That should read:
"The PFs in the AU office should be replicated to the US, but not the reverse."

Kurt

On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 3:20 PM, Kurt Buff <[email protected]> wrote:
> Dang it. Forgot something...
>
> The PFs in the UK should be replicated to the US, but not the reverse.
> I'm sure that complicates things a bit...
>
> Kurt
>
> On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 3:14 PM, Kurt Buff <[email protected]> wrote:
>> I'm in the middle of upgrading our Exchange 2003 infrastructure, and
>> am getting ready to deal with the PFs.
>>
>> I'm lacking a bit of info, and if anyone can help I'd appreciate it.
>>
>> I have two overseas sites (UK and AU) that have metered connections.
>> For the UK office, I can't do anything about it, because we'll be
>> moving everything Exchange-related from there to the US office.
>> However, the PFs in the UK office are already replicated to the US
>> 2003 server, so I believe that I should just be able to add replicas
>> from the US 2003 server to the US 2010 server, then once the mailboxes
>> in the UK office are moved to the US office I can remove the replicas
>> from the UK server, and all should be good.
>>
>> But, the other office (AU) will have an Exchange 2010 server, and they
>> also have a lot of PFs.
>>
>> I'm looking at the strategy below to minimize impact on their WAN
>> traffic, and if anyone can validate it, I'd appreciate it. The current
>> set of PFs for the AU office are replicated to the US 2003 server.
>>
>> o- Add replicas of the AU current PFs to the new AU server
>> o- Add replicas of all of the US 2003 PFs to the US 2010 server
>> o- Add replicas of the AU 2010 PFs to the US 2010 server
>> o- Remove replicas from the AU and US 2003 servers
>>
>> I believe that this will minimize WAN traffic - if done in this order.
>>
>> If true, that's good, but I'm having trouble figuring out how to stage
>> this process. The articles on PF replication and moving all so far
>> seem to assume either high-speed links between all sites, or a single
>> site.
>>
>> Any thoughts on this?
>>
>> Kurt
>>
>>


Reply via email to