You'd be wrong there. You can get the same amount of users on active/active or active/passive, although realistically, active/passive allows for more users.
In either case, if you're clustering identical hardware, you can either put all your users on one box (a/p) or half on each (a/a). In either case, both servers need to be able to handle the same number of users. The memory fragmentation issues would lead me to believe that A/P would be more likely to support a higher number of users than A/A, on identical hardware. Roger ------------------------------------------------------ Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity Atlanta, GA > -----Original Message----- > From: Andrey Fyodorov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 10:32 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering > > > No, according to the theory you can get more users on > Active/Active because both cluster nodes are being used to do > something useful. But if one fails, the other node better be > able to take on the load. > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Dennis Depp [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Friday, October 11, 2002 2:50 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering > > > Stay away from active/active. Go Active/passive instead. You can get > more users on Active/Passive. > > Denny > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Imran Iqbal > Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2002 5:36 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]
