What happens if you apply a new service pack for Exchange to the passive node and then failover? I mean in some cases the information store files do not work if they don't recongnize the service pack level. (for example if you restore the information store onto an alternate server and the alternate server is not the same version as the original, the information store would not mount)
-----Original Message----- From: Dennis Depp [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, October 11, 2002 3:15 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering I've looked into Exchange Active/Passive clustering for our Exchange 2000 servers. The largest Exchange problem that causes downtime is corruption in the database. I agree with Ed that clustering cannot help in this senario. However, even with high quality hardware, you still have to deal with the 58 security patches and one Windows 2000 service pack that have been issued this year. Granted not all the 58 security patches are Windows 2000 related, but a large number of them are. An active/passive cluster gives me the capability of installing hotfixes and service packs without impacting my Exchange server even for a reboot. Also I can install the hotfixes during the day on the passive node and then failover that evening. If there is a problem, I can fail back to the unpatched node. The reduction in reboots and late hours makes an Active/passive cluster very appealing. However, clusters do add a level of complexity. Unless you understand clusters and how they operate, this added complexity can decrease uptime instead of increase it. Denny -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Ed Crowley Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2002 5:11 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering I think at this stage of its development clustering provides very poor business value. It really protects you from very few failure scenarios. Instead, I'd make sure I had the most highly internally redundant system I could afford, buy a capable recovery and hot standby server, and practice my disaster recovery skills. Ed Crowley MCSE+I MVP Technical Consultant hp Services "There are seldom good technological solutions to behavioral problems." -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Imran Iqbal Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2002 2:36 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering We are currently an Exchange 5.5 site, as part of our move to Exchange 2000 I am considering setting up Exchange on a 2 node Active Active cluster and would be interested in hearing anyone views or real world experiences with similar setups. Each server would have about 800 active users and would probably be connected to a SAN for the shared storage. I have heard that there were memory issues with this setup pre SP3. I would like to know if there are any other problems and if it is worth doing Thanks in advance Imran _________________________________________________________________ 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]
