OK, I'll try it another way - the presentation that I heard at Tech-Ed, matched up against my notes, indicated that it was:
A) 4 x 4-way servers, active, plus B) 1 x 4-way server, passive, plus C) 2 x 2-way servers, passive, for backups, etc. Equals 7. I never claimed 8. I'm perfectly capable of basic math. 8, to my recollection, notes, and thoughts of the PPT, is wrong., -----Original Message----- From: William Lefkovics [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, June 28, 2003 12:58 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Clustering... is it worth it? The PPT would be wrong then as 4+1+2 <> 8 -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Slinger, Gary Sent: Friday, June 27, 2003 9:45 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Clustering... is it worth it? The TechEd PPT was 4-1-2; other than that, concur. -----Original Message----- From: William Lefkovics [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June 27, 2003 9:21 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Re: Clustering... is it worth it? 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. > > _________________________________________________________________ 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] _________________________________________________________________ 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]
