I agree, they will run great. Until one node fails and all users end up on one node. That's when you're going to have issues.
You're missing the point that 6000 users FAR exceeds the 1900 per node specification. In a nutshell, that spec exists because the server side MAPI subsystem tends to allow memory fragmentation as the number of user sessions increases. Experimental data (done by a number of Compaq employees, IIRC) showed that >2000 users per node tends to cause excessive memory fragmentation. When the second node fails over, causing all clients to connect to one node, that single node does not have enough contiguous blocks of memory to allocate to all requesting users, and poof - no fail over. Then again, its your job, not ours. We're just telling you the reality of the cluster situation in Exchange today. Roger ------------------------------------------------------ Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE Sr. Systems Administrator Peregrine Systems Atlanta, GA > -----Original Message----- > From: Sabo, Eric [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2002 11:01 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: E2k Clustering > > > I talked to compaq/microsoft today, I am confident in our > situation here that an active/active is the right choice for us. > > Currently we have the following: > Server no. 1 - Quad Pentium Pro 200 MHZ (very old chipset > technology) - 1 MEG cache on each processor - 2 GB RAM: (800 > mailboxes/heavy users) > The most I ever saw the processor level was at 50% > usage, most of the time it is around 10%-20% usage > > Server no. 2 - dual Pentium III 500 MHZ Xeon Processor - 2 > Meg cache on each processor - 2 GB RAM (6000 mailboxes/light > users)- The most I ever saw these processors was at 35%, most > of the time it is around 5%-10% > > > We are going to the following: > Two servers running w2k adv sp2 e2k sp2 - Quad Pentium III > Xeon 700 MHZ - 2 MB cache of each processor- 3 GB physical > RAM using a Storageworks San solution. > > I would say these machines should run around 5-10% CPU usage. > > > Eric Sabo > NT Administrator > Computing Services Center > California University of Pennsylvania > > > -----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] > _________________________________________________________________ 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]
