You're confusing me with Andi... Oh, wait - wrong list. Never mind :)
-----Original Message----- From: Erik Sojka [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, June 30, 2003 08:42 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Clustering... is it worth it? you two kiss and make up now. > -----Original Message----- > From: William Lefkovics [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Saturday, June 28, 2003 1:40 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Clustering... is it worth it? > > > You are totally right. Cochran's slides do say that. My notes do > not. > > I am wrong. I'm sorry, Gary. > > 7-node cluster per the slides. 4-1-2. Not 5-1-2. > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Slinger, > Gary > Sent: Friday, June 27, 2003 9:55 PM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Clustering... is it worth it? > > 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&t ext_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] _________________________________________________________________ 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] _________________________________________________________________ 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]
