There are some essential differences between SCR and Double-Take:
Standby Continuous Replication uses asynchronous log shipping and reply to create a backup "standby" database on a target Exchange server. Unlike CCR, which relies on clustering and provides high availability, SCR sends data from a standalone or clustered Exchange server to a standalone Exchange server and provides no failover capabilities. SCR shares some of the same limitations as LCR and CCR and introduces some new limitations. Some items to consider about SCR: SCR provides no failover. SCR is designed to create a standby database that matches the source database, similar to LCR but with the database residing on a separate server. To provide high availability and DR, Microsoft recommends combining CCR and SCR. SCR recovery is complex. The SCR recovery process is a series of manual steps executed on the command line to bring the target database online. This is a complex process compared to the ease-of-use with DoubleTakeAM's automatic or push-button failover and failback capabilities. SCR is not real-time protection of Exchange data. SCR works by shipping log files locally and applying them to a second copy of the Exchange database. It is not real-time replication. SCR replication is delayed. There is an enforced delay of 50 log files with SCR replication. This means that 50 log files must be replayed into the target datastore before the target server can be brought online for recovery. You must use a single database per storage group. When a storage group has been enabled for SCR, it can only contain a single database. This prevents you from scaling up by having multiple databases per storage group. Double-Take does not have this limitation. Here is the link to download an eval: http://www.sunbelt-software.com/Business/Double-Take/ Warm regards, Stu ________________________________ From: Kevin Miller [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2008 4:49 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: OT: Exchange Failover Product.. I am all about your Direction. Exchange 2007 sounds like a much better solution, no offence to Stu... <insert self promotion bit that made me laugh> We had a customer ask us for references for an Exchange engagement today. As part of the reference package we sent them an Amazon book list. Out of 5 people on my team, four of us have published more than two books (Mostly about Microsoft Stuff) with our names as the author on them, and the fifth is working to get his first book out with his name on it. Also four of the 5 of us are MVPS. The customer seems to be ok with our references. </insert self promotion made me laugh> ~Kevinm WLKMMAS powered by 3Sharp <http://www.3sharp.com/> , Always WLKMMAS <http://www.wlkmmas.org/> What is your Zombie Plan? From: Kennedy, Jim [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2008 11:49 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Exchange Failover Product.. Going in a completely different direction here. How about Exchange 2007 with CCR? For the price of the upgrade you get your redundancy and the upgrade. From: Chyka, Robert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2008 1:50 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: Exchange Failover Product.. Hi Everyone, I'm looking for a Exchange 2003 failover software product. Years ago I used Double Take at another job and wanted ot see if that was the way to go. Basically I want to put another exchange server at another site and have that box take over if the main exchange server ever goes down or has issues etc. we currently have only one exchange box. Any help is appreciated... Thanks.. Btw we have a 50mbit mpls connection between sites.. ~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja ~
