The other issues are what are you gaining by clustering at all? The only things that you are covering with clustering are:
1) Hardware failure on the servers (not on the shared disk) 2) Shorter software upgrade or hotfix time (how often does this happen) By adding clustering into the mix you are adding to the complexity of your Exchange environment a hundred fold. Doing this gives you more points that CAN fail. Typically what are the reasons a server goes down? 1) Application Error (Hung SMTP message or the like) - Cluster doesn't help 2) Hardware error (local memory error or disk failure) - Cluster can help but typically your disk is redundant locally anyway 3) Service packs/Hotfixes - Clusters help they can save ~10 minutes of scheduled downtime We have several Exchange A/P clusters in production. They work very well however if you do a cost analysis of how much they cost and how much they ACTUALLY save in downtime it doesn't add up to a savings. In the real world it typically doesn't make sense monetarily to have an exchange cluster. It also is very important that you have people on staff that knows how to work with and manage clusters as it is not something you want to be touched by just anyone. Joel -----Original Message----- From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2002 12:01 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: E2k Clustering 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]
