Hi there Let me start by saying two things:
1) I didn't mean to start a heated discussion on this. If I offended anyone, I apologize. I'm trying to use this as a learning experience. I have found in the past that even Microsoft makes mistakes. 2) As for active/active - the only reason that it seems more attractive is that I can add more users. So far, failing over has not been an issue, it's worked fine - but I know I am still not pushing it. Thanks for being patient Ed and all... Thanks Russell -----Original Message----- From: Woodrick, Ed [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2002 9:59 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: E2k Clustering Use Active/Passive clusters when possible to increase scalability and reduce failover times. Active/Active clusters are only supported in 2-node configurations in which each node has a maximum of 40 percent loading and 1900 simultaneous users. "Microsoft Exchange 2000 Server Service Pack 2 Deployment Guide" In short, there are NO issues when running in Active/Passive, but when running in Active/Active you have a high chance of a failover failing because of memory fragmentation. Active/Passive is going to provide you with high reliability failover. Active/Active is going to cause grief. Let me turn the tables, why do you think that Active/Active is better than Active/Passive? Ed -----Original Message----- From: Etts, Russell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Posted At: Wednesday, March 13, 2002 9:38 AM Posted To: Microsoft Exchange Conversation: E2k Clustering Subject: RE: E2k Clustering Hi there I was looking over the white paper, and according to Microsoft, both active/passive and active/active are recommended in the below listed whitepaper. Do you have access to information that suggests otherwise?? Thanks Russell -----Original Message----- From: Woodrick, Ed [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2002 5:51 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: E2k Clustering Make it Active/Passive as recommended and it's a moot point. -----Original Message----- From: Sabo, Eric [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Posted At: Tuesday, March 12, 2002 5:42 PM Posted To: Microsoft Exchange Conversation: E2k Clustering Subject: RE: E2k Clustering When they talk about concurrent connections, does microsoft mean if one users is using a mapi client that would mean 3 connections there for just one user. Is this correct? Eric Sabo NT Administrator Computing Services Center California University of Pennsylvania -----Original Message----- From: Etts, Russell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2002 4:20 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: E2k Clustering Hi there According to the MS whitepaper, here are the limits for active / active: "After you deploy your cluster, make sure you do the following: Limit the number of concurrent connection (users) per node to a maximum of 1,900, and proactively monitor the cluster to insure that the CPU does not exceed 40 percent (load generated from users) loading." There is more information in the white paper that will help you. The name is, "Deploying Microsoft Exchange 2000 server service pack 2 clusters". Hope this helps you Russell -----Original Message----- From: Ashby, Andrew [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, March 11, 2002 3:50 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: E2k Clustering We are evaluating an Exchange 2000 Active/Active cluster, but I remember an old limitation of 1000 clients per virtual server. In my searching of technet, and other knowledgebase solutions, I have not been able to find this documented anywhere. Is there a technical limit to the number of clients per virtual server? Proposed hardware: 2 quad processor, 2GB systems connected to SAN via fibre channel. 100MB NIC connections. Roughly 4k users. Thanks, Andrew _________________________________________________________________ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] _________________________________________________________________ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] _________________________________________________________________ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] _________________________________________________________________ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] _________________________________________________________________ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] _________________________________________________________________ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] _________________________________________________________________ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
