Well, Safety Net is one of the key Transport improvements in 2010, but it was not present in 2003. Disabling it during the migration is conceivable, although not recommended.
Otherwise I would not have mentioned it. Sent from my Windows Phone ________________________________ From: Kurt Buff<mailto:[email protected]> Sent: 4/23/2014 4:31 PM To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Subject: Re: [Exchange] Multi-site Exchange upgrade with slow/metered links Well alrighty then. I guess I'll just deal with the whining about overage charges on their connections. Thanks. Kurt On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 4:10 PM, Michael B. Smith <[email protected]> wrote: > Then you can't minimize WAN traffic without disabling Transport Safety Net. > > Every replication message will go to two remote servers for Safety Net. > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] > On Behalf Of Kurt Buff > Sent: Wednesday, April 23, 2014 7:04 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [Exchange] Multi-site Exchange upgrade with slow/metered links > > Yes, at the end of this process there will be only the one 2010 server. It > has CAS, Hub and Mailbox roles on it currently. I've moved > 1 of the 45 mailboxes over from the 2003 server so far, as a test. > > Kurt > > On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 3:54 PM, Michael B. Smith <[email protected]> > wrote: >> Is there just one new server in AU? >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: [email protected] >> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Kurt Buff >> Sent: Wednesday, April 23, 2014 6:24 PM >> To: [email protected] >> Subject: Re: [Exchange] Multi-site Exchange upgrade with slow/metered >> links >> >> 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 >>>> >>>> >> >> > >
