Because you can make a BA-Cluster[1] for strictly IMAP/POP/OWA clients (ie those that can connect via a FE/BE architecture). Of course, they really recommend that if you do make a BA-Cluster for those clients, you move the client load to front end servers
------------------------------------------------------ Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE Sr. Systems Administrator Peregrine Systems Atlanta, GA [1] Big Arse > -----Original Message----- > From: Sabo, Eric [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2002 11:48 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: E2k Clustering > > > Why does Microsoft say you can even do an active/active > cluster in the first place with those parameters as describe > in the SP2 Release notes. > > http://www.bink.nu/exchange_2000.htm > > > Eric Sabo > NT Administrator > Computing Services Center > California University of Pennsylvania > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Exchange [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2002 11:43 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: E2k Clustering > > > Eric, > It's not such much the processor you should be worried about, > but the virtual memory. You'll see, the VM will get > fragmented, and failover might not happen like it should. As > far as, "I get to use both boxes...". You get to use those > anyway in an active / passive solution. Don't fall for the > "well it just sits there doing nothing" way of thinking. The > way to approach it is telling the decision maker, "I can give > you this percentage of uptime for this amount of money, do > you want that?" The answer is either "yes" or "no", and it > DOES NOT MATTER, what the technology is behind that that will > make this happen, i.e. whether 2 machines are getting a nice > workout, or if one machine is primarily there to provide for > that high availability when necessary. It's just like paying > for insurance :-) > > -Per > > -----Original Message----- > From: Sabo, Eric [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Posted At: Wednesday, March 13, 2002 10:17 AM > Posted To: Exchange > Conversation: E2k Clustering > Subject: RE: E2k Clustering > > I get to use both of my servers that I purchased. Cause of > our budget > is so tight and I have get buy. It took me a year to get > the following > equipment. > > Don't you think active/active is right for me, since I am > below the MS recommendations. > > Eric Sabo > NT Administrator > Computing Services Center > California University of Pennsylvania > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Kevin Miller [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2002 11:14 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: E2k Clustering > > > And what do you plan on gaining from the active active? > > --Kevinm M, WLKMMAS, UCC+WCA, And Beyond > Did I just say that out loud? > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Sabo, Eric > Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2002 8:01 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] > > > > _________________________________________________________ > > Do You Yahoo!? > > Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com > > > > > _________________________________________________________________ > 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]
