Exactly - you're still having to plan to put all of them on one box at some point, so A/A = A/P in terms of user support. A/P just happens to be more stable.
------------------------------------------------------ Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity Atlanta, GA > -----Original Message----- > From: Couch, Nate [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 10:51 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering > > > One article I read said that in an A/A situation such that > you plan as if > you will be running A/P and then split them up between the two nodes > assigned to the A/A cluster. > > Makes sense to me. > > Nate Couch > EDS Messaging > > ---------- > > From: Roger Seielstad > > Reply To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 09:36 > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering > > > > 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] > > > > > > _________________________________________________________________ > 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]
