, or a single Windows VM acting
as the CAS?
From: Paul Hutchings [paul.hutchi...@mira.co.uk]
Sent: 02 February 2012 12:31 PM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Load Balancer vs. 2 more Exchange Servers?
So what is the pro of that approach over doing LB for RPC too
Subject: RE: Load Balancer vs. 2 more Exchange Servers?
A couple of things: keep in mind that loadbalancer.org (and the other
companies) are in business to sell load balancers. Therefore they recommend you
LB everything. Most companies get along just fine with only doing ports 80 and
443
: Steve Goodman [mailto:st...@stevieg.org]
Sent: 01 February 2012 23:00
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Load Balancer vs. 2 more Exchange Servers?
+1 on Kemp in particular, I have been recommending them to my customers when
faced with a similar decision.
Just a heads-up, pricing wise
: bounce-9482517-8066...@lyris.sunbelt-software.com
[mailto:bounce-9482517-8066...@lyris.sunbelt-software.com] On Behalf Of Paul
Hutchings
Sent: 02 February 2012 09:46
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Load Balancer vs. 2 more Exchange Servers?
This is clearly where I have a lot of reading
: 02 February 2012 10:16
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Load Balancer vs. 2 more Exchange Servers?
Doesn't stay running and high availability mean approximately the same
thing?! :)
I'm a bit confused how you've got a CAS array but you're not currently using a
NLB/HLB. Actually
February 2012 09:46
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Load Balancer vs. 2 more Exchange Servers?
This is clearly where I have a lot of reading to do. To clarify, high
availability isn't the absolute end-goal here, the end goal is to stay running
even and a little manual intervention
10:16
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Load Balancer vs. 2 more Exchange Servers?
Doesn't stay running and high availability mean approximately the same
thing?! :)
I'm a bit confused how you've got a CAS array but you're not currently using a
NLB/HLB. Actually, it makes a bit more sense
that's part of the
array hosting the CAS role.
Steve
From: Paul Hutchings [mailto:paul.hutchi...@mira.co.uk]
Sent: 02 February 2012 11:10
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Load Balancer vs. 2 more Exchange Servers?
And to balance RPC I guess I'm back where I started with the docs from
server that's part of the
array hosting the CAS role.
Steve
From: Paul Hutchings
[mailto:paul.hutchi...@mira.co.uk]mailto:[mailto:paul.hutchi...@mira.co.uk]
Sent: 02 February 2012 11:10
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Load Balancer vs. 2 more Exchange Servers?
And to balance RPC I guess
Specific load balancer or just a shedload of mappings?
From: Sobey, Richard A [mailto:r.so...@imperial.ac.uk]
Sent: 02 February 2012 11:23
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Load Balancer vs. 2 more Exchange Servers?
I'll say now that we don't use static ports.
From:
bounce-9482555-8066
Subject: RE: Load Balancer vs. 2 more Exchange Servers?
I don't think there is a particular downside. When the US wakes up I am sure
Michael may have a different take, but assigning a static port avoids having to
load balance a large number of TCP/IP ports for RPC. In essence to set static
ports
: Thursday, February 02, 2012 6:18 AM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Load Balancer vs. 2 more Exchange Servers?
I don't think there is a particular downside. When the US wakes up I am sure
Michael may have a different take, but assigning a static port avoids having to
load balance
Yep.
Regards,
Michael B. Smith
Consultant and Exchange MVP
http://TheEssentialExchange.com
From: Paul Hutchings [mailto:paul.hutchi...@mira.co.uk]
Sent: Thursday, February 02, 2012 6:52 AM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Load Balancer vs. 2 more Exchange Servers?
Even on the LAN
and cost of LB required.
From: Michael B. Smith [mailto:mich...@smithcons.com]
Sent: 02 February 2012 12:15
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Load Balancer vs. 2 more Exchange Servers?
Yep.
Regards,
Michael B. Smith
Consultant and Exchange MVP
http://TheEssentialExchange.com
From: Paul
direct at the moment.
Steve
From: Paul Hutchings [mailto:paul.hutchi...@mira.co.uk]
Sent: 02 February 2012 12:32
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Load Balancer vs. 2 more Exchange Servers?
So what is the pro of that approach over doing LB for RPC too? Keeping in mind
I'm trying to avoid
Issues
exchangelist@lyris.sunbelt-software.commailto:exchangelist@lyris.sunbelt-software.com
Date: Thu, 2 Feb 2012 14:07:41 +
To: Admin Issues
exchangelist@lyris.sunbelt-software.commailto:exchangelist@lyris.sunbelt-software.com
Subject: RE: Load Balancer vs. 2 more Exchange Servers?
You
I don't know anything about loadbalancer.org (I'll go take a look later), but
the appliances from either Kemp or Coyote Point work just fine and you don't
have to do anything with RPC ports. I have both widely deployed with clients.
(I've also got expensive ones deployed - but for most
Subject: RE: Load Balancer vs. 2 more Exchange Servers?
I don't know anything about loadbalancer.org (I'll go take a look later), but
the appliances from either Kemp or Coyote Point work just fine and you don't
have to do anything with RPC ports. I have both widely deployed with clients.
(I've also
Subject: RE: Load Balancer vs. 2 more Exchange Servers?
I don't know anything about loadbalancer.org (I'll go take a look later), but
the appliances from either Kemp or Coyote Point work just fine and you don't
have to do anything with RPC ports. I have both widely deployed with clients.
(I've also
...@stevieg.org]
Sent: Wednesday, February 01, 2012 05:59 PM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues exchangelist@lyris.sunbelt-software.com
Subject: RE: Load Balancer vs. 2 more Exchange Servers?
+1 on Kemp in particular, I have been recommending them to my customers when
faced with a similar decision.
Just a heads-up
20 matches
Mail list logo
