This subject seems to come up all the time on this list. Listen, for the final time. Active/Active clusters are more problems than what they are worth. Just get yourself a kick ass system and you won't have to worry when you go home on Friday worrying about your systems. You can sleep at night. I don't know about you guys/gals. But I can think of whole hell of a lot of things that I'd rather do than worry about my systems. Like BOOZING!!
___________________ John Bowles Exchange Administrator Enterprise Support & Engineering Celera Genomics [EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -----Original Message----- From: Andy David [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2002 9:20 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: E2k Clustering Damn good hardware. -----Original Message----- From: Dennis Depp [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2002 9:13 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Re: E2k Clustering Missy, If you would not recommend clustering, what do you recommend for high availablility environments? Dennis Depp At 11:17 AM 3/13/2002 -0500, missy koslosky wrote: >While I'm really not into arguing the point, while some people at >Compaq and/or MS might recommend A/A over A/P, not everyone would. > >And yes, I'm one of the ones at Compaq who would recommend A/P if I had >a client that was dead set on clustering. But I'd try to talk them out >of clustering if at all possible. > >Missy >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Sabo, Eric" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2002 11:00 AM >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] _________________________________________________________________ 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] ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- The information contained in this email message is privileged and confidential information intended only for the use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copy of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please immediately notify Veronis Suhler Stevenson by telephone (212)935-4990, fax (212)381-8168, or email ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) and delete the message. Thank you. ============================================================================ == _________________________________________________________________ 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]
