Definitely Active/Passive. The 8-node cluster I mentioned it 5-1 with 2 for snap back up to stream to tape after. This is per a TechEd presentation.
William ----- Original Message ----- From: "Schneider, Bryan D" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, June 27, 2003 6:13 PM Subject: RE: Clustering... is it worth it? > You have the benefit of quick recovery in event of hardware failure on the server (not likely typically). But, it is really nice for maintenance where you have to apply patches, security updates, virus engine updates, service packs, etc... You can failover in a matter of seconds and you have as much time as you need to work on the server without interrupting users or bouncing email. > > On an active/active cluster we host 16,000 users, 2500 using Outlook and the rest using OWA 2000. We can have both virtual machines running on one quad-Xeon 700Mhz without users noticing much of a slowdown at all. Exchange 2003 with Windows 2003 runs more efficiently so far in our tests. However, Microsoft is now recommending ACTIVE / PASSIVE so you have a fresh server to failover to. > > You already have a key component - SAN - so I would cluster in a heartbeat. We haven't had any issues - except for a corrupted db which we attributed to the SAN. > > 2003 promisses to make clustering better, but we haven't tested that yet. > > -----Original Message----- > From: William Lefkovics [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Fri 6/27/2003 7:10 PM > To: Exchange Discussions > Cc: > Subject: Re: Clustering... is it worth it? > > > > But do consider revisiting this with 2003. > > With Microsoft running 16,000 users on an 8-node cluster now. > Windows2003 and Exchange2003 of course. > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Martin Blackstone" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Friday, June 27, 2003 5:04 PM > Subject: RE: Clustering... is it worth it? > > > > That's pretty much the argument against clustering. > > In fact, many folks will tell you that Exchange needs much more hand > holding > > in a cluster. > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: MSX dude [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Friday, June 27, 2003 4:50 PM > > To: Exchange Discussions > > Subject: Clustering... is it worth it? > > > > Upper management here is inquiring about clustering our exchange server. > > We already have our PRIV, PUB and DIR on a SAN. I don't see the benefit. > > If the server itself fails, I can rebuild it in an hour. If the database > > corrupts it would have taken the cluster down too. > > > > I have searched the internet but all I find are vendors praising > clustering > > because they want to see you something. Does anyone have any links or > > whitepapers are unbiased in their opinions? > > > > > _________________________________________________________________ > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Exchange List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > .+--xm ,)r( \ٖy'iǡ)l+-rrʸW{jx욇VmyzrŞvi _________________________________________________________________ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
