theory, potentially painful in practice.[1]
[1] No comment. [2]
[2]
just consolidating - we are still NT 4.0
would moving to 2000 change things in this scenario?
-Original Message-
From: Tony Hlabse [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2002 2:04 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Re: Consolidating Exchange Servers
Are you moving to
I wouldn't cluster. I don't think a cluster gives you enough added
robustness to come anywhere near justifying its cost. Buy the most
redundant hardware you can instead.
Your best alternative might be to physically move those servers to the
central location before trying to move their mailboxes
Are you moving to 2000 or just consolidating?
>
>All,
>
>Looking for some feedback / possible horror stories on the topic of server
>consolidation. We are an Exchange 5.5 shop - 80 servers in 55 Sites. Every
>Site has a local mailbox server. The Boss is wanting to consolidate all the
>Exchange s
6 matches
Mail list logo
