load balancer, 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
Admin Issues
mailto:exchangelist@lyris.sunbelt-software.com>>
Date: Thu, 2 Feb 2012 14:07:41 +
To: Admin Issues
mailto:exchangelist@lyris.sunbelt-software.com>>
Subject: RE: Load Balancer vs. 2 more Exchange Servers?
You pays your money, you takes your chances.
I see a lot of investment ov
th use RPC 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
n the level 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.
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
vieg.org]>
Sent: 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
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
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-94
stry entries on each 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
ach server 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 starte
mperial.ac.uk]>
Sent: 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 b
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 to do. To clarify, high
availability isn't the absolute end-go
Sent: 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
ad balancing MAPI though.
Richard
From: 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
sn't either :)
From: 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 hea
ssues
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
e Goodman [mailto:st...@stevieg.org]
Sent: Wednesday, February 01, 2012 05:59 PM
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 for a
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 clien
ge Admin Issues
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 depl
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" compani
20 matches
Mail list logo
