No.

The ONLY role supported in a failover-cluster in Exchange 2007 is mailbox.

HT load-balancing is done automatically.

CAS load-balancing is handled by NLBS.

You can consider CAS+HT to be FE (more or less) and MB to be BE (more or
less).

Clients authenticate via the CAS. CAS should not be in DMZ. You either
publish it with ISA (or similar), or punch 443 through the firewall.

Regards,

Michael B. Smith
MCITP:EM/MCSE/Exchange MVP
http://TheEssentialExchange.com


-----Original Message-----
From: Jason Tierney [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2008 3:18 PM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Exchange 2007 Cluster

Ha, manual does not enter the vocabulary.  How about this scenario:

2 servers in a failover cluster running a single VM with Hub Transport and
Mailboxes on private LAN.
2 servers in a failover cluster running a single VM with CAS in a DMZ.

I think I am getting muddled translating FE/BE to the new E2K7 roles.  Where
will clients go to authenticate?  The DMZ?

Jason Tierney, MCITP
Vice President, Consulting Services
Corporate Network Services
"Count on Us"
direct: 240-425-4441


-----Original Message-----
From: Michael B. Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2008 1:31 PM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Exchange 2007 Cluster

Sorry, I wasn't paying attention to the entire thread. Huh? What is the
goal?

Four servers gives you completely redundant, with clustering. (CAS/HT times
2, MB times 2)

You can get completely redundant with manual failover with two (CAS/HT/MB
with LCR).

Regards,

Michael B. Smith
MCITP:EM/MCSE/Exchange MVP
http://TheEssentialExchange.com


-----Original Message-----
From: Jason Tierney [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2008 1:23 PM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Exchange 2007 Cluster

OK, here's my latest thought.  I just can't stand the idea of six servers
for 500 users.  Seems a bit too many.

Setup a failover cluster with Exchange 2007 running in a hyper-v VM.  This
way all of the roles can run on a single (heck even multiple) VM and
failover as needed.

Thoughts? things I should be worried about?  You know, besides Hyper-v not
even being released yet :)

Jason Tierney, MCITP
Vice President, Consulting Services
Corporate Network Services
"Count on Us"
direct: 240-425-4441


-----Original Message-----
From: Michael B. Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2008 12:41 PM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Exchange 2007 Cluster

And the best come with hot-swap RAM and hot-swap processors.

Datacenter server speaks both. I think Enterprise only speaks hot-swap RAM.
Standard speaks neither.

Regards,

Michael B. Smith
MCITP:EM/MCSE/Exchange MVP
http://TheEssentialExchange.com


-----Original Message-----
From: Webster [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2008 9:09 AM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Exchange 2007 Cluster

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ehren Benson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: Exchange 2007 Cluster
>
> Until servers come with redundant motherboards, CPU and Memory a server
> can have raid234 and 5 power supplies and could still fail if a memory
> stick gets flaky.

Most high quality servers come with the option of redundant RAM.


Webster



~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~
~             http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja                ~


~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~
~             http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja                ~

~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~
~             http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja                ~


~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~
~             http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja                ~

~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~
~             http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja                ~


~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~
~             http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja                ~

Reply via email to