Well, really, disabling something called Safety Net just seems like a bad idea...
It should be a one-time hit, so it'll be easier over the long run to just get on with it, and not fuss much. Kurt On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 4:53 PM, Michael B. Smith <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 > Sent: 4/23/2014 4:31 PM > > To: [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 >>>>> >>>>> >>> >>> >> >> > >
