Cumbaya! Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP Freelance E-Mail Philosopher Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups!T
-----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Susan Bradley Sent: Monday, October 31, 2005 10:24 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [ActiveDir] Exchange now supported on virtual hardware [okay so now we're REALLY OT] <So Sorry one more really OT but since it's Exchange hopefully you will indulge me? Yeah and I suck at lurking I know> The Pop connector also does not drop the email into the Exchange in a place where the Exchange IMF filter will score it. Thus if anyone uses the POP connector on SBS you lose the ability to use IMF. http://www.msexchange.org/tutorials/Microsoft-Exchange-Intelligent-Message-F ilter.html "The POP3 connector on SBS2003 uses CDO through the pickup folder for delivery and therefore it misses the "End of Data" event sink used by IMF. Therefore messages delivered through the POP3 connector won't be scanned by IMF." In the old IMF and the new IMF both have the ability to 'expose' the SCL ranking so you can better see what the SCL value it and tweak the IMF [especially now that version 2 is natively built into Exchange 2003 sp2 -- just remember to re-enable it once you removed the first version] http://www.smallbizserver.net/SBS2003/ExchangeServer2003/IntelligentMessageF ilteronSBS2003/tabid/129/Default.aspx?PageContentID=17 BTW blog posts regarding IMAP and it's uses [especially for folks with Smartphones and multiple servers and the need for checking email on phones] http://seanda.blogspot.com/2005/10/checking-2-exchange-servers-on.html http://seanda.blogspot.com/2004/10/imaping-your-way-to-multiple-inboxes.html I still have to test out squeaky lobster on a SBS box though. ;-) Still agreeing with Ed about stupid POP connector moments on a SBS box. Susan Bradley wrote: > When we say "transition' to SMTP, that's SBSland slang for when we > mean that you fully host your email inside your SBS box on Exchange. > You contact the ISP, to the MX record thing the whole shebang, the ISP > points the needed records/protocols to you, you open port 25 and you > do your own Email [tzo.com for backup MX if needed]. [heck you can > even do a non standard port 25 and just direct Exchange to use an > alternative port when certain ISP's block port 25] > > SBS 'on the server' has a Pop connector program that will go and > collect emails from an ISP and drop them into Exchange. > > There are a couple of problems with the SBS "POP" connector program > > 1. It natively only collects email every 15 minutes [and no don't ask > me if it can be every minute] 2. In the RTM version of SBS, the SBS > Pop connector truly demonstrated that our boxes could do more with > less. BCC or CC a unpatched global pop connector in a RTM SBS box and > you can spam your friends for a 'very' 'very' long time. > http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/01/29/bo_mailing_list_chaos/ > 3. Officially the Pop connector program inside SBS is a transition > tool.... unfortunately some SBSers have been transitioning to full > SMTP/Exchange since SBS 4.0. > > Oh yeah and it also doesn't deliver bcc'd emails very well either. > > So I have NO problem whatsoever agreeing with Ed that the Pop > connector 'on' SBS that is unique to us has it's stupid moments. > > Brett Shirley wrote: > >> Susan, SMTP isn't a client retrieval protocol (like POP), it's a mail >> delivery protocol. IMAP, POP, and MAPI are your client retrieval >> protocols. SMTP and (IIRC) MAPI are mail delivery protocols. MAPI >> doing double duty. SMTP, IMAP, and POP are the open (i.e. >> standardized) protocols. IMAP is generally considered superior to >> POP (makes me wonder does Exchange support IMAP?). >> >> I must caveat and say I'm like 57% sure of all of the above, these >> things are happening at least 2 or 3 layers above where I work. >> >> Cheers, >> -BrettSh [msft] >> ESE Dev >> >> Posting as is ... >> >> >> On Mon, 31 Oct 2005, Susan Bradley wrote: >> >> >> >>> You do realize that that is officially a "transition tool" that you >>> should use to transition 'to' SMTP >>> >>> [and yes, even with a dynamic IP and all that you can still host >>> your own email] >>> >>> Ed Crowley [MVP] wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>> I have no problem with SBS except that stupid POP mail connector. >>>> >>>> Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP >>>> Freelance E-Mail Philosopher >>>> Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups!? >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Susan >>>> Bradley, CPA aka Ebitz - SBS Rocks [MVP] >>>> Sent: Monday, October 31, 2005 5:29 PM >>>> To: [email protected] >>>> Subject: Re: [ActiveDir] Exchange now supported on virtual hardware >>>> >>>> I would just like to point out that the person who has SBS Rocks as >>>> part of her email address did not post that.... >>>> >>>> I was thinking that though..... :-) >>>> >>>> Ed Crowley [MVP] wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> Less than 50 means SBS, doesn't it? Who needs virtualizaton? >>>>> Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP >>>>> Freelance E-Mail Philosopher >>>>> Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups!? >>>>> >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>>> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Michael >>>>> B. Smith >>>>> Sent: Monday, October 31, 2005 1:45 PM >>>>> To: [email protected] >>>>> Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Exchange now supported on virtual >>>>> hardware >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>> From a book proposal I wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> According to the United States Small Business Administration (the >>>>> US SBA, at http://www.sba.gov/advo/stats/arsbfaq.txt), small firms: >>>>> >>>>> * Total approximately 23 million in the United States. >>>>> * Represent 99.7 percent of all employer firms. >>>>> * Employ half of all private sector employees. >>>>> * Pay 44.3 percent of the total U.S. private payroll. >>>>> * Generate 60 to 80 percent of net new jobs annually. >>>>> * Create more than 50 percent of non-farm, private gross domestic >>>>> product (GDP). >>>>> * Are employers of 39 percent of high tech workers (such as >>>>> scientists, engineers, and computer workers). >>>>> >>>>> Now, the SBA defines a "small firm" as having less than 500 >>>>> employees. For the purpose of our discussion, we'll define a small >>>>> company as having less than 50 employees. According to >>>>> http://www.sba.gov/advo/stats/us_01ss.pdf, >>>>> this makes up approximately 50% of all employer firms. >>>>> >>>>> M >>>>> >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>>> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Al >>>>> Mulnick >>>>> Sent: Monday, October 31, 2005 4:39 PM >>>>> To: [email protected] >>>>> Subject: Re: [ActiveDir] Exchange now supported on virtual >>>>> hardware >>>>> >>>>> Of course it's always best, but I have to wonder what the benefit >>>>> of running smaller exchange servers in a virtual environment would >>>>> be? Is that to deal with shrinking datacenter floor space? I was >>>>> thinking this might be interesting in an environment where I had >>>>> lots of branch >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> office deployments. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> Might be easier to deploy a "solution in a box" to those sites. >>>>> Faster recovery scenarios come to mind as well. >>>>> >>>>> I have to say, I'm with Deji on this. If you want to deploy a >>>>> mailbox server, I don't see a problem with it up front as long as >>>>> you treat it like >>>>> clustering: respect the tool and it's idiosynchratic behavior >>>>> patterns. Otherwise, how many people are really deploying >2500 >>>>> user density (and have heavy user populations) for Exchange? Not >>>>> nearly as many as those deploying less if the majority of >>>>> companies out there are ~99 employees in the first place. [1] >>>>> >>>>> [1] just some stat I picked up in a magazine. Whatever. My point >>>>> is that the number of companies that have a) the number of >>>>> employees to do large density deployments and b) the networks to >>>>> support it are fewer than those that would have 10 users here and >>>>> 50 users there spread out across the globe. By the numbers, >>>>> you're more likely to deploy to a smaller user population than a >>>>> larger one and I like the idea of virtualization for these >>>>> environments. It cuts down on some of the datacenter clutter >>>>> although it does increase my risks of failure; it may cancel out >>>>> if I can better watch a single machine's >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> environmentals vs. a room full of them. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>>>> Reply-To: [email protected] >>>>>> To: [email protected] >>>>>> Subject: Re: [ActiveDir] Exchange now supported on virtual >>>>>> hardware >>>>>> Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2005 08:21:24 -0500 >>>>>> >>>>>> I could see virtualizing low-end Exchange systems such as FEs and >>>>>> Bridgehead servers as stated earlier. The higher end databases >>>>>> are the ones that I have a problem with at this point in time, >>>>>> but I'm sure that the technology will evolve to where this >>>>>> becomes possible for higher end databases. >>>>>> >>>>>> It would be best in all cases to test a virtualized and >>>>>> non-virtualized option with production levels before proceding in >>>>>> a >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> production environment. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>> Chuck Gafford >>>>>> Systems Architect >>>>>> >>>>>> Unisys >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>>>> To: [email protected] >>>>>> Sent: Sun, 30 Oct 2005 09:25:09 -0800 >>>>>> Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Exchange now supported on virtual >>>>>> hardware >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>> Perhaps some day I'll have time to run JetStress on an >>>>>>>> clustered >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> Exchange >>>>>> server on ESX attached to a SAN to see how it performs. >>>>>> >>>>>> Which is a good thing to do before concluding that virtualizing >>>>>> exchange is a "no-no". I'm jetstressing, and doing the old, >>>>>> trusted loadsim (albeit without access to a SAN) and I can't see >>>>>> a diff in performance. It's easy to based our conclusions on >>>>>> prior (bad) experiences and start telling people not to >>>>>> virtualize exc. But, until we can see any conclusive study of a >>>>>> performance lag, such advice is technically unsound and >>>>>> indefensible. Virtualization has >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> evolved. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>> Sincerely, >>>>>> >>>>>> D?j? Ak?m?l?f?, MCSE+M MCSA+M MCT Microsoft MVP - Directory >>>>>> Services www.readymaids.com - we know IT www.akomolafe.com Do you >>>>>> now realize that Today is the Tomorrow you were worried about >>>>>> Yesterday? -anon >>>>>> >>>>>> ________________________________ >>>>>> >>>>>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Presley, >>>>>> Steven >>>>>> Sent: Sun 10/30/2005 8:51 AM >>>>>> To: [email protected] >>>>>> Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Exchange now supported on virtual >>>>>> hardware >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> We are quite a large ESX shop (number of guest OS's are in the >>>>>> 1000's I >>>>>> believe) and while I fought it for quite some time we have ended >>>>>> up using ESX for our 5 front-end servers and our 3 bridgehead >>>>>> servers. >>>>>> Most ESX guest OS's don't require much tweaking, but Exchange >>>>>> certainly does (at least the bridgehead servers). Once we got >>>>>> the settings right for the bridgehead servers they fly like any >>>>>> other piece of hardware (the FE's didn't really require much >>>>>> tweaking). We have roughly 4,000 POP3\IMAP users, an average of >>>>>> 6k-7k of unique logons into OWA weekly, and roughly 800,000 >>>>>> messages going through the >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> bridgehead servers daily. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>> Virtualization of Exchange does indeed work for these types of >>>>>> servers when properly configured. Where I have seen ESX (and its >>>>>> little sister >>>>>> GSX) fail is hosting for servers that run highly active >>>>>> databases. ESX works great for dedicated SMTP\POP3\IMAP\HTTP >>>>>> servers, but I would never put a production Exchange mail store >>>>>> server on ESX for performance reasons alone. I have not >>>>>> specifically tested it however, but its more of based on past >>>>>> experience (perhaps as virtualization advances this will be a >>>>>> reality some day). Perhaps some day I'll have time to run >>>>>> JetStress on an clustered Exchange server on ESX attached to a >>>>>> SAN to see how it performs. >>>>>> >>>>>> For anyone who might ask why such a large virtualization >>>>>> footprint in our datacenters. The reason is simple. We have >>>>>> literally ran out of space and power in our datacenters. Even as >>>>>> we build new datacenters they fill up just as fast as we open >>>>>> them. While I don't have the numbers to give (not my field of >>>>>> focus here) I seem to remember seeing a report that virtualizing >>>>>> certain portions of our datacenter, where possible, has so far >>>>>> saved millions in hardware costs. >>>>>> >>>>>> It certainly is not for everything, but virtualization technology >>>>>> is definitely improving to where it is definitely an option. For >>>>>> Exchange and Active Directory, if ESX (or Virtual Server) is >>>>>> properly configured it can work quite well. >>>>>> >>>>>> Best regards, >>>>>> Steven >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>>>>> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brian >>>>>>> Desmond >>>>>>> Sent: Friday, October 28, 2005 6:49 PM >>>>>>> To: [email protected] >>>>>>> Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Exchange now supported on virtual >>>>>>> hardware >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I disagree. Exchange on ESX can work out quite well in certain >>>>>>> situations... >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>> Brian Desmond >>>>>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>>>>> >>>>>>> c - 312.731.3132 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>>>>> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of >>>>>>> Medeiros, Jose >>>>>>> Sent: Friday, October 28, 2005 5:29 PM >>>>>>> To: [email protected]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>>>>> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>>>>> Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Exchange now supported on virtual >>>>>>> hardware >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I could not have worded that better. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Sincerely, >>>>>>> Jose Medeiros >>>>>>> ADP | National Account Services >>>>>>> ProBusiness Division | Information Services >>>>>>> 925.737.7967 | 408-449-6621 CELL >>>>>>> -------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>>>>> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of >>>>>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>>>>> Sent: Friday, October 28, 2005 6:53 AM >>>>>>> To: [email protected]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>>>>> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>>>>> Subject: Re: [ActiveDir] Exchange now supported on virtual >>>>>>> hardware >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I couldn't agree more with Tony -- Exchange is a resource hog >>>>>>> and should not be done on VMWare except for testing purposes. >>>>>>> Just because you can doesn't mean you should.... >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Chuck Gafford >>>>>>> Systems Architect >>>>>>> Unisys >>>>>>> Mobile: (405) 819-6766 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>>> From: Medeiros, Jose <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>>>>>> To: [email protected]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>>>>> Cc: # Jose Medeiros-IBM (E-mail) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>>>>>> Sent: Thu, 27 Oct 2005 15:39:35 -0700 >>>>>>> Subject: [ActiveDir] Exchange now supported on virtual hardware >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi Tony, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I have to respond to this. Many IT managers think you can just >>>>>>> virtualize any application because of all the marketing hype. Be >>>>>>> very careful, I/O is critical to Exchange and any other database >>>>>>> application which may make running it on VMWARE or VIRTUAL >>>>>>> SERVER unpractical not to mention Exchange is also very resource >>>>>>> intensive and will take whatever it can. Now I am sure if you >>>>>>> have a very small environment that it may make sense, but with >>>>>>> Microsoft Small Business server why would you want to? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Any body else car e to throw in there two cents? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Sincerely, >>>>>>> Jose Medeiros >>>>>>> ADP | National Account Services >>>>>>> ProBusiness Division | Information Services >>>>>>> 925.737.7967 | 408-449-6621 CELL >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>>> -------------- >>>>>>> ------------------------------------ >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>>>>> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>>>>> Behalf Of Tony Murray >>>>>>> Sent: Thursday, October 27, 2005 2:49 PM >>>>>>> To: [email protected] >>>>>>> Subject: [ActiveDir] [OT] Exchange now supported on virtual >>>>>>> hardware >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Microsoft has introduced support for Exchange 2003 SP2 and later >>>>>>> on Virtual Server 2005 R2. This article has just been released. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;320220 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I guess this means we can now run a DC and Exchange on the same >>>>>>> physical hardware without any of the previous limitations. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Tony >>>>>>> >>>>>>> List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx >>>>>>> List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx >>>>>>> List archive: >>>>>>> http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/ >>>>>>> >>>>>>> List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx >>>>>>> List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx >>>>>>> List archive: >>>>>>> http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/ >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx >>>>>> List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx >>>>>> List archive: >>>>>> http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/ >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx >>>>>> List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx >>>>>> List archive: >>>>>> http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/ >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx >>>>> List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx >>>>> List archive: >>>>> http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/ >>>>> List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx >>>>> List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx >>>>> List archive: >>>>> http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/ >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx >>>>> List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx >>>>> List archive: >>>>> http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/ >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Letting your vendors set your risk analysis these days? >>>> http://www.threatcode.com >>>> >>>> List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx >>>> List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx >>>> List archive: >>>> http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/ >>>> >>>> >>>> List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx >>>> List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx >>>> List archive: >>>> http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/ >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx >>> List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx >>> List archive: >>> http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/ >>> >>> >> >> >> List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx >> List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx >> List archive: >> http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/ >> >> >> > List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx > List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx > List archive: > http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/ > List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx List archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/ List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx List archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/
