Laurence,
If you're going to have all three roles, CAS/HT/MB, on each server, you need a hardware load balancer. You can get a decent one for under $2k. If you go with the CAS/HT role on one server and the MB role on the other, you won't have any fault tolerance other than any level of RAID you may use. Philip Carpinteria, CA From: Laurence Bryant [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, June 13, 2011 5:59 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: Exchange 2010 design Hi Everyone, I'm a bit new to this so my apologies if I've not understood something correctly. I'm trying to plan new hardware to deploy Exchange 2010 (100 users, average mailbox size 500MB) and am looking at using two servers with CAS, HT and Mailbox roles installed on both and using DAG for high availability. I was thinking of using Windows NLB for load balancing,but have read that this can't be used with DAG (http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/dd979781.aspx). My question is, if I set up two additional servers with NLB installed and moved the CAS and HT roles to them, would this solution then provide the load balancing I'm looking for? Alternatively, would I be better off with two highly redundant servers and use one for Mailbox and one for CAS and HT? Thanks for any advice! Laurence --- To manage subscriptions click here: http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/ or send an email to [email protected] with the body: unsubscribe exchangelist --- To manage subscriptions click here: http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/ or send an email to [email protected] with the body: unsubscribe exchangelist
