RE: SMTP connector statistics in E2k
There is no MSExchangeIMC object in Performance Monitor on our Exchange box, neither there is any mention of it in E2K Resource Kit. Should there be an MSExchangeIMC at all on Exchange 2000? And I am still looking for the number of in- and out- bound messages for each of SMTP connector Alexey Try MSExchangeIMC* things... Total inbound messages and total outbound messages *might* be what you're looking for. Egad, but I feel generous to-day! (:= -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Alexey Sent: Sunday, October 13, 2002 3:09 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: SMTP connector statistics in E2k I couldn't find anything better than MSExchangeMTAConnections, Inbound/Outbound Messages Total. It does not show me all instances of my SMTP connectors though. Alexey _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: NDR From Field
sorry, i think you are misunderstanding me. I'm bemoaning the fact that it appears that i could see who it was from / to on an exch5.5 system but now after an upgrade migration to exch2k I cannot see who it was from - can see who it is To ok after I click the 'send again'. Rob -Original Message- From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 11 October 2002 18:09 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: NDR From Field The NDR should look something like: --- The original message was received at Fri, 11 Oct 2002 14:26:43 GMT from localhost [127.0.0.1] with id g9BEQhG06871 - The following addresses had permanent fatal errors - [EMAIL PROTECTED] (reason: 550 5.1.1 [EMAIL PROTECTED] User unknown) - Transcript of session follows - ... while talking to smtp-gw-4.msn.com.: RCPT To:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 550 5.1.1 [EMAIL PROTECTED] User unknown 550 5.1.1 [EMAIL PROTECTED]... User unknown --- And will contain one or more attachments, which are the original message. Open that and you'll see who it was addressed to and from. -- Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity Atlanta, GA -Original Message- From: Rob Hackney [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, October 11, 2002 10:45 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: NDR From Field I can see to whom it was sent so can fwd if necessary . If the rfc states that it should be dropped then I can't see it - right? In that case, how can I see it on an exch5.5 box with basic mail client (ie not outlook?) bit annoying that really -Original Message- From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 11 October 2002 14:03 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: NDR From Field Nope. By the rules (RFC 2821), all non delivery messages are to have null from addresses - , in order to indicate to the mailer daemon that if it can't be delivered, it should be dropped. -- Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity Atlanta, GA -Original Message- From: Stevens, Dave [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, October 11, 2002 9:01 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: NDR From Field I have seen that and I assumed it was a bcc. Dave Stevens -IT Network Support- email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 865-576-8898 -Original Message- From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, October 11, 2002 8:58 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: NDR From Field The NDR should contain the original message to tell you to whom it was sent. NDRs are required to have null sender addresses. -- Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity Atlanta, GA -Original Message- From: Rob Hackney [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, October 11, 2002 5:49 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: NDR From Field Hi, I'm sure this has been covered before but I can't seem to find anything on technet/google/archives: I'm receiving all the ndr's (mostly for old email addresses) for our organisation but the from field is being stripped so I cannot tell who it is from. i'm sure that I could a month or so ago but now cannot - could be wrong tho. I managedto have this setup using the mail client and exch 5.5 but not now. ANy ideas anyone? thanks Support Analyst T.K.C. Sales Ltd. 5 Ashmead Industrial Estate Keynsham Bristol BS31 1TZ UK Tel: 0870 870 0150 ext 302 This email is confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual(s) to whom it is addressed. It should not be deemed to constitute a binding contract between TKC Group and the recipient(s) unless a purchase order number is quoted. Any views or opinions presented are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of TKC Group Ltd. If you are not the intended recipient(s), please do not copy or disclose its contents. Please return it to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] then delete the email. intY has scanned this email for all known viruses (www.inty.com) _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
RE: Getting Close to my final configuration
Its your server, do what you'd like. I fail to understand why skipping 1 9 GB drive (at what, $250?) and incurring a performance and recoverability penalty would be a consideration. -- Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity Atlanta, GA -Original Message- From: Vincent Avallone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, October 11, 2002 3:56 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Getting Close to my final configuration Based on your suggestion about properly configuring my new Exchange 2000 box, I have one other question. To save money and time what do you think about using a RAID5 with 9 gig drives for my OS and Logs and use a RAID5 with 36gig drive for my Information Store? Also, is there a document out there that describes how to setup Exchange with multiple drives? It seems pretty straight forward using ESM. Thanks to all. -- Vincent Avallone iBiquity Digital (410) 872-1535 _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Getting Close to my final configuration
Then buy 2 18 or 2 36GB drives and us that for OS and logs. Don't put them on RAID5. Trust me. -- Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity Atlanta, GA -Original Message- From: Vincent Avallone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, October 11, 2002 4:13 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Getting Close to my final configuration What do you mean on each arm? My original plan was to put the OS and Logs on a 9gig mirrored drive and the IS on the 36RAID5. I was little concerned about 9gig not being enough for the logs and OS. I thought using (3) 9gigs in RAID5 which would give me 18 gig would be enough. We have a few 9gig drives available. -Original Message- From: Waters, Jeff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, October 11, 2002 4:03 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Getting Close to my final configuration I think you should use raid 1 with the 9gig drives x 2. One arm for the OS and one arm for the logs. Even at 400 users I could see the performance increase by putting the logs on a different arm. Why would this save you money? Even if you put the Logs and OS on the same Channel but different arms you would be better off. OS = Raid1 Logs = Raid1 Store = Raid5 -Original Message- From: Vincent Avallone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, October 11, 2002 3:56 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Getting Close to my final configuration Based on your suggestion about properly configuring my new Exchange 2000 box, I have one other question. To save money and time what do you think about using a RAID5 with 9 gig drives for my OS and Logs and use a RAID5 with 36gig drive for my Information Store? Also, is there a document out there that describes how to setup Exchange with multiple drives? It seems pretty straight forward using ESM. Thanks to all. -- Vincent Avallone iBiquity Digital (410) 872-1535 _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Getting Close to my final configuration
Thanks guys. I am using (2) 18gig RAID-1 for the OS and Logs and (3) 36gig RAID-5 for the IS. -Original Message- From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 8:18 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Getting Close to my final configuration Then buy 2 18 or 2 36GB drives and us that for OS and logs. Don't put them on RAID5. Trust me. -- Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity Atlanta, GA -Original Message- From: Vincent Avallone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, October 11, 2002 4:13 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Getting Close to my final configuration What do you mean on each arm? My original plan was to put the OS and Logs on a 9gig mirrored drive and the IS on the 36RAID5. I was little concerned about 9gig not being enough for the logs and OS. I thought using (3) 9gigs in RAID5 which would give me 18 gig would be enough. We have a few 9gig drives available. -Original Message- From: Waters, Jeff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, October 11, 2002 4:03 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Getting Close to my final configuration I think you should use raid 1 with the 9gig drives x 2. One arm for the OS and one arm for the logs. Even at 400 users I could see the performance increase by putting the logs on a different arm. Why would this save you money? Even if you put the Logs and OS on the same Channel but different arms you would be better off. OS = Raid1 Logs = Raid1 Store = Raid5 -Original Message- From: Vincent Avallone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, October 11, 2002 3:56 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Getting Close to my final configuration Based on your suggestion about properly configuring my new Exchange 2000 box, I have one other question. To save money and time what do you think about using a RAID5 with 9 gig drives for my OS and Logs and use a RAID5 with 36gig drive for my Information Store? Also, is there a document out there that describes how to setup Exchange with multiple drives? It seems pretty straight forward using ESM. Thanks to all. -- Vincent Avallone iBiquity Digital (410) 872-1535 _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cached Lookups Folder
I have my DNS setup in Active Directory Integrated zone with two domain listed, but my Cached Lookups folder is not listed. How can I make this magically appear? _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Cached Lookups Folder
View | Advanced in the DNS MMC -- Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity Atlanta, GA -Original Message- From: Jonathan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 9:32 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Cached Lookups Folder I have my DNS setup in Active Directory Integrated zone with two domain listed, but my Cached Lookups folder is not listed. How can I make this magically appear? _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: SMTP connector statistics in E2k
Well, I don't have my server handy here with me, but there's a counter of that sort in there. Shut off all programs and disconnect the network cable and then reboot and then run the latest service pack. Perhaps your perfmon counters didn't update because some schlemiel let a remote system monitor the server during an upgrade. (:= -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Alexey Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 2:09 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: SMTP connector statistics in E2k There is no MSExchangeIMC object in Performance Monitor on our Exchange box, neither there is any mention of it in E2K Resource Kit. Should there be an MSExchangeIMC at all on Exchange 2000? And I am still looking for the number of in- and out- bound messages for each of SMTP connector Alexey Try MSExchangeIMC* things... Total inbound messages and total outbound messages *might* be what you're looking for. Egad, but I feel generous to-day! (:= -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Alexey Sent: Sunday, October 13, 2002 3:09 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: SMTP connector statistics in E2k I couldn't find anything better than MSExchangeMTAConnections, Inbound/Outbound Messages Total. It does not show me all instances of my SMTP connectors though. Alexey _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
SMTP blocked IP addresses
Hi everyone, Could someone please tell me where does the Exchange 2K keeps the SMTP blocked IP addresses list , I mean there got to be a file (text file or something of that kind), can't seem to find that . Please help. Thanks, Kishore _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Curious Event viewer messages
I have been getting some entries in the event viewer for my Exch2K box (Win2K SP2, Exch2K SP1 member server)lately that I don't understand. Has anyone seen this? First I will see a warning - Source is MSExchangeSA, category is General and Event ID is 9186 - it states: Microsoft Exchange System Attendant has detected that the local computer is not a member of group 'cn=Exchange Domain Servers,cn=Users,dc=rmc,dc=edu'. System Attendant is going to add the local computer into the group. The current members of the group are 'CN=RMCMX1,OU=Servers,OU=Rmccomputers,DC=rmc,DC=edu; CN=NAV for Microsoft Exchange-TITAN,CN=Users,DC=rmc,DC=edu; '. The local computer is RMCMX1 and the message says that machine IS a member of the group. What the? Next I get the following error message - Source is MSExchangeSA, category is General and Event ID is 9187: Microsoft Exchange System Attendant failed to add the local computeras a member of the DS group object 'cn=Exchange Domain Servers,cn=Users,dc=rmc,dc=edu'. Please stop all the Microsoft Exchange services, add the local computer into the group manually and restart all the services. When I search the knowledge base I get 1 document that simply states that the Exchange server wont function properly if its not in the Exchange Domain Servers group. The computer account is in that group and I haven't noticed any e-mail problems but I really don't like these messages. I have received these every 15 minutes since October 7. I believe that is the day that I created the OU that the server account is now in. Until then it was in the default computers container but I want to implement uniform auditing and event viewer property policies (through GPOs) on all of my servers so I created the OU referenced in the logs. Has anyone seen this? Is it anything to worry about? Can it be fixed? Thanks all! Jeff Hague Network Manager Randolph-Macon College _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering
No, according to the theory you can get more users on Active/Active because both cluster nodes are being used to do something useful. But if one fails, the other node better be able to take on the load. -Original Message- From: Dennis Depp [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, October 11, 2002 2:50 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering Stay away from active/active. Go Active/passive instead. You can get more users on Active/Passive. Denny -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Imran Iqbal Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2002 5:36 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering We are currently an Exchange 5.5 site, as part of our move to Exchange 2000 I am considering setting up Exchange on a 2 node Active Active cluster and would be interested in hearing anyone views or real world experiences with similar setups. Each server would have about 800 active users and would probably be connected to a SAN for the shared storage. I have heard that there were memory issues with this setup pre SP3. I would like to know if there are any other problems and if it is worth doing Thanks in advance Imran _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering
What happens if you apply a new service pack for Exchange to the passive node and then failover? I mean in some cases the information store files do not work if they don't recongnize the service pack level. (for example if you restore the information store onto an alternate server and the alternate server is not the same version as the original, the information store would not mount) -Original Message- From: Dennis Depp [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, October 11, 2002 3:15 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering I've looked into Exchange Active/Passive clustering for our Exchange 2000 servers. The largest Exchange problem that causes downtime is corruption in the database. I agree with Ed that clustering cannot help in this senario. However, even with high quality hardware, you still have to deal with the 58 security patches and one Windows 2000 service pack that have been issued this year. Granted not all the 58 security patches are Windows 2000 related, but a large number of them are. An active/passive cluster gives me the capability of installing hotfixes and service packs without impacting my Exchange server even for a reboot. Also I can install the hotfixes during the day on the passive node and then failover that evening. If there is a problem, I can fail back to the unpatched node. The reduction in reboots and late hours makes an Active/passive cluster very appealing. However, clusters do add a level of complexity. Unless you understand clusters and how they operate, this added complexity can decrease uptime instead of increase it. Denny -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Ed Crowley Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2002 5:11 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering I think at this stage of its development clustering provides very poor business value. It really protects you from very few failure scenarios. Instead, I'd make sure I had the most highly internally redundant system I could afford, buy a capable recovery and hot standby server, and practice my disaster recovery skills. Ed Crowley MCSE+I MVP Technical Consultant hp Services There are seldom good technological solutions to behavioral problems. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Imran Iqbal Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2002 2:36 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering We are currently an Exchange 5.5 site, as part of our move to Exchange 2000 I am considering setting up Exchange on a 2 node Active Active cluster and would be interested in hearing anyone views or real world experiences with similar setups. Each server would have about 800 active users and would probably be connected to a SAN for the shared storage. I have heard that there were memory issues with this setup pre SP3. I would like to know if there are any other problems and if it is worth doing Thanks in advance Imran _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering
You'd be wrong there. You can get the same amount of users on active/active or active/passive, although realistically, active/passive allows for more users. In either case, if you're clustering identical hardware, you can either put all your users on one box (a/p) or half on each (a/a). In either case, both servers need to be able to handle the same number of users. The memory fragmentation issues would lead me to believe that A/P would be more likely to support a higher number of users than A/A, on identical hardware. Roger -- Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity Atlanta, GA -Original Message- From: Andrey Fyodorov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 10:32 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering No, according to the theory you can get more users on Active/Active because both cluster nodes are being used to do something useful. But if one fails, the other node better be able to take on the load. -Original Message- From: Dennis Depp [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, October 11, 2002 2:50 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering Stay away from active/active. Go Active/passive instead. You can get more users on Active/Passive. Denny -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Imran Iqbal Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2002 5:36 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering We are currently an Exchange 5.5 site, as part of our move to Exchange 2000 I am considering setting up Exchange on a 2 node Active Active cluster and would be interested in hearing anyone views or real world experiences with similar setups. Each server would have about 800 active users and would probably be connected to a SAN for the shared storage. I have heard that there were memory issues with this setup pre SP3. I would like to know if there are any other problems and if it is worth doing Thanks in advance Imran _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering
You run eseutil on the patched node to update the stores to the new version. Then again, you'd have tried this in the test lab first, so you'd know not to do that in production. -- Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity Atlanta, GA -Original Message- From: Andrey Fyodorov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 10:35 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering What happens if you apply a new service pack for Exchange to the passive node and then failover? I mean in some cases the information store files do not work if they don't recongnize the service pack level. (for example if you restore the information store onto an alternate server and the alternate server is not the same version as the original, the information store would not mount) -Original Message- From: Dennis Depp [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, October 11, 2002 3:15 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering I've looked into Exchange Active/Passive clustering for our Exchange 2000 servers. The largest Exchange problem that causes downtime is corruption in the database. I agree with Ed that clustering cannot help in this senario. However, even with high quality hardware, you still have to deal with the 58 security patches and one Windows 2000 service pack that have been issued this year. Granted not all the 58 security patches are Windows 2000 related, but a large number of them are. An active/passive cluster gives me the capability of installing hotfixes and service packs without impacting my Exchange server even for a reboot. Also I can install the hotfixes during the day on the passive node and then failover that evening. If there is a problem, I can fail back to the unpatched node. The reduction in reboots and late hours makes an Active/passive cluster very appealing. However, clusters do add a level of complexity. Unless you understand clusters and how they operate, this added complexity can decrease uptime instead of increase it. Denny -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Ed Crowley Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2002 5:11 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering I think at this stage of its development clustering provides very poor business value. It really protects you from very few failure scenarios. Instead, I'd make sure I had the most highly internally redundant system I could afford, buy a capable recovery and hot standby server, and practice my disaster recovery skills. Ed Crowley MCSE+I MVP Technical Consultant hp Services There are seldom good technological solutions to behavioral problems. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Imran Iqbal Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2002 2:36 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering We are currently an Exchange 5.5 site, as part of our move to Exchange 2000 I am considering setting up Exchange on a 2 node Active Active cluster and would be interested in hearing anyone views or real world experiences with similar setups. Each server would have about 800 active users and would probably be connected to a SAN for the shared storage. I have heard that there were memory issues with this setup pre SP3. I would like to know if there are any other problems and if it is worth doing Thanks in advance Imran _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting
RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering
I did just that. From personal experience I prefer to reboot the machine after stopping the service (as opposed to simply restarting the services). Sometimes the Information Store service takes hours to stop. And if a full backup is running at the same time (because it got delayed for whatever reason), IS will never stop. There was a period of time when I had to restart the back-end Exchange server every night after applying SP2. Otherwise OWA refused to work correctly the following day. But then I discovered that doing ipconfig /flushdns once in a while solved that problem. -Original Message- From: Great Cthulhu Jones [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Saturday, October 12, 2002 9:02 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering Heck, just write a batch file that stops all services and bounces the box Sunday at 2AM and you don't even have to call it in to an operator. Five nines, indeed. The box only really needs to be up when people are using it. (:= -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Ed Crowley Sent: Friday, October 11, 2002 9:00 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering It's a pretty steep price to pay to avoid an occasional Sunday morning reboot. Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP kcCC+I Tech Consultant hp Services Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups! -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Dennis Depp Sent: Friday, October 11, 2002 12:15 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering I've looked into Exchange Active/Passive clustering for our Exchange 2000 servers. The largest Exchange problem that causes downtime is corruption in the database. I agree with Ed that clustering cannot help in this senario. However, even with high quality hardware, you still have to deal with the 58 security patches and one Windows 2000 service pack that have been issued this year. Granted not all the 58 security patches are Windows 2000 related, but a large number of them are. An active/passive cluster gives me the capability of installing hotfixes and service packs without impacting my Exchange server even for a reboot. Also I can install the hotfixes during the day on the passive node and then failover that evening. If there is a problem, I can fail back to the unpatched node. The reduction in reboots and late hours makes an Active/passive cluster very appealing. However, clusters do add a level of complexity. Unless you understand clusters and how they operate, this added complexity can decrease uptime instead of increase it. Denny -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Ed Crowley Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2002 5:11 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering I think at this stage of its development clustering provides very poor business value. It really protects you from very few failure scenarios. Instead, I'd make sure I had the most highly internally redundant system I could afford, buy a capable recovery and hot standby server, and practice my disaster recovery skills. Ed Crowley MCSE+I MVP Technical Consultant hp Services There are seldom good technological solutions to behavioral problems. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Imran Iqbal Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2002 2:36 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering We are currently an Exchange 5.5 site, as part of our move to Exchange 2000 I am considering setting up Exchange on a 2 node Active Active cluster and would be interested in hearing anyone views or real world experiences with similar setups. Each server would have about 800 active users and would probably be connected to a SAN for the shared storage. I have heard that there were memory issues with this setup pre SP3. I would like to know if there are any other problems and if it is worth doing Thanks in advance Imran _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL
RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering
ESEUTIL /R ? -Original Message- From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 10:38 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering You run eseutil on the patched node to update the stores to the new version. Then again, you'd have tried this in the test lab first, so you'd know not to do that in production. -- Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity Atlanta, GA -Original Message- From: Andrey Fyodorov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 10:35 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering What happens if you apply a new service pack for Exchange to the passive node and then failover? I mean in some cases the information store files do not work if they don't recongnize the service pack level. (for example if you restore the information store onto an alternate server and the alternate server is not the same version as the original, the information store would not mount) -Original Message- From: Dennis Depp [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, October 11, 2002 3:15 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering I've looked into Exchange Active/Passive clustering for our Exchange 2000 servers. The largest Exchange problem that causes downtime is corruption in the database. I agree with Ed that clustering cannot help in this senario. However, even with high quality hardware, you still have to deal with the 58 security patches and one Windows 2000 service pack that have been issued this year. Granted not all the 58 security patches are Windows 2000 related, but a large number of them are. An active/passive cluster gives me the capability of installing hotfixes and service packs without impacting my Exchange server even for a reboot. Also I can install the hotfixes during the day on the passive node and then failover that evening. If there is a problem, I can fail back to the unpatched node. The reduction in reboots and late hours makes an Active/passive cluster very appealing. However, clusters do add a level of complexity. Unless you understand clusters and how they operate, this added complexity can decrease uptime instead of increase it. Denny -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Ed Crowley Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2002 5:11 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering I think at this stage of its development clustering provides very poor business value. It really protects you from very few failure scenarios. Instead, I'd make sure I had the most highly internally redundant system I could afford, buy a capable recovery and hot standby server, and practice my disaster recovery skills. Ed Crowley MCSE+I MVP Technical Consultant hp Services There are seldom good technological solutions to behavioral problems. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Imran Iqbal Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2002 2:36 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering We are currently an Exchange 5.5 site, as part of our move to Exchange 2000 I am considering setting up Exchange on a 2 node Active Active cluster and would be interested in hearing anyone views or real world experiences with similar setups. Each server would have about 800 active users and would probably be connected to a SAN for the shared storage. I have heard that there were memory issues with this setup pre SP3. I would like to know if there are any other problems and if it is worth doing Thanks in advance Imran _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives:
RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering
One article I read said that in an A/A situation such that you plan as if you will be running A/P and then split them up between the two nodes assigned to the A/A cluster. Makes sense to me. Nate Couch EDS Messaging -- From: Roger Seielstad Reply To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 09:36 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering You'd be wrong there. You can get the same amount of users on active/active or active/passive, although realistically, active/passive allows for more users. In either case, if you're clustering identical hardware, you can either put all your users on one box (a/p) or half on each (a/a). In either case, both servers need to be able to handle the same number of users. The memory fragmentation issues would lead me to believe that A/P would be more likely to support a higher number of users than A/A, on identical hardware. Roger -- Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity Atlanta, GA -Original Message- From: Andrey Fyodorov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 10:32 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering No, according to the theory you can get more users on Active/Active because both cluster nodes are being used to do something useful. But if one fails, the other node better be able to take on the load. -Original Message- From: Dennis Depp [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, October 11, 2002 2:50 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering Stay away from active/active. Go Active/passive instead. You can get more users on Active/Passive. Denny -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Imran Iqbal Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2002 5:36 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering We are currently an Exchange 5.5 site, as part of our move to Exchange 2000 I am considering setting up Exchange on a 2 node Active Active cluster and would be interested in hearing anyone views or real world experiences with similar setups. Each server would have about 800 active users and would probably be connected to a SAN for the shared storage. I have heard that there were memory issues with this setup pre SP3. I would like to know if there are any other problems and if it is worth doing Thanks in advance Imran _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: SMTP connector statistics in E2k
Dude, Alexey is talking about Exchange 2000. IMC smells of 5.5 -Original Message- From: Great Cthulhu Jones [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Sunday, October 13, 2002 9:19 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: SMTP connector statistics in E2k Try MSExchangeIMC* things... Total inbound messages and total outbound messages *might* be what you're looking for. Egad, but I feel generous to-day! (:= -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Alexey Sent: Sunday, October 13, 2002 3:09 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: SMTP connector statistics in E2k I couldn't find anything better than MSExchangeMTAConnections, Inbound/Outbound Messages Total. It does not show me all instances of my SMTP connectors though. Alexey _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering
I love theories. -Original Message- From: Andrey Fyodorov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 9:32 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering No, according to the theory you can get more users on Active/Active because both cluster nodes are being used to do something useful. But if one fails, the other node better be able to take on the load. -Original Message- From: Dennis Depp [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, October 11, 2002 2:50 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering Stay away from active/active. Go Active/passive instead. You can get more users on Active/Passive. Denny -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Imran Iqbal Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2002 5:36 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering We are currently an Exchange 5.5 site, as part of our move to Exchange 2000 I am considering setting up Exchange on a 2 node Active Active cluster and would be interested in hearing anyone views or real world experiences with similar setups. Each server would have about 800 active users and would probably be connected to a SAN for the shared storage. I have heard that there were memory issues with this setup pre SP3. I would like to know if there are any other problems and if it is worth doing Thanks in advance Imran _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: OT - Web Mail hosting
Have you looked at IPSwitch Imail? (http://www.ipswitch.com) Also that MiraPoint thingie is supposed to be nice. -Original Message- From: Rob Hackney [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, October 11, 2002 7:02 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: OT - Web Mail hosting For your company users or to resell? If the former, OWA - no, not company users - already have OWA thanks so would be 'reselling' How many users do you want to have on the system, and what it is the purpose of said system. well, I've been asked to think about 10,000 users/ subscribers but whether we get that amount is another matter! It's basically to offer our customers on the retail side of the business an alternative to hotmail etc - so they can have a 'lifestyle' email address. The retail side of our business has mail/internet order and also 15 shops nationwide and we sell skateboards/ inline blades/ bmx's and clothing/ accessories. Thanks to the other suggestions - I'll look into them. Rob -Original Message- From: Rob Hackney [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2002 9:11 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: OT - Web Mail hosting Hi all, i'm looking into the feasiblity of setting up a hotmail style web based email hosting service - does anyone know of any good companies that offer this service? Preferably UK based. I have searched and I know there are plenty about but a personal recommendation would be nice thanks Rob Support Analyst T.K.C. Sales Ltd. 5 Ashmead Industrial Estate Keynsham Bristol BS31 1TZ UK Tel: 0870 870 0150 ext 302 This email is confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual(s) to whom it is addressed. It should not be deemed to constitute a binding contract between TKC Group and the recipient(s) unless a purchase order number is quoted. Any views or opinions presented are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of TKC Group Ltd. If you are not the intended recipient(s), please do not copy or disclose its contents. Please return it to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] then delete the email. intY has scanned this email for all known viruses (www.inty.com) _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] intY has scanned this email for all known viruses (www.inty.com) This email is confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual(s) to whom it is addressed. It should not be deemed to constitute a binding contract between TKC Group and the recipient(s) unless a purchase order number is quoted. Any views or opinions presented are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of TKC Group Ltd. If you are not the intended recipient(s), please do not copy or disclose its contents. Please return it to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] then delete the email. intY has scanned this email for all known viruses (www.inty.com) _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: OT - Web Mail hosting
It looks like Aitcom is only doing dedicated Exchange hosting? -Original Message- From: David N. Precht [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, October 11, 2002 6:18 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: OT - Web Mail hosting Nothing against Andrey... But http://www.aitcom.net/hosting/asp/ http://www.inet7.com/exchange2000.asp?source=overture.exho Among others -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Rob Hackney Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2002 12:11 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: OT - Web Mail hosting Hi all, i'm looking into the feasiblity of setting up a hotmail style web based email hosting service - does anyone know of any good companies that offer this service? Preferably UK based. I have searched and I know there are plenty about but a personal recommendation would be nice thanks Rob Support Analyst T.K.C. Sales Ltd. 5 Ashmead Industrial Estate Keynsham Bristol BS31 1TZ UK Tel: 0870 870 0150 ext 302 This email is confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual(s) to whom it is addressed. It should not be deemed to constitute a binding contract between TKC Group and the recipient(s) unless a purchase order number is quoted. Any views or opinions presented are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of TKC Group Ltd. If you are not the intended recipient(s), please do not copy or disclose its contents. Please return it to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] then delete the email. intY has scanned this email for all known viruses (www.inty.com) _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering
Whats brown and sticky? -Original Message- From: Chris Scharff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 10:54 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering I love theories. -Original Message- From: Andrey Fyodorov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 9:32 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering No, according to the theory you can get more users on Active/Active because both cluster nodes are being used to do something useful. But if one fails, the other node better be able to take on the load. -Original Message- From: Dennis Depp [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, October 11, 2002 2:50 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering Stay away from active/active. Go Active/passive instead. You can get more users on Active/Passive. Denny -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Imran Iqbal Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2002 5:36 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering We are currently an Exchange 5.5 site, as part of our move to Exchange 2000 I am considering setting up Exchange on a 2 node Active Active cluster and would be interested in hearing anyone views or real world experiences with similar setups. Each server would have about 800 active users and would probably be connected to a SAN for the shared storage. I have heard that there were memory issues with this setup pre SP3. I would like to know if there are any other problems and if it is worth doing Thanks in advance Imran _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- The information contained in this email message is privileged and confidential information intended only for the use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copy of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please immediately notify Veronis Suhler Stevenson by telephone (212)935-4990, fax (212)381-8168, or email ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) and delete the message. Thank you. == _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering
Which meant if you had 3 databases on each cluster, the other active node would fail as soon as it failed to mount one store too many. That's why MS now pushes a/a/a/p clustering. a/a was an unmitigated disaster. (:= -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Andrey Fyodorov Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 9:32 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering No, according to the theory you can get more users on Active/Active because both cluster nodes are being used to do something useful. But if one fails, the other node better be able to take on the load. -Original Message- From: Dennis Depp [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, October 11, 2002 2:50 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering Stay away from active/active. Go Active/passive instead. You can get more users on Active/Passive. Denny -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Imran Iqbal Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2002 5:36 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering We are currently an Exchange 5.5 site, as part of our move to Exchange 2000 I am considering setting up Exchange on a 2 node Active Active cluster and would be interested in hearing anyone views or real world experiences with similar setups. Each server would have about 800 active users and would probably be connected to a SAN for the shared storage. I have heard that there were memory issues with this setup pre SP3. I would like to know if there are any other problems and if it is worth doing Thanks in advance Imran _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: SMTP connector statistics in E2k
Whatever. I'm OLD and I'm CRANKY and I don't give a rat's hairy little ass what Microsoft calls its SMTP these days. You all know what I mean. And don't even get me STARTED on Smart Host. Gag. (:= -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Andrey Fyodorov Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 9:51 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: SMTP connector statistics in E2k Dude, Alexey is talking about Exchange 2000. IMC smells of 5.5 -Original Message- From: Great Cthulhu Jones [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Sunday, October 13, 2002 9:19 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: SMTP connector statistics in E2k Try MSExchangeIMC* things... Total inbound messages and total outbound messages *might* be what you're looking for. Egad, but I feel generous to-day! (:= -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Alexey Sent: Sunday, October 13, 2002 3:09 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: SMTP connector statistics in E2k I couldn't find anything better than MSExchangeMTAConnections, Inbound/Outbound Messages Total. It does not show me all instances of my SMTP connectors though. Alexey _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: SMTP blocked IP addresses
Did you look in the metabase or AD for that stuff? I'm not saying they're there, just that you should check those out for Exchange server info. (:= -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Gagrani, Kishore Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 9:17 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: SMTP blocked IP addresses Hi everyone, Could someone please tell me where does the Exchange 2K keeps the SMTP blocked IP addresses list , I mean there got to be a file (text file or something of that kind), can't seem to find that . Please help. Thanks, Kishore _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering
Hehe, that's why I wrote in theory -Original Message- From: Chris Scharff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 10:54 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering I love theories. -Original Message- From: Andrey Fyodorov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 9:32 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering No, according to the theory you can get more users on Active/Active because both cluster nodes are being used to do something useful. But if one fails, the other node better be able to take on the load. -Original Message- From: Dennis Depp [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, October 11, 2002 2:50 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering Stay away from active/active. Go Active/passive instead. You can get more users on Active/Passive. Denny -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Imran Iqbal Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2002 5:36 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering We are currently an Exchange 5.5 site, as part of our move to Exchange 2000 I am considering setting up Exchange on a 2 node Active Active cluster and would be interested in hearing anyone views or real world experiences with similar setups. Each server would have about 800 active users and would probably be connected to a SAN for the shared storage. I have heard that there were memory issues with this setup pre SP3. I would like to know if there are any other problems and if it is worth doing Thanks in advance Imran _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: SMTP connector statistics in E2k
One way would be to analyze SMTP logs for the day for that connector. I am not sure if there are any utilities that do that on Exchange. But I have seen people write utilities like that for Imail. Another way is to use MOM or NetIQ Some people here like Promodag. -Original Message- From: Alexey [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Saturday, October 12, 2002 6:22 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: SMTP connector statistics in E2k Hello, Is there any way to check out how many messages were sent through a particular SMTP connector in Exchange 2000 SP3? Thanks and regards, Alexey Ugnevenok _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering
3 Storage Groups on each node, right? :) I like the idea of a/a/a/p, but that's a one trick pony. You better hope that the other two nodes are not going to fail soon. -Original Message- From: Great Cthulhu Jones [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 10:59 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering Which meant if you had 3 databases on each cluster, the other active node would fail as soon as it failed to mount one store too many. That's why MS now pushes a/a/a/p clustering. a/a was an unmitigated disaster. (:= -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Andrey Fyodorov Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 9:32 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering No, according to the theory you can get more users on Active/Active because both cluster nodes are being used to do something useful. But if one fails, the other node better be able to take on the load. -Original Message- From: Dennis Depp [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, October 11, 2002 2:50 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering Stay away from active/active. Go Active/passive instead. You can get more users on Active/Passive. Denny -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Imran Iqbal Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2002 5:36 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering We are currently an Exchange 5.5 site, as part of our move to Exchange 2000 I am considering setting up Exchange on a 2 node Active Active cluster and would be interested in hearing anyone views or real world experiences with similar setups. Each server would have about 800 active users and would probably be connected to a SAN for the shared storage. I have heard that there were memory issues with this setup pre SP3. I would like to know if there are any other problems and if it is worth doing Thanks in advance Imran _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: SMTP connector statistics in E2k
Yeah but if you know what it is called these days, you will find it sooner in the Performance Monitor. -Original Message- From: Great Cthulhu Jones [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 10:59 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: SMTP connector statistics in E2k Whatever. I'm OLD and I'm CRANKY and I don't give a rat's hairy little ass what Microsoft calls its SMTP these days. You all know what I mean. And don't even get me STARTED on Smart Host. Gag. (:= -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Andrey Fyodorov Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 9:51 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: SMTP connector statistics in E2k Dude, Alexey is talking about Exchange 2000. IMC smells of 5.5 -Original Message- From: Great Cthulhu Jones [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Sunday, October 13, 2002 9:19 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: SMTP connector statistics in E2k Try MSExchangeIMC* things... Total inbound messages and total outbound messages *might* be what you're looking for. Egad, but I feel generous to-day! (:= -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Alexey Sent: Sunday, October 13, 2002 3:09 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: SMTP connector statistics in E2k I couldn't find anything better than MSExchangeMTAConnections, Inbound/Outbound Messages Total. It does not show me all instances of my SMTP connectors though. Alexey _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering
Just disable the DNS Client service - it only causes problems anyway. -- Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity Atlanta, GA -Original Message- From: Andrey Fyodorov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 10:46 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering I did just that. From personal experience I prefer to reboot the machine after stopping the service (as opposed to simply restarting the services). Sometimes the Information Store service takes hours to stop. And if a full backup is running at the same time (because it got delayed for whatever reason), IS will never stop. There was a period of time when I had to restart the back-end Exchange server every night after applying SP2. Otherwise OWA refused to work correctly the following day. But then I discovered that doing ipconfig /flushdns once in a while solved that problem. -Original Message- From: Great Cthulhu Jones [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Saturday, October 12, 2002 9:02 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering Heck, just write a batch file that stops all services and bounces the box Sunday at 2AM and you don't even have to call it in to an operator. Five nines, indeed. The box only really needs to be up when people are using it. (:= -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Ed Crowley Sent: Friday, October 11, 2002 9:00 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering It's a pretty steep price to pay to avoid an occasional Sunday morning reboot. Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP kcCC+I Tech Consultant hp Services Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups! -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Dennis Depp Sent: Friday, October 11, 2002 12:15 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering I've looked into Exchange Active/Passive clustering for our Exchange 2000 servers. The largest Exchange problem that causes downtime is corruption in the database. I agree with Ed that clustering cannot help in this senario. However, even with high quality hardware, you still have to deal with the 58 security patches and one Windows 2000 service pack that have been issued this year. Granted not all the 58 security patches are Windows 2000 related, but a large number of them are. An active/passive cluster gives me the capability of installing hotfixes and service packs without impacting my Exchange server even for a reboot. Also I can install the hotfixes during the day on the passive node and then failover that evening. If there is a problem, I can fail back to the unpatched node. The reduction in reboots and late hours makes an Active/passive cluster very appealing. However, clusters do add a level of complexity. Unless you understand clusters and how they operate, this added complexity can decrease uptime instead of increase it. Denny -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Ed Crowley Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2002 5:11 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering I think at this stage of its development clustering provides very poor business value. It really protects you from very few failure scenarios. Instead, I'd make sure I had the most highly internally redundant system I could afford, buy a capable recovery and hot standby server, and practice my disaster recovery skills. Ed Crowley MCSE+I MVP Technical Consultant hp Services There are seldom good technological solutions to behavioral problems. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Imran Iqbal Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2002 2:36 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering We are currently an Exchange 5.5 site, as part of our move to Exchange 2000 I am considering setting up Exchange on a 2 node Active Active cluster and would be interested in hearing anyone views or real world experiences with similar setups. Each server would have about 800 active users and would probably be connected to a SAN for the shared storage. I have heard that there were memory issues with this setup pre SP3. I would like to know if there are any other problems and if it is worth doing Thanks in advance Imran _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering
Methinks that's the one. -- Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity Atlanta, GA -Original Message- From: Andrey Fyodorov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 10:48 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering ESEUTIL /R ? -Original Message- From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 10:38 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering You run eseutil on the patched node to update the stores to the new version. Then again, you'd have tried this in the test lab first, so you'd know not to do that in production. -- Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity Atlanta, GA -Original Message- From: Andrey Fyodorov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 10:35 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering What happens if you apply a new service pack for Exchange to the passive node and then failover? I mean in some cases the information store files do not work if they don't recongnize the service pack level. (for example if you restore the information store onto an alternate server and the alternate server is not the same version as the original, the information store would not mount) -Original Message- From: Dennis Depp [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, October 11, 2002 3:15 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering I've looked into Exchange Active/Passive clustering for our Exchange 2000 servers. The largest Exchange problem that causes downtime is corruption in the database. I agree with Ed that clustering cannot help in this senario. However, even with high quality hardware, you still have to deal with the 58 security patches and one Windows 2000 service pack that have been issued this year. Granted not all the 58 security patches are Windows 2000 related, but a large number of them are. An active/passive cluster gives me the capability of installing hotfixes and service packs without impacting my Exchange server even for a reboot. Also I can install the hotfixes during the day on the passive node and then failover that evening. If there is a problem, I can fail back to the unpatched node. The reduction in reboots and late hours makes an Active/passive cluster very appealing. However, clusters do add a level of complexity. Unless you understand clusters and how they operate, this added complexity can decrease uptime instead of increase it. Denny -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Ed Crowley Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2002 5:11 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering I think at this stage of its development clustering provides very poor business value. It really protects you from very few failure scenarios. Instead, I'd make sure I had the most highly internally redundant system I could afford, buy a capable recovery and hot standby server, and practice my disaster recovery skills. Ed Crowley MCSE+I MVP Technical Consultant hp Services There are seldom good technological solutions to behavioral problems. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Imran Iqbal Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2002 2:36 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering We are currently an Exchange 5.5 site, as part of our move to Exchange 2000 I am considering setting up Exchange on a 2 node Active Active cluster and would be interested in hearing anyone views or real world experiences with similar setups. Each server would have about 800 active users and would probably be connected to a SAN for the shared storage. I have heard that there were memory issues with this setup pre SP3. I would like to know if there are any other problems and if it is worth doing Thanks in advance Imran _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To
RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering
Exactly - you're still having to plan to put all of them on one box at some point, so A/A = A/P in terms of user support. A/P just happens to be more stable. -- Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity Atlanta, GA -Original Message- From: Couch, Nate [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 10:51 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering One article I read said that in an A/A situation such that you plan as if you will be running A/P and then split them up between the two nodes assigned to the A/A cluster. Makes sense to me. Nate Couch EDS Messaging -- From: Roger Seielstad Reply To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 09:36 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject:RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering You'd be wrong there. You can get the same amount of users on active/active or active/passive, although realistically, active/passive allows for more users. In either case, if you're clustering identical hardware, you can either put all your users on one box (a/p) or half on each (a/a). In either case, both servers need to be able to handle the same number of users. The memory fragmentation issues would lead me to believe that A/P would be more likely to support a higher number of users than A/A, on identical hardware. Roger -- Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity Atlanta, GA -Original Message- From: Andrey Fyodorov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 10:32 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering No, according to the theory you can get more users on Active/Active because both cluster nodes are being used to do something useful. But if one fails, the other node better be able to take on the load. -Original Message- From: Dennis Depp [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, October 11, 2002 2:50 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering Stay away from active/active. Go Active/passive instead. You can get more users on Active/Passive. Denny -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Imran Iqbal Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2002 5:36 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering We are currently an Exchange 5.5 site, as part of our move to Exchange 2000 I am considering setting up Exchange on a 2 node Active Active cluster and would be interested in hearing anyone views or real world experiences with similar setups. Each server would have about 800 active users and would probably be connected to a SAN for the shared storage. I have heard that there were memory issues with this setup pre SP3. I would like to know if there are any other problems and if it is worth doing Thanks in advance Imran _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ:
RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering
I vaguely remember talking about it in the past. Although we were talking about domain controllers. I thought that on the Exchange server I should still have it running. -Original Message- From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 11:06 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering Just disable the DNS Client service - it only causes problems anyway. -- Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity Atlanta, GA -Original Message- From: Andrey Fyodorov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 10:46 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering I did just that. From personal experience I prefer to reboot the machine after stopping the service (as opposed to simply restarting the services). Sometimes the Information Store service takes hours to stop. And if a full backup is running at the same time (because it got delayed for whatever reason), IS will never stop. There was a period of time when I had to restart the back-end Exchange server every night after applying SP2. Otherwise OWA refused to work correctly the following day. But then I discovered that doing ipconfig /flushdns once in a while solved that problem. -Original Message- From: Great Cthulhu Jones [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Saturday, October 12, 2002 9:02 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering Heck, just write a batch file that stops all services and bounces the box Sunday at 2AM and you don't even have to call it in to an operator. Five nines, indeed. The box only really needs to be up when people are using it. (:= -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Ed Crowley Sent: Friday, October 11, 2002 9:00 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering It's a pretty steep price to pay to avoid an occasional Sunday morning reboot. Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP kcCC+I Tech Consultant hp Services Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups! -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Dennis Depp Sent: Friday, October 11, 2002 12:15 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering I've looked into Exchange Active/Passive clustering for our Exchange 2000 servers. The largest Exchange problem that causes downtime is corruption in the database. I agree with Ed that clustering cannot help in this senario. However, even with high quality hardware, you still have to deal with the 58 security patches and one Windows 2000 service pack that have been issued this year. Granted not all the 58 security patches are Windows 2000 related, but a large number of them are. An active/passive cluster gives me the capability of installing hotfixes and service packs without impacting my Exchange server even for a reboot. Also I can install the hotfixes during the day on the passive node and then failover that evening. If there is a problem, I can fail back to the unpatched node. The reduction in reboots and late hours makes an Active/passive cluster very appealing. However, clusters do add a level of complexity. Unless you understand clusters and how they operate, this added complexity can decrease uptime instead of increase it. Denny -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Ed Crowley Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2002 5:11 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering I think at this stage of its development clustering provides very poor business value. It really protects you from very few failure scenarios. Instead, I'd make sure I had the most highly internally redundant system I could afford, buy a capable recovery and hot standby server, and practice my disaster recovery skills. Ed Crowley MCSE+I MVP Technical Consultant hp Services There are seldom good technological solutions to behavioral problems. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Imran Iqbal Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2002 2:36 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering We are currently an Exchange 5.5 site, as part of our move to Exchange 2000 I am considering setting up Exchange on a 2 node Active Active cluster and would be interested in hearing anyone views or real world experiences with similar setups. Each server would have about 800 active users and would probably be connected to a SAN for the shared storage. I have heard that there were memory issues with this setup pre SP3.
RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering
/P may cause big problems :) -Original Message- From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 11:07 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering Methinks that's the one. -- Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity Atlanta, GA -Original Message- From: Andrey Fyodorov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 10:48 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering ESEUTIL /R ? -Original Message- From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 10:38 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering You run eseutil on the patched node to update the stores to the new version. Then again, you'd have tried this in the test lab first, so you'd know not to do that in production. -- Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity Atlanta, GA -Original Message- From: Andrey Fyodorov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 10:35 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering What happens if you apply a new service pack for Exchange to the passive node and then failover? I mean in some cases the information store files do not work if they don't recongnize the service pack level. (for example if you restore the information store onto an alternate server and the alternate server is not the same version as the original, the information store would not mount) -Original Message- From: Dennis Depp [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, October 11, 2002 3:15 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering I've looked into Exchange Active/Passive clustering for our Exchange 2000 servers. The largest Exchange problem that causes downtime is corruption in the database. I agree with Ed that clustering cannot help in this senario. However, even with high quality hardware, you still have to deal with the 58 security patches and one Windows 2000 service pack that have been issued this year. Granted not all the 58 security patches are Windows 2000 related, but a large number of them are. An active/passive cluster gives me the capability of installing hotfixes and service packs without impacting my Exchange server even for a reboot. Also I can install the hotfixes during the day on the passive node and then failover that evening. If there is a problem, I can fail back to the unpatched node. The reduction in reboots and late hours makes an Active/passive cluster very appealing. However, clusters do add a level of complexity. Unless you understand clusters and how they operate, this added complexity can decrease uptime instead of increase it. Denny -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Ed Crowley Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2002 5:11 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering I think at this stage of its development clustering provides very poor business value. It really protects you from very few failure scenarios. Instead, I'd make sure I had the most highly internally redundant system I could afford, buy a capable recovery and hot standby server, and practice my disaster recovery skills. Ed Crowley MCSE+I MVP Technical Consultant hp Services There are seldom good technological solutions to behavioral problems. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Imran Iqbal Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2002 2:36 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering We are currently an Exchange 5.5 site, as part of our move to Exchange 2000 I am considering setting up Exchange on a 2 node Active Active cluster and would be interested in hearing anyone views or real world experiences with similar setups. Each server would have about 800 active users and would probably be connected to a SAN for the shared storage. I have heard that there were memory issues with this setup pre SP3. I would like to know if there are any other problems and if it is worth doing Thanks in advance Imran _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL
RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering
If you're basing your life around 4 identical boxes that all experience hardware failures that close together, I suggest you switch hardware vendors. Fast. Keep in mind, too, that A/A/A/P means you're running Datacenter. -- Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity Atlanta, GA -Original Message- From: Andrey Fyodorov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 11:04 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering 3 Storage Groups on each node, right? :) I like the idea of a/a/a/p, but that's a one trick pony. You better hope that the other two nodes are not going to fail soon. -Original Message- From: Great Cthulhu Jones [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 10:59 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering Which meant if you had 3 databases on each cluster, the other active node would fail as soon as it failed to mount one store too many. That's why MS now pushes a/a/a/p clustering. a/a was an unmitigated disaster. (:= -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Andrey Fyodorov Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 9:32 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering No, according to the theory you can get more users on Active/Active because both cluster nodes are being used to do something useful. But if one fails, the other node better be able to take on the load. -Original Message- From: Dennis Depp [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, October 11, 2002 2:50 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering Stay away from active/active. Go Active/passive instead. You can get more users on Active/Passive. Denny -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Imran Iqbal Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2002 5:36 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering We are currently an Exchange 5.5 site, as part of our move to Exchange 2000 I am considering setting up Exchange on a 2 node Active Active cluster and would be interested in hearing anyone views or real world experiences with similar setups. Each server would have about 800 active users and would probably be connected to a SAN for the shared storage. I have heard that there were memory issues with this setup pre SP3. I would like to know if there are any other problems and if it is worth doing Thanks in advance Imran _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering
Only if you have crappy DNS servers. -- Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity Atlanta, GA -Original Message- From: Andrey Fyodorov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 11:10 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering I vaguely remember talking about it in the past. Although we were talking about domain controllers. I thought that on the Exchange server I should still have it running. -Original Message- From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 11:06 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering Just disable the DNS Client service - it only causes problems anyway. -- Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity Atlanta, GA -Original Message- From: Andrey Fyodorov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 10:46 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering I did just that. From personal experience I prefer to reboot the machine after stopping the service (as opposed to simply restarting the services). Sometimes the Information Store service takes hours to stop. And if a full backup is running at the same time (because it got delayed for whatever reason), IS will never stop. There was a period of time when I had to restart the back-end Exchange server every night after applying SP2. Otherwise OWA refused to work correctly the following day. But then I discovered that doing ipconfig /flushdns once in a while solved that problem. -Original Message- From: Great Cthulhu Jones [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Saturday, October 12, 2002 9:02 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering Heck, just write a batch file that stops all services and bounces the box Sunday at 2AM and you don't even have to call it in to an operator. Five nines, indeed. The box only really needs to be up when people are using it. (:= -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Ed Crowley Sent: Friday, October 11, 2002 9:00 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering It's a pretty steep price to pay to avoid an occasional Sunday morning reboot. Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP kcCC+I Tech Consultant hp Services Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups! -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Dennis Depp Sent: Friday, October 11, 2002 12:15 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering I've looked into Exchange Active/Passive clustering for our Exchange 2000 servers. The largest Exchange problem that causes downtime is corruption in the database. I agree with Ed that clustering cannot help in this senario. However, even with high quality hardware, you still have to deal with the 58 security patches and one Windows 2000 service pack that have been issued this year. Granted not all the 58 security patches are Windows 2000 related, but a large number of them are. An active/passive cluster gives me the capability of installing hotfixes and service packs without impacting my Exchange server even for a reboot. Also I can install the hotfixes during the day on the passive node and then failover that evening. If there is a problem, I can fail back to the unpatched node. The reduction in reboots and late hours makes an Active/passive cluster very appealing. However, clusters do add a level of complexity. Unless you understand clusters and how they operate, this added complexity can decrease uptime instead of increase it. Denny -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Ed Crowley Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2002 5:11 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering I think at this stage of its development clustering provides very poor business value. It really protects you from very few failure scenarios. Instead, I'd make sure I had the most highly internally redundant system I could afford, buy a capable recovery and hot standby server, and practice my disaster recovery skills. Ed Crowley MCSE+I MVP Technical Consultant hp Services There are seldom good technological solutions to behavioral problems. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of
RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering
Only the best. Microsoft DNS, active-directory integrated. :) -Original Message- From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 11:11 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering Only if you have crappy DNS servers. -- Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity Atlanta, GA -Original Message- From: Andrey Fyodorov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 11:10 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering I vaguely remember talking about it in the past. Although we were talking about domain controllers. I thought that on the Exchange server I should still have it running. -Original Message- From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 11:06 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering Just disable the DNS Client service - it only causes problems anyway. -- Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity Atlanta, GA -Original Message- From: Andrey Fyodorov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 10:46 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering I did just that. From personal experience I prefer to reboot the machine after stopping the service (as opposed to simply restarting the services). Sometimes the Information Store service takes hours to stop. And if a full backup is running at the same time (because it got delayed for whatever reason), IS will never stop. There was a period of time when I had to restart the back-end Exchange server every night after applying SP2. Otherwise OWA refused to work correctly the following day. But then I discovered that doing ipconfig /flushdns once in a while solved that problem. -Original Message- From: Great Cthulhu Jones [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Saturday, October 12, 2002 9:02 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering Heck, just write a batch file that stops all services and bounces the box Sunday at 2AM and you don't even have to call it in to an operator. Five nines, indeed. The box only really needs to be up when people are using it. (:= -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Ed Crowley Sent: Friday, October 11, 2002 9:00 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering It's a pretty steep price to pay to avoid an occasional Sunday morning reboot. Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP kcCC+I Tech Consultant hp Services Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups! -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Dennis Depp Sent: Friday, October 11, 2002 12:15 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering I've looked into Exchange Active/Passive clustering for our Exchange 2000 servers. The largest Exchange problem that causes downtime is corruption in the database. I agree with Ed that clustering cannot help in this senario. However, even with high quality hardware, you still have to deal with the 58 security patches and one Windows 2000 service pack that have been issued this year. Granted not all the 58 security patches are Windows 2000 related, but a large number of them are. An active/passive cluster gives me the capability of installing hotfixes and service packs without impacting my Exchange server even for a reboot. Also I can install the hotfixes during the day on the passive node and then failover that evening. If there is a problem, I can fail back to the unpatched node. The reduction in reboots and late hours makes an Active/passive cluster very appealing. However, clusters do add a level of complexity. Unless you understand clusters and how they operate, this added complexity can decrease uptime instead of increase it. Denny -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Ed Crowley Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2002 5:11 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering I think at this stage of its development clustering provides very poor business value. It really protects you from very few failure scenarios. Instead, I'd make sure I had the most highly internally redundant system I could afford, buy a capable recovery and hot standby server, and practice my disaster
RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering
Hi there I have an active\active E2k box and there is only one thing I like about it - it looks good on a resume. Here is why I am not happy with clustering Exchange: If you have a problem with email, you need to see if you have a cluster issue or Exchange issue before you can start to look at your problem. There are extra steps needed to get a front end\back end configuration to work. You cannot have a cluster as the first server in a mixed site becase clustering does not support the SRS service. My cluster LOVES to roll itself (although infrequently) - sometimes with nothing in the event viewer to tell my why. If you ever have to perform a disaster recovery, the cluster is going to make the job that much more complicated Exchange is complex enough without making it more complicated by installing it on a cluster. Learn from our mistake - don't do it. HTH Russell -Original Message- From: Imran Iqbal [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2002 5:36 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering We are currently an Exchange 5.5 site, as part of our move to Exchange 2000 I am considering setting up Exchange on a 2 node Active Active cluster and would be interested in hearing anyone views or real world experiences with similar setups. Each server would have about 800 active users and would probably be connected to a SAN for the shared storage. I have heard that there were memory issues with this setup pre SP3. I would like to know if there are any other problems and if it is worth doing Thanks in advance Imran _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering
No I am just preparing for the worst-case scenario. -Original Message- From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 11:11 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering If you're basing your life around 4 identical boxes that all experience hardware failures that close together, I suggest you switch hardware vendors. Fast. Keep in mind, too, that A/A/A/P means you're running Datacenter. -- Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity Atlanta, GA -Original Message- From: Andrey Fyodorov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 11:04 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering 3 Storage Groups on each node, right? :) I like the idea of a/a/a/p, but that's a one trick pony. You better hope that the other two nodes are not going to fail soon. -Original Message- From: Great Cthulhu Jones [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 10:59 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering Which meant if you had 3 databases on each cluster, the other active node would fail as soon as it failed to mount one store too many. That's why MS now pushes a/a/a/p clustering. a/a was an unmitigated disaster. (:= -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Andrey Fyodorov Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 9:32 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering No, according to the theory you can get more users on Active/Active because both cluster nodes are being used to do something useful. But if one fails, the other node better be able to take on the load. -Original Message- From: Dennis Depp [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, October 11, 2002 2:50 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering Stay away from active/active. Go Active/passive instead. You can get more users on Active/Passive. Denny -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Imran Iqbal Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2002 5:36 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering We are currently an Exchange 5.5 site, as part of our move to Exchange 2000 I am considering setting up Exchange on a 2 node Active Active cluster and would be interested in hearing anyone views or real world experiences with similar setups. Each server would have about 800 active users and would probably be connected to a SAN for the shared storage. I have heard that there were memory issues with this setup pre SP3. I would like to know if there are any other problems and if it is worth doing Thanks in advance Imran _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives:
RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering
Excellent! -Original Message- From: Etts, Russell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 11:15 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering Hi there I have an active\active E2k box and there is only one thing I like about it - it looks good on a resume. Here is why I am not happy with clustering Exchange: If you have a problem with email, you need to see if you have a cluster issue or Exchange issue before you can start to look at your problem. There are extra steps needed to get a front end\back end configuration to work. You cannot have a cluster as the first server in a mixed site becase clustering does not support the SRS service. My cluster LOVES to roll itself (although infrequently) - sometimes with nothing in the event viewer to tell my why. If you ever have to perform a disaster recovery, the cluster is going to make the job that much more complicated Exchange is complex enough without making it more complicated by installing it on a cluster. Learn from our mistake - don't do it. HTH Russell -Original Message- From: Imran Iqbal [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2002 5:36 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering We are currently an Exchange 5.5 site, as part of our move to Exchange 2000 I am considering setting up Exchange on a 2 node Active Active cluster and would be interested in hearing anyone views or real world experiences with similar setups. Each server would have about 800 active users and would probably be connected to a SAN for the shared storage. I have heard that there were memory issues with this setup pre SP3. I would like to know if there are any other problems and if it is worth doing Thanks in advance Imran _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering
A tootsie roll. -- From: Morrison, Mike L. Reply To: Exchange Discussions Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 10:07 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering A stick. Mike -Original Message- From: Andy David [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 10:59 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering Whats brown and sticky? -Original Message- From: Chris Scharff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 10:54 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering I love theories. -Original Message- From: Andrey Fyodorov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 9:32 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering No, according to the theory you can get more users on Active/Active because both cluster nodes are being used to do something useful. But if one fails, the other node better be able to take on the load. -Original Message- From: Dennis Depp [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, October 11, 2002 2:50 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering Stay away from active/active. Go Active/passive instead. You can get more users on Active/Passive. Denny -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Imran Iqbal Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2002 5:36 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering We are currently an Exchange 5.5 site, as part of our move to Exchange 2000 I am considering setting up Exchange on a 2 node Active Active cluster and would be interested in hearing anyone views or real world experiences with similar setups. Each server would have about 800 active users and would probably be connected to a SAN for the shared storage. I have heard that there were memory issues with this setup pre SP3. I would like to know if there are any other problems and if it is worth doing Thanks in advance Imran _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- -- -- The information contained in this email message is privileged and confidential information intended only for the use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copy of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please immediately notify Veronis Suhler Stevenson by telephone (212)935-4990, fax (212)381-8168, or email ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) and delete the message. Thank you. == == == _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives:
RE: Curious Event viewer messages
Have you tried removing and adding it to the group again? Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP kcCC+I Tech Consultant hp Services Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups! -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Hague, Jeff Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 7:17 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Curious Event viewer messages I have been getting some entries in the event viewer for my Exch2K box (Win2K SP2, Exch2K SP1 member server)lately that I don't understand. Has anyone seen this? First I will see a warning - Source is MSExchangeSA, category is General and Event ID is 9186 - it states: Microsoft Exchange System Attendant has detected that the local computer is not a member of group 'cn=Exchange Domain Servers,cn=Users,dc=rmc,dc=edu'. System Attendant is going to add the local computer into the group. The current members of the group are 'CN=RMCMX1,OU=Servers,OU=Rmccomputers,DC=rmc,DC=edu; CN=NAV for Microsoft Exchange-TITAN,CN=Users,DC=rmc,DC=edu; '. The local computer is RMCMX1 and the message says that machine IS a member of the group. What the? Next I get the following error message - Source is MSExchangeSA, category is General and Event ID is 9187: Microsoft Exchange System Attendant failed to add the local computeras a member of the DS group object 'cn=Exchange Domain Servers,cn=Users,dc=rmc,dc=edu'. Please stop all the Microsoft Exchange services, add the local computer into the group manually and restart all the services. When I search the knowledge base I get 1 document that simply states that the Exchange server wont function properly if its not in the Exchange Domain Servers group. The computer account is in that group and I haven't noticed any e-mail problems but I really don't like these messages. I have received these every 15 minutes since October 7. I believe that is the day that I created the OU that the server account is now in. Until then it was in the default computers container but I want to implement uniform auditing and event viewer property policies (through GPOs) on all of my servers so I created the OU referenced in the logs. Has anyone seen this? Is it anything to worry about? Can it be fixed? Thanks all! Jeff Hague Network Manager Randolph-Macon College _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering
And when you deploy an Exchange cluster, that's exactly what you get! Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP kcCC+I Tech Consultant hp Services Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups! -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Andrey Fyodorov Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 8:15 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering No I am just preparing for the worst-case scenario. -Original Message- From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 11:11 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering If you're basing your life around 4 identical boxes that all experience hardware failures that close together, I suggest you switch hardware vendors. Fast. Keep in mind, too, that A/A/A/P means you're running Datacenter. -- Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity Atlanta, GA -Original Message- From: Andrey Fyodorov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 11:04 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering 3 Storage Groups on each node, right? :) I like the idea of a/a/a/p, but that's a one trick pony. You better hope that the other two nodes are not going to fail soon. -Original Message- From: Great Cthulhu Jones [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 10:59 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering Which meant if you had 3 databases on each cluster, the other active node would fail as soon as it failed to mount one store too many. That's why MS now pushes a/a/a/p clustering. a/a was an unmitigated disaster. (:= -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Andrey Fyodorov Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 9:32 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering No, according to the theory you can get more users on Active/Active because both cluster nodes are being used to do something useful. But if one fails, the other node better be able to take on the load. -Original Message- From: Dennis Depp [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, October 11, 2002 2:50 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering Stay away from active/active. Go Active/passive instead. You can get more users on Active/Passive. Denny -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Imran Iqbal Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2002 5:36 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering We are currently an Exchange 5.5 site, as part of our move to Exchange 2000 I am considering setting up Exchange on a 2 node Active Active cluster and would be interested in hearing anyone views or real world experiences with similar setups. Each server would have about 800 active users and would probably be connected to a SAN for the shared storage. I have heard that there were memory issues with this setup pre SP3. I would like to know if there are any other problems and if it is worth doing Thanks in advance Imran _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _
RE: Curious Event viewer messages
I haven't yet but what the heck... Ill give it a shot and see what happens. Jeff -Original Message- From: Ed Crowley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 11:31 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Curious Event viewer messages Have you tried removing and adding it to the group again? Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP kcCC+I Tech Consultant hp Services Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups! -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Hague, Jeff Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 7:17 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Curious Event viewer messages I have been getting some entries in the event viewer for my Exch2K box (Win2K SP2, Exch2K SP1 member server)lately that I don't understand. Has anyone seen this? First I will see a warning - Source is MSExchangeSA, category is General and Event ID is 9186 - it states: Microsoft Exchange System Attendant has detected that the local computer is not a member of group 'cn=Exchange Domain Servers,cn=Users,dc=rmc,dc=edu'. System Attendant is going to add the local computer into the group. The current members of the group are 'CN=RMCMX1,OU=Servers,OU=Rmccomputers,DC=rmc,DC=edu; CN=NAV for Microsoft Exchange-TITAN,CN=Users,DC=rmc,DC=edu; '. The local computer is RMCMX1 and the message says that machine IS a member of the group. What the? Next I get the following error message - Source is MSExchangeSA, category is General and Event ID is 9187: Microsoft Exchange System Attendant failed to add the local computeras a member of the DS group object 'cn=Exchange Domain Servers,cn=Users,dc=rmc,dc=edu'. Please stop all the Microsoft Exchange services, add the local computer into the group manually and restart all the services. When I search the knowledge base I get 1 document that simply states that the Exchange server wont function properly if its not in the Exchange Domain Servers group. The computer account is in that group and I haven't noticed any e-mail problems but I really don't like these messages. I have received these every 15 minutes since October 7. I believe that is the day that I created the OU that the server account is now in. Until then it was in the default computers container but I want to implement uniform auditing and event viewer property policies (through GPOs) on all of my servers so I created the OU referenced in the logs. Has anyone seen this? Is it anything to worry about? Can it be fixed? Thanks all! Jeff Hague Network Manager Randolph-Macon College _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Curious Event viewer messages
The reason I asked is because the distinguishedName shown in the event log doesn't match the OU to which you said you moved the server. Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP kcCC+I Tech Consultant hp Services Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups! -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Hague, Jeff Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 8:37 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Curious Event viewer messages I haven't yet but what the heck... Ill give it a shot and see what happens. Jeff -Original Message- From: Ed Crowley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 11:31 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Curious Event viewer messages Have you tried removing and adding it to the group again? Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP kcCC+I Tech Consultant hp Services Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups! -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Hague, Jeff Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 7:17 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Curious Event viewer messages I have been getting some entries in the event viewer for my Exch2K box (Win2K SP2, Exch2K SP1 member server)lately that I don't understand. Has anyone seen this? First I will see a warning - Source is MSExchangeSA, category is General and Event ID is 9186 - it states: Microsoft Exchange System Attendant has detected that the local computer is not a member of group 'cn=Exchange Domain Servers,cn=Users,dc=rmc,dc=edu'. System Attendant is going to add the local computer into the group. The current members of the group are 'CN=RMCMX1,OU=Servers,OU=Rmccomputers,DC=rmc,DC=edu; CN=NAV for Microsoft Exchange-TITAN,CN=Users,DC=rmc,DC=edu; '. The local computer is RMCMX1 and the message says that machine IS a member of the group. What the? Next I get the following error message - Source is MSExchangeSA, category is General and Event ID is 9187: Microsoft Exchange System Attendant failed to add the local computeras a member of the DS group object 'cn=Exchange Domain Servers,cn=Users,dc=rmc,dc=edu'. Please stop all the Microsoft Exchange services, add the local computer into the group manually and restart all the services. When I search the knowledge base I get 1 document that simply states that the Exchange server wont function properly if its not in the Exchange Domain Servers group. The computer account is in that group and I haven't noticed any e-mail problems but I really don't like these messages. I have received these every 15 minutes since October 7. I believe that is the day that I created the OU that the server account is now in. Until then it was in the default computers container but I want to implement uniform auditing and event viewer property policies (through GPOs) on all of my servers so I created the OU referenced in the logs. Has anyone seen this? Is it anything to worry about? Can it be fixed? Thanks all! Jeff Hague Network Manager Randolph-Macon College _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering
Thanks Russell. Good summation. -- From: Andrey Fyodorov Reply To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 10:16 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering Excellent! -Original Message- From: Etts, Russell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 11:15 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering Hi there I have an active\active E2k box and there is only one thing I like about it - it looks good on a resume. Here is why I am not happy with clustering Exchange: If you have a problem with email, you need to see if you have a cluster issue or Exchange issue before you can start to look at your problem. There are extra steps needed to get a front end\back end configuration to work. You cannot have a cluster as the first server in a mixed site becase clustering does not support the SRS service. My cluster LOVES to roll itself (although infrequently) - sometimes with nothing in the event viewer to tell my why. If you ever have to perform a disaster recovery, the cluster is going to make the job that much more complicated Exchange is complex enough without making it more complicated by installing it on a cluster. Learn from our mistake - don't do it. HTH Russell -Original Message- From: Imran Iqbal [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2002 5:36 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering We are currently an Exchange 5.5 site, as part of our move to Exchange 2000 I am considering setting up Exchange on a 2 node Active Active cluster and would be interested in hearing anyone views or real world experiences with similar setups. Each server would have about 800 active users and would probably be connected to a SAN for the shared storage. I have heard that there were memory issues with this setup pre SP3. I would like to know if there are any other problems and if it is worth doing Thanks in advance Imran _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering
I prefer not to mess with Exchange clustering unless a customer insists on having a dedicated Exchange cluster. -Original Message- From: Ed Crowley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 11:35 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering And when you deploy an Exchange cluster, that's exactly what you get! Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP kcCC+I Tech Consultant hp Services Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups! -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Andrey Fyodorov Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 8:15 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering No I am just preparing for the worst-case scenario. -Original Message- From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 11:11 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering If you're basing your life around 4 identical boxes that all experience hardware failures that close together, I suggest you switch hardware vendors. Fast. Keep in mind, too, that A/A/A/P means you're running Datacenter. -- Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity Atlanta, GA -Original Message- From: Andrey Fyodorov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 11:04 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering 3 Storage Groups on each node, right? :) I like the idea of a/a/a/p, but that's a one trick pony. You better hope that the other two nodes are not going to fail soon. -Original Message- From: Great Cthulhu Jones [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 10:59 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering Which meant if you had 3 databases on each cluster, the other active node would fail as soon as it failed to mount one store too many. That's why MS now pushes a/a/a/p clustering. a/a was an unmitigated disaster. (:= -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Andrey Fyodorov Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 9:32 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering No, according to the theory you can get more users on Active/Active because both cluster nodes are being used to do something useful. But if one fails, the other node better be able to take on the load. -Original Message- From: Dennis Depp [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, October 11, 2002 2:50 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering Stay away from active/active. Go Active/passive instead. You can get more users on Active/Passive. Denny -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Imran Iqbal Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2002 5:36 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering We are currently an Exchange 5.5 site, as part of our move to Exchange 2000 I am considering setting up Exchange on a 2 node Active Active cluster and would be interested in hearing anyone views or real world experiences with similar setups. Each server would have about 800 active users and would probably be connected to a SAN for the shared storage. I have heard that there were memory issues with this setup pre SP3. I would like to know if there are any other problems and if it is worth doing Thanks in advance Imran _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Curious Event viewer messages
This one - 'CN=RMCMX1,OU=Servers,OU=Rmccomputers,DC=rmc,DC=edu; ? That is the correct DN. -Original Message- From: Ed Crowley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 11:43 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Curious Event viewer messages The reason I asked is because the distinguishedName shown in the event log doesn't match the OU to which you said you moved the server. Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP kcCC+I Tech Consultant hp Services Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups! -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Hague, Jeff Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 8:37 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Curious Event viewer messages I haven't yet but what the heck... Ill give it a shot and see what happens. Jeff -Original Message- From: Ed Crowley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 11:31 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Curious Event viewer messages Have you tried removing and adding it to the group again? Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP kcCC+I Tech Consultant hp Services Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups! -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Hague, Jeff Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 7:17 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Curious Event viewer messages I have been getting some entries in the event viewer for my Exch2K box (Win2K SP2, Exch2K SP1 member server)lately that I don't understand. Has anyone seen this? First I will see a warning - Source is MSExchangeSA, category is General and Event ID is 9186 - it states: Microsoft Exchange System Attendant has detected that the local computer is not a member of group 'cn=Exchange Domain Servers,cn=Users,dc=rmc,dc=edu'. System Attendant is going to add the local computer into the group. The current members of the group are 'CN=RMCMX1,OU=Servers,OU=Rmccomputers,DC=rmc,DC=edu; CN=NAV for Microsoft Exchange-TITAN,CN=Users,DC=rmc,DC=edu; '. The local computer is RMCMX1 and the message says that machine IS a member of the group. What the? Next I get the following error message - Source is MSExchangeSA, category is General and Event ID is 9187: Microsoft Exchange System Attendant failed to add the local computeras a member of the DS group object 'cn=Exchange Domain Servers,cn=Users,dc=rmc,dc=edu'. Please stop all the Microsoft Exchange services, add the local computer into the group manually and restart all the services. When I search the knowledge base I get 1 document that simply states that the Exchange server wont function properly if its not in the Exchange Domain Servers group. The computer account is in that group and I haven't noticed any e-mail problems but I really don't like these messages. I have received these every 15 minutes since October 7. I believe that is the day that I created the OU that the server account is now in. Until then it was in the default computers container but I want to implement uniform auditing and event viewer property policies (through GPOs) on all of my servers so I created the OU referenced in the logs. Has anyone seen this? Is it anything to worry about? Can it be fixed? Thanks all! Jeff Hague Network Manager Randolph-Macon College _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering
Perhaps it would be better if you educated that customer on better alternatives. Just as an aside, during Tony Redmond's session last week he asked how many in the audience were using clusters and I swear, a third of the people there raised their hands. I would have thought it a lot less. -Original Message- From: Andrey Fyodorov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 11:54 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering I prefer not to mess with Exchange clustering unless a customer insists on having a dedicated Exchange cluster. -Original Message- From: Ed Crowley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 11:35 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering And when you deploy an Exchange cluster, that's exactly what you get! Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP kcCC+I Tech Consultant hp Services Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups! -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Andrey Fyodorov Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 8:15 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering No I am just preparing for the worst-case scenario. -Original Message- From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 11:11 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering If you're basing your life around 4 identical boxes that all experience hardware failures that close together, I suggest you switch hardware vendors. Fast. Keep in mind, too, that A/A/A/P means you're running Datacenter. -- Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity Atlanta, GA -Original Message- From: Andrey Fyodorov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 11:04 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering 3 Storage Groups on each node, right? :) I like the idea of a/a/a/p, but that's a one trick pony. You better hope that the other two nodes are not going to fail soon. -Original Message- From: Great Cthulhu Jones [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 10:59 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering Which meant if you had 3 databases on each cluster, the other active node would fail as soon as it failed to mount one store too many. That's why MS now pushes a/a/a/p clustering. a/a was an unmitigated disaster. (:= -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Andrey Fyodorov Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 9:32 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering No, according to the theory you can get more users on Active/Active because both cluster nodes are being used to do something useful. But if one fails, the other node better be able to take on the load. -Original Message- From: Dennis Depp [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, October 11, 2002 2:50 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering Stay away from active/active. Go Active/passive instead. You can get more users on Active/Passive. Denny -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Imran Iqbal Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2002 5:36 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering We are currently an Exchange 5.5 site, as part of our move to Exchange 2000 I am considering setting up Exchange on a 2 node Active Active cluster and would be interested in hearing anyone views or real world experiences with similar setups. Each server would have about 800 active users and would probably be connected to a SAN for the shared storage. I have heard that there were memory issues with this setup pre SP3. I would like to know if there are any other problems and if it is worth doing Thanks in advance Imran _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives:
RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering
MEC Typical Exchange environment. -Original Message- From: Andy David [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 11:14 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering Perhaps it would be better if you educated that customer on better alternatives. Just as an aside, during Tony Redmond's session last week he asked how many in the audience were using clusters and I swear, a third of the people there raised their hands. I would have thought it a lot less. -Original Message- From: Andrey Fyodorov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 11:54 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering I prefer not to mess with Exchange clustering unless a customer insists on having a dedicated Exchange cluster. -Original Message- From: Ed Crowley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 11:35 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering And when you deploy an Exchange cluster, that's exactly what you get! Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP kcCC+I Tech Consultant hp Services Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups! -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Andrey Fyodorov Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 8:15 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering No I am just preparing for the worst-case scenario. -Original Message- From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 11:11 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering If you're basing your life around 4 identical boxes that all experience hardware failures that close together, I suggest you switch hardware vendors. Fast. Keep in mind, too, that A/A/A/P means you're running Datacenter. -- Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity Atlanta, GA -Original Message- From: Andrey Fyodorov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 11:04 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering 3 Storage Groups on each node, right? :) I like the idea of a/a/a/p, but that's a one trick pony. You better hope that the other two nodes are not going to fail soon. -Original Message- From: Great Cthulhu Jones [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 10:59 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering Which meant if you had 3 databases on each cluster, the other active node would fail as soon as it failed to mount one store too many. That's why MS now pushes a/a/a/p clustering. a/a was an unmitigated disaster. (:= -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Andrey Fyodorov Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 9:32 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering No, according to the theory you can get more users on Active/Active because both cluster nodes are being used to do something useful. But if one fails, the other node better be able to take on the load. -Original Message- From: Dennis Depp [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, October 11, 2002 2:50 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering Stay away from active/active. Go Active/passive instead. You can get more users on Active/Passive. Denny -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Imran Iqbal Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2002 5:36 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering We are currently an Exchange 5.5 site, as part of our move to Exchange 2000 I am considering setting up Exchange on a 2 node Active Active cluster and would be interested in hearing anyone views or real world experiences with similar setups. Each server would have about 800 active users and would probably be connected to a SAN for the shared storage. I have heard that there were memory issues with this setup pre SP3. I would like to know if there are any other problems and if it is worth doing Thanks in advance Imran _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering
To quote the SP3 Deployment guide... If you attempt to restore an SP2 database and log file set to an SP3 server, the database is automatically upgraded before it is mounted. However, if you attempt to restore a database that is older than Exchange 2000 SP2, the upgrade will fail. Thus it looks like you may not need to update the stores. I can't say I have tested this though. -Original Message- From: Andrey Fyodorov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 14 October 2002 15:48 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering ESEUTIL /R ? -Original Message- From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 10:38 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering You run eseutil on the patched node to update the stores to the new version. Then again, you'd have tried this in the test lab first, so you'd know not to do that in production. -- Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity Atlanta, GA -Original Message- From: Andrey Fyodorov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 10:35 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering What happens if you apply a new service pack for Exchange to the passive node and then failover? I mean in some cases the information store files do not work if they don't recongnize the service pack level. (for example if you restore the information store onto an alternate server and the alternate server is not the same version as the original, the information store would not mount) -Original Message- From: Dennis Depp [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, October 11, 2002 3:15 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering I've looked into Exchange Active/Passive clustering for our Exchange 2000 servers. The largest Exchange problem that causes downtime is corruption in the database. I agree with Ed that clustering cannot help in this senario. However, even with high quality hardware, you still have to deal with the 58 security patches and one Windows 2000 service pack that have been issued this year. Granted not all the 58 security patches are Windows 2000 related, but a large number of them are. An active/passive cluster gives me the capability of installing hotfixes and service packs without impacting my Exchange server even for a reboot. Also I can install the hotfixes during the day on the passive node and then failover that evening. If there is a problem, I can fail back to the unpatched node. The reduction in reboots and late hours makes an Active/passive cluster very appealing. However, clusters do add a level of complexity. Unless you understand clusters and how they operate, this added complexity can decrease uptime instead of increase it. Denny -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Ed Crowley Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2002 5:11 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering I think at this stage of its development clustering provides very poor business value. It really protects you from very few failure scenarios. Instead, I'd make sure I had the most highly internally redundant system I could afford, buy a capable recovery and hot standby server, and practice my disaster recovery skills. Ed Crowley MCSE+I MVP Technical Consultant hp Services There are seldom good technological solutions to behavioral problems. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Imran Iqbal Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2002 2:36 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering We are currently an Exchange 5.5 site, as part of our move to Exchange 2000 I am considering setting up Exchange on a 2 node Active Active cluster and would be interested in hearing anyone views or real world experiences with similar setups. Each server would have about 800 active users and would probably be connected to a SAN for the shared storage. I have heard that there were memory issues with this setup pre SP3. I would like to know if there are any other problems and if it is worth doing Thanks in advance Imran _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives:
RE: Permissions to modify mailbox information
So the only way for remote customers to change info in ad would be terminal services?!! I could then grant one person to modify In that ou only?!!! -Original Message- From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, October 11, 2002 3:00 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Permissions to modify mailbox information They need to be online to do it, period. There is no merge replication for those things. You can also put up a web interface. -- Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity Atlanta, GA -Original Message- From: Matt Natkin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, October 11, 2002 1:49 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Permissions to modify mailbox information Ok understand but these people are remote off network using outlook for email client. -Original Message- From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, October 11, 2002 1:03 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Permissions to modify mailbox information Start | Search | for People, find themselves, and then modify the information there. I guess that wasn't clear enough? E2k GAL = Win2k AD -- Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity Atlanta, GA -Original Message- From: Matt Natkin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, October 11, 2002 1:05 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Permissions to modify mailbox information From where..outlook client? -Original Message- From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, October 11, 2002 12:49 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Permissions to modify mailbox information Nope. You can grant the SELF quasi-account permissions to change specific data (in the advanced security options of objects. That gives them permission, then all they need to do is Start | Search | for People, find themselves, and then modify the information there. Giving them Acct Op rights makes it so they can change ANY non-admin user's info. -- Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity Atlanta, GA -Original Message- From: Matt Natkin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, October 11, 2002 12:03 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Permissions to modify mailbox information Looks like the only way you can do this is with terminal services. User would have to be an account operator and thin client in to get to AD to make changes. You would use delegation of control to restrict access. Any one have any better ideas? -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, October 11, 2002 7:53 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Permissions to modify mailbox information Exchange Server 2000 SP2, Windows 2000 SP3 How can I give permissions for 1 user to modify the information displayed in the Gal of all our Exchange Users (address, telephone, ...). I searched TechNet but I only found this tool - GALMOD - for Exchange 5.5. I tried also w2k delegation control wizard, but with no success. Any ideas? Thanks. Rui J.M. Silva [EMAIL PROTECTED] ViaTecla, S.A. http://www.viatecla.pt Tel: (+351) 212723500 Fax: (+351) 212723509 _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List
RE: SMTP connector statistics in E2k
FINALLY There is someone in the world that can truly appreciate how I feel when most users call me!! THANK YOU CTHULHU JONES!! Russell PS - Did you see the new stuffed Christmas Cthulhu yet?? -Original Message- From: Great Cthulhu Jones [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 10:59 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: SMTP connector statistics in E2k Whatever. I'm OLD and I'm CRANKY and I don't give a rat's hairy little ass what Microsoft calls its SMTP these days. You all know what I mean. And don't even get me STARTED on Smart Host. Gag. (:= -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Andrey Fyodorov Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 9:51 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: SMTP connector statistics in E2k Dude, Alexey is talking about Exchange 2000. IMC smells of 5.5 -Original Message- From: Great Cthulhu Jones [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Sunday, October 13, 2002 9:19 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: SMTP connector statistics in E2k Try MSExchangeIMC* things... Total inbound messages and total outbound messages *might* be what you're looking for. Egad, but I feel generous to-day! (:= -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Alexey Sent: Sunday, October 13, 2002 3:09 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: SMTP connector statistics in E2k I couldn't find anything better than MSExchangeMTAConnections, Inbound/Outbound Messages Total. It does not show me all instances of my SMTP connectors though. Alexey _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering
Then you don't need it active anywhere. -- Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity Atlanta, GA -Original Message- From: Andrey Fyodorov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 11:14 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering Only the best. Microsoft DNS, active-directory integrated. :) -Original Message- From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 11:11 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering Only if you have crappy DNS servers. -- Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity Atlanta, GA -Original Message- From: Andrey Fyodorov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 11:10 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering I vaguely remember talking about it in the past. Although we were talking about domain controllers. I thought that on the Exchange server I should still have it running. -Original Message- From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 11:06 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering Just disable the DNS Client service - it only causes problems anyway. -- Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity Atlanta, GA -Original Message- From: Andrey Fyodorov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 10:46 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering I did just that. From personal experience I prefer to reboot the machine after stopping the service (as opposed to simply restarting the services). Sometimes the Information Store service takes hours to stop. And if a full backup is running at the same time (because it got delayed for whatever reason), IS will never stop. There was a period of time when I had to restart the back-end Exchange server every night after applying SP2. Otherwise OWA refused to work correctly the following day. But then I discovered that doing ipconfig /flushdns once in a while solved that problem. -Original Message- From: Great Cthulhu Jones [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Saturday, October 12, 2002 9:02 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering Heck, just write a batch file that stops all services and bounces the box Sunday at 2AM and you don't even have to call it in to an operator. Five nines, indeed. The box only really needs to be up when people are using it. (:= -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Ed Crowley Sent: Friday, October 11, 2002 9:00 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering It's a pretty steep price to pay to avoid an occasional Sunday morning reboot. Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP kcCC+I Tech Consultant hp Services Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups! -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Dennis Depp Sent: Friday, October 11, 2002 12:15 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering I've looked into Exchange Active/Passive clustering for our Exchange 2000 servers. The largest Exchange problem that causes downtime is corruption in the database. I agree with Ed that clustering cannot help in this senario. However, even with high quality hardware, you still have to deal with the 58 security patches and one Windows 2000 service pack that have been issued this year. Granted not all the 58 security patches are Windows 2000 related, but a large number of them are. An active/passive cluster gives me the capability of installing hotfixes and service packs without impacting my Exchange server even for a reboot. Also I can install the hotfixes during the day on the passive node and then failover that evening. If there is a problem, I can fail back to the unpatched node. The reduction in reboots and late hours makes an Active/passive cluster very appealing. However, clusters do add a level of complexity. Unless you understand clusters and how they operate, this added complexity can decrease uptime instead of increase it. Denny
RE: Permissions to modify mailbox information
Where in any of my posts did I mention Terminal Services? I'd suggest a web front end, or possibly scripted. Not TS, as that's insanely cost ineffective. Thomas Eck's book on ADSI management covers much of this already. -- Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity Atlanta, GA -Original Message- From: Matt Natkin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 1:31 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Permissions to modify mailbox information So the only way for remote customers to change info in ad would be terminal services?!! I could then grant one person to modify In that ou only?!!! -Original Message- From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, October 11, 2002 3:00 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Permissions to modify mailbox information They need to be online to do it, period. There is no merge replication for those things. You can also put up a web interface. -- Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity Atlanta, GA -Original Message- From: Matt Natkin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, October 11, 2002 1:49 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Permissions to modify mailbox information Ok understand but these people are remote off network using outlook for email client. -Original Message- From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, October 11, 2002 1:03 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Permissions to modify mailbox information Start | Search | for People, find themselves, and then modify the information there. I guess that wasn't clear enough? E2k GAL = Win2k AD -- Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity Atlanta, GA -Original Message- From: Matt Natkin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, October 11, 2002 1:05 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Permissions to modify mailbox information From where..outlook client? -Original Message- From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, October 11, 2002 12:49 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Permissions to modify mailbox information Nope. You can grant the SELF quasi-account permissions to change specific data (in the advanced security options of objects. That gives them permission, then all they need to do is Start | Search | for People, find themselves, and then modify the information there. Giving them Acct Op rights makes it so they can change ANY non-admin user's info. -- Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity Atlanta, GA -Original Message- From: Matt Natkin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, October 11, 2002 12:03 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Permissions to modify mailbox information Looks like the only way you can do this is with terminal services. User would have to be an account operator and thin client in to get to AD to make changes. You would use delegation of control to restrict access. Any one have any better ideas? -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, October 11, 2002 7:53 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Permissions to modify mailbox information Exchange Server 2000 SP2, Windows 2000 SP3 How can I give permissions for 1 user to modify the information displayed in the Gal of all our Exchange Users (address, telephone, ...). I searched TechNet but I only found this tool - GALMOD - for Exchange 5.5. I tried also w2k delegation control wizard, but with no success. Any ideas? Thanks. Rui J.M. Silva [EMAIL PROTECTED] ViaTecla, S.A. http://www.viatecla.pt Tel: (+351) 212723500 Fax: (+351) 212723509 _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe:
E2K question
Answer pelase. I think it's A. Your Exchange 2000 Server has a single storage group containing three Mailbox Stores and a Public Folder Store. You perform nightly backups that alter between a normal backup of two of the Mailbox Stores on one night and a normal backup of the other Mailbox Store and Public Folder Store on the following night. You notice that transaction log files are not being purged, and that they are now consuming nearly all available disk space. What should be done? a. Disable circular logging. b. Install a new hard disk and move the transaction log files to the new disk. c. Perform nightly incremental backups of the entire Storage Group in addition to the current backups. d. Perform differential backups of the Mailbox Stores and the Public Folder Store instead of normal backups. _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Phonelist
I found the code on CDOLive for making a phonelist from the GAL, but it doesn't work with E2K. Is anyone else doing this on E2K and how? Tara _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Shutting Down 5.5
I have seen arguments both ways and am interested in the list's perspective. My predecessor here has it drilled into everyone that you have to use his batch script to stop Exchange services in a certain order. I know the info store stopping cleanly is the biggest one you want. Has anyone seen or use something like this to shut down the services in a certain order vs. letting NT take them down in the dependency order upon shutdown? _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: E2K question
e. perform full online nightly backups of entire storage group. :o) William -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of John Q Jr. Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 11:18 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: E2K question Answer pelase. I think it's A. Your Exchange 2000 Server has a single storage group containing three Mailbox Stores and a Public Folder Store. You perform nightly backups that alter between a normal backup of two of the Mailbox Stores on one night and a normal backup of the other Mailbox Store and Public Folder Store on the following night. You notice that transaction log files are not being purged, and that they are now consuming nearly all available disk space. What should be done? a. Disable circular logging. b. Install a new hard disk and move the transaction log files to the new disk. c. Perform nightly incremental backups of the entire Storage Group in addition to the current backups. d. Perform differential backups of the Mailbox Stores and the Public Folder Store instead of normal backups. _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Shutting Down 5.5
Same thing to me. Actually, I have used: net stop MSExchangeSA /y net stop MSExchangeSA /y net stop MSExchangeSA /y There. Stopped in order. William Lefkovics, MCSE-NT4, MCSE-W2K, A+, WLKMMAS, ExchangeMVP -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Chris H Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 11:50 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Shutting Down 5.5 I have seen arguments both ways and am interested in the list's perspective. My predecessor here has it drilled into everyone that you have to use his batch script to stop Exchange services in a certain order. I know the info store stopping cleanly is the biggest one you want. Has anyone seen or use something like this to shut down the services in a certain order vs. letting NT take them down in the dependency order upon shutdown? _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Shutting Down 5.5
Well, when E55 first came out, it used to take FOREVER to shut down when exiting Windows. That has gone away. I don't see anything wrong with manually shutting down the services, but all you have to do is stop the SA service. Everything else will follow automatically. Either way... -Original Message- From: Chris H [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 11:50 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Shutting Down 5.5 I have seen arguments both ways and am interested in the list's perspective. My predecessor here has it drilled into everyone that you have to use his batch script to stop Exchange services in a certain order. I know the info store stopping cleanly is the biggest one you want. Has anyone seen or use something like this to shut down the services in a certain order vs. letting NT take them down in the dependency order upon shutdown? _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Phonelist
Try using ADSI scrip routine. There are many How To's on MS's web site - Original Message - From: Stephens, Tara [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 1:41 PM Subject: Phonelist I found the code on CDOLive for making a phonelist from the GAL, but it doesn't work with E2K. Is anyone else doing this on E2K and how? Tara _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: E2K question
How about: E) None of the above Of course, the correct answer is: F) stop asking test questions in a technical support forum. (please also see E above). -- Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity Atlanta, GA -Original Message- From: John Q Jr. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 2:18 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: E2K question Answer pelase. I think it's A. Your Exchange 2000 Server has a single storage group containing three Mailbox Stores and a Public Folder Store. You perform nightly backups that alter between a normal backup of two of the Mailbox Stores on one night and a normal backup of the other Mailbox Store and Public Folder Store on the following night. You notice that transaction log files are not being purged, and that they are now consuming nearly all available disk space. What should be done? a. Disable circular logging. b. Install a new hard disk and move the transaction log files to the new disk. c. Perform nightly incremental backups of the entire Storage Group in addition to the current backups. d. Perform differential backups of the Mailbox Stores and the Public Folder Store instead of normal backups. _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: SMTP connector statistics in E2k
Humm.. Another BCOfH. John Matteson Geac Corporate ISS (404) 239 - 2981 Atlanta, Georgia, USA. -Original Message- From: Etts, Russell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 1:41 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: SMTP connector statistics in E2k FINALLY There is someone in the world that can truly appreciate how I feel when most users call me!! THANK YOU CTHULHU JONES!! Russell PS - Did you see the new stuffed Christmas Cthulhu yet?? -Original Message- From: Great Cthulhu Jones [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 10:59 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: SMTP connector statistics in E2k Whatever. I'm OLD and I'm CRANKY and I don't give a rat's hairy little ass what Microsoft calls its SMTP these days. You all know what I mean. And don't even get me STARTED on Smart Host. Gag. (:= -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Andrey Fyodorov Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 9:51 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: SMTP connector statistics in E2k Dude, Alexey is talking about Exchange 2000. IMC smells of 5.5 -Original Message- From: Great Cthulhu Jones [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Sunday, October 13, 2002 9:19 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: SMTP connector statistics in E2k Try MSExchangeIMC* things... Total inbound messages and total outbound messages *might* be what you're looking for. Egad, but I feel generous to-day! (:= -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Alexey Sent: Sunday, October 13, 2002 3:09 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: SMTP connector statistics in E2k I couldn't find anything better than MSExchangeMTAConnections, Inbound/Outbound Messages Total. It does not show me all instances of my SMTP connectors though. Alexey _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Phonelist
Serve it up with some fava beans and a nice chiante -Original Message- From: Tony Hlabse [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 12:19 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Re: Phonelist Try using ADSI scrip routine. There are many How To's on MS's web site - Original Message - From: Stephens, Tara [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 1:41 PM Subject: Phonelist I found the code on CDOLive for making a phonelist from the GAL, but it doesn't work with E2K. Is anyone else doing this on E2K and how? Tara _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering
Then why cluster? To me, it's a marketing gimmick. Make the business function seem much more important than it actually is, in order to justify overspending of an obscene degree. Good hardware, good maintenance, good planning, and good usage practices will serve most organizations just fine. (:= -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Andrey Fyodorov Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 10:04 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering 3 Storage Groups on each node, right? :) I like the idea of a/a/a/p, but that's a one trick pony. You better hope that the other two nodes are not going to fail soon. -Original Message- From: Great Cthulhu Jones [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 10:59 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering Which meant if you had 3 databases on each cluster, the other active node would fail as soon as it failed to mount one store too many. That's why MS now pushes a/a/a/p clustering. a/a was an unmitigated disaster. (:= -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Andrey Fyodorov Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 9:32 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering No, according to the theory you can get more users on Active/Active because both cluster nodes are being used to do something useful. But if one fails, the other node better be able to take on the load. -Original Message- From: Dennis Depp [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, October 11, 2002 2:50 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering Stay away from active/active. Go Active/passive instead. You can get more users on Active/Passive. Denny -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Imran Iqbal Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2002 5:36 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering We are currently an Exchange 5.5 site, as part of our move to Exchange 2000 I am considering setting up Exchange on a 2 node Active Active cluster and would be interested in hearing anyone views or real world experiences with similar setups. Each server would have about 800 active users and would probably be connected to a SAN for the shared storage. I have heard that there were memory issues with this setup pre SP3. I would like to know if there are any other problems and if it is worth doing Thanks in advance Imran _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Server migration
Thanks guys. But I learned we have to have AD installed before we can go to E2K. True? Regards, Orin Orin Rehorst Port of Houston Authority (Largest U.S. port in foreign tonnage) e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Phone: (713)670-2443 Fax: (713)670-2457 TOPAS web site: www.homestead.com/topas/topas.html -Original Message- From: Uso [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Sunday, October 13, 2002 10:06 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Re: Server migration Same what Tony H. sayed. - Original Message - From: Orin Rehorst [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, October 13, 2002 6:35 PM Subject: Server migration Using 5.5 (14 GB) on NT. Have new server with Win2k. Want new server to have 4 Exchange databases for faster restores to recover a mailbox. What is best way to migrate? a. Move mailboxes to 5.5 on new server, then upgrade to E2K. b. Move mailboxes to E2K. Pls advise. TIA Orin Rehorst _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Server migration
No tickie no washie - Original Message - From: Orin Rehorst [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 2:36 PM Subject: RE: Server migration Thanks guys. But I learned we have to have AD installed before we can go to E2K. True? Regards, Orin Orin Rehorst Port of Houston Authority (Largest U.S. port in foreign tonnage) e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Phone: (713)670-2443 Fax: (713)670-2457 TOPAS web site: www.homestead.com/topas/topas.html -Original Message- From: Uso [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Sunday, October 13, 2002 10:06 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Re: Server migration Same what Tony H. sayed. - Original Message - From: Orin Rehorst [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, October 13, 2002 6:35 PM Subject: Server migration Using 5.5 (14 GB) on NT. Have new server with Win2k. Want new server to have 4 Exchange databases for faster restores to recover a mailbox. What is best way to migrate? a. Move mailboxes to 5.5 on new server, then upgrade to E2K. b. Move mailboxes to E2K. Pls advise. TIA Orin Rehorst _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Server migration
Very much true, yes. -Original Message- From: Orin Rehorst [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 2:36 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Server migration Thanks guys. But I learned we have to have AD installed before we can go to E2K. True? Regards, Orin Orin Rehorst Port of Houston Authority (Largest U.S. port in foreign tonnage) e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Phone: (713)670-2443 Fax: (713)670-2457 TOPAS web site: www.homestead.com/topas/topas.html -Original Message- From: Uso [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Sunday, October 13, 2002 10:06 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Re: Server migration Same what Tony H. sayed. - Original Message - From: Orin Rehorst [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, October 13, 2002 6:35 PM Subject: Server migration Using 5.5 (14 GB) on NT. Have new server with Win2k. Want new server to have 4 Exchange databases for faster restores to recover a mailbox. What is best way to migrate? a. Move mailboxes to 5.5 on new server, then upgrade to E2K. b. Move mailboxes to E2K. Pls advise. TIA Orin Rehorst _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: E2K question
- Original Message - From: William Lefkovics [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 2:01 PM Subject: RE: E2K question e. perform full online nightly backups of entire storage group. :o) William -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of John Q Jr. Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 11:18 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: E2K question Answer pelase. I think it's A. Your Exchange 2000 Server has a single storage group containing three Mailbox Stores and a Public Folder Store. You perform nightly backups that alter between a normal backup of two of the Mailbox Stores on one night and a normal backup of the other Mailbox Store and Public Folder Store on the following night. You notice that transaction log files are not being purged, and that they are now consuming nearly all available disk space. What should be done? a. Disable circular logging. b. Install a new hard disk and move the transaction log files to the new disk. c. Perform nightly incremental backups of the entire Storage Group in addition to the current backups. d. Perform differential backups of the Mailbox Stores and the Public Folder Store instead of normal backups. _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: E2K question
Are you e-mailing straight from the testing facility? -Original Message- From: John Q Jr. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 2:18 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: E2K question Answer pelase. I think it's A. Your Exchange 2000 Server has a single storage group containing three Mailbox Stores and a Public Folder Store. You perform nightly backups that alter between a normal backup of two of the Mailbox Stores on one night and a normal backup of the other Mailbox Store and Public Folder Store on the following night. You notice that transaction log files are not being purged, and that they are now consuming nearly all available disk space. What should be done? a. Disable circular logging. b. Install a new hard disk and move the transaction log files to the new disk. c. Perform nightly incremental backups of the entire Storage Group in addition to the current backups. d. Perform differential backups of the Mailbox Stores and the Public Folder Store instead of normal backups. _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bulk creating Exchange 2000 mailboxes with CSVDE or ???
I have a test server that I am trying to create a bunch of mailboxes (user1, user2, [EMAIL PROTECTED]) in order to do some benchmarking on the server. All I want to do is create mailboxes with unique email addresses (which requires an accompanying AD user account I believe) and I would like to also give them some default password if possible. I have been experimenting with CSVDE but so far I have only created disabled accounts which have no exchange mailbox. Does anyone know what the minimum amount of info I can put in the CSV file to accomplish this? Tom Alverson _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: E2K question
I won't tell you the answer but I can tell you where to look. Try the Disaster Recovery for Exchange 2000 paper from Ms. Learn it and know it. - Original Message - From: Andrey Fyodorov [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 2:46 PM Subject: RE: E2K question Are you e-mailing straight from the testing facility? -Original Message- From: John Q Jr. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 2:18 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: E2K question Answer pelase. I think it's A. Your Exchange 2000 Server has a single storage group containing three Mailbox Stores and a Public Folder Store. You perform nightly backups that alter between a normal backup of two of the Mailbox Stores on one night and a normal backup of the other Mailbox Store and Public Folder Store on the following night. You notice that transaction log files are not being purged, and that they are now consuming nearly all available disk space. What should be done? a. Disable circular logging. b. Install a new hard disk and move the transaction log files to the new disk. c. Perform nightly incremental backups of the entire Storage Group in addition to the current backups. d. Perform differential backups of the Mailbox Stores and the Public Folder Store instead of normal backups. _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering
When a customer wants it AND wants to pay money for it... customer is always right. :) Customers hate when one proves them wrong. -Original Message- From: Andy David [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 12:14 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering Perhaps it would be better if you educated that customer on better alternatives. Just as an aside, during Tony Redmond's session last week he asked how many in the audience were using clusters and I swear, a third of the people there raised their hands. I would have thought it a lot less. -Original Message- From: Andrey Fyodorov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 11:54 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering I prefer not to mess with Exchange clustering unless a customer insists on having a dedicated Exchange cluster. -Original Message- From: Ed Crowley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 11:35 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering And when you deploy an Exchange cluster, that's exactly what you get! Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP kcCC+I Tech Consultant hp Services Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups! -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Andrey Fyodorov Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 8:15 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering No I am just preparing for the worst-case scenario. -Original Message- From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 11:11 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering If you're basing your life around 4 identical boxes that all experience hardware failures that close together, I suggest you switch hardware vendors. Fast. Keep in mind, too, that A/A/A/P means you're running Datacenter. -- Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity Atlanta, GA -Original Message- From: Andrey Fyodorov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 11:04 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering 3 Storage Groups on each node, right? :) I like the idea of a/a/a/p, but that's a one trick pony. You better hope that the other two nodes are not going to fail soon. -Original Message- From: Great Cthulhu Jones [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 10:59 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering Which meant if you had 3 databases on each cluster, the other active node would fail as soon as it failed to mount one store too many. That's why MS now pushes a/a/a/p clustering. a/a was an unmitigated disaster. (:= -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Andrey Fyodorov Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 9:32 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering No, according to the theory you can get more users on Active/Active because both cluster nodes are being used to do something useful. But if one fails, the other node better be able to take on the load. -Original Message- From: Dennis Depp [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, October 11, 2002 2:50 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering Stay away from active/active. Go Active/passive instead. You can get more users on Active/Passive. Denny -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Imran Iqbal Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2002 5:36 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering We are currently an Exchange 5.5 site, as part of our move to Exchange 2000 I am considering setting up Exchange on a 2 node Active Active cluster and would be interested in hearing anyone views or real world experiences with similar setups. Each server would have about 800 active users and would probably be connected to a SAN for the shared storage. I have heard that there were memory issues with this setup pre SP3. I would like to know if there are any other problems and if it is worth doing Thanks in advance Imran _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering
MEC = a lot of non-Exchange aware managers who came there on a habitual basis. -Original Message- From: Chris Scharff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 12:42 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering MEC Typical Exchange environment. -Original Message- From: Andy David [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 11:14 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering Perhaps it would be better if you educated that customer on better alternatives. Just as an aside, during Tony Redmond's session last week he asked how many in the audience were using clusters and I swear, a third of the people there raised their hands. I would have thought it a lot less. -Original Message- From: Andrey Fyodorov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 11:54 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering I prefer not to mess with Exchange clustering unless a customer insists on having a dedicated Exchange cluster. -Original Message- From: Ed Crowley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 11:35 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering And when you deploy an Exchange cluster, that's exactly what you get! Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP kcCC+I Tech Consultant hp Services Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups! -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Andrey Fyodorov Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 8:15 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering No I am just preparing for the worst-case scenario. -Original Message- From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 11:11 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering If you're basing your life around 4 identical boxes that all experience hardware failures that close together, I suggest you switch hardware vendors. Fast. Keep in mind, too, that A/A/A/P means you're running Datacenter. -- Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity Atlanta, GA -Original Message- From: Andrey Fyodorov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 11:04 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering 3 Storage Groups on each node, right? :) I like the idea of a/a/a/p, but that's a one trick pony. You better hope that the other two nodes are not going to fail soon. -Original Message- From: Great Cthulhu Jones [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 10:59 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering Which meant if you had 3 databases on each cluster, the other active node would fail as soon as it failed to mount one store too many. That's why MS now pushes a/a/a/p clustering. a/a was an unmitigated disaster. (:= -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Andrey Fyodorov Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 9:32 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering No, according to the theory you can get more users on Active/Active because both cluster nodes are being used to do something useful. But if one fails, the other node better be able to take on the load. -Original Message- From: Dennis Depp [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, October 11, 2002 2:50 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering Stay away from active/active. Go Active/passive instead. You can get more users on Active/Passive. Denny -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Imran Iqbal Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2002 5:36 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering We are currently an Exchange 5.5 site, as part of our move to Exchange 2000 I am considering setting up Exchange on a 2 node Active Active cluster and would be interested in hearing anyone views or real world experiences with similar setups. Each server would have about 800 active users and would probably be connected to a SAN for the shared storage. I have heard that there were memory issues with this setup pre SP3. I would like to know if there are any other problems and if it is worth doing Thanks in advance Imran _ List
RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering
Of course on outside we have Bind DNS. But for internal use within the AD - AD's own DNS. -Original Message- From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 1:45 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering Then you don't need it active anywhere. -- Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity Atlanta, GA -Original Message- From: Andrey Fyodorov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 11:14 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering Only the best. Microsoft DNS, active-directory integrated. :) -Original Message- From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 11:11 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering Only if you have crappy DNS servers. -- Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity Atlanta, GA -Original Message- From: Andrey Fyodorov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 11:10 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering I vaguely remember talking about it in the past. Although we were talking about domain controllers. I thought that on the Exchange server I should still have it running. -Original Message- From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 11:06 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering Just disable the DNS Client service - it only causes problems anyway. -- Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity Atlanta, GA -Original Message- From: Andrey Fyodorov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 10:46 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering I did just that. From personal experience I prefer to reboot the machine after stopping the service (as opposed to simply restarting the services). Sometimes the Information Store service takes hours to stop. And if a full backup is running at the same time (because it got delayed for whatever reason), IS will never stop. There was a period of time when I had to restart the back-end Exchange server every night after applying SP2. Otherwise OWA refused to work correctly the following day. But then I discovered that doing ipconfig /flushdns once in a while solved that problem. -Original Message- From: Great Cthulhu Jones [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Saturday, October 12, 2002 9:02 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering Heck, just write a batch file that stops all services and bounces the box Sunday at 2AM and you don't even have to call it in to an operator. Five nines, indeed. The box only really needs to be up when people are using it. (:= -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Ed Crowley Sent: Friday, October 11, 2002 9:00 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering It's a pretty steep price to pay to avoid an occasional Sunday morning reboot. Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP kcCC+I Tech Consultant hp Services Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups! -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Dennis Depp Sent: Friday, October 11, 2002 12:15 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering I've looked into Exchange Active/Passive clustering for our Exchange 2000 servers. The largest Exchange problem that causes downtime is corruption in the database. I agree with Ed that clustering cannot help in this senario. However, even with high quality hardware, you still have to deal with the 58 security patches and one Windows 2000 service pack that have been issued this year. Granted not all the 58 security patches are Windows 2000 related, but a large number of them are. An active/passive cluster gives me the capability of installing hotfixes and service packs without impacting my Exchange server even for a reboot. Also I can install the hotfixes during the day on the passive node and then failover that evening. If there is a problem, I can fail back to the unpatched node. The
Re: Bulk creating Exchange 2000 mailboxes with CSVDE or ???
There may be a way via scripting but have found that there are many 3rd party apps. that do this very easily. the tough part was importing the password itself. The 3rd party apps. let you use csv files. But maybe someone else has done this. - Original Message - From: Alverson, Tom [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 2:48 PM Subject: Bulk creating Exchange 2000 mailboxes with CSVDE or ??? I have a test server that I am trying to create a bunch of mailboxes (user1, user2, [EMAIL PROTECTED]) in order to do some benchmarking on the server. All I want to do is create mailboxes with unique email addresses (which requires an accompanying AD user account I believe) and I would like to also give them some default password if possible. I have been experimenting with CSVDE but so far I have only created disabled accounts which have no exchange mailbox. Does anyone know what the minimum amount of info I can put in the CSV file to accomplish this? Tom Alverson _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Bulk creating Exchange 2000 mailboxes with CSVDE or ???
I'd hate to have to buy a 3rd party app (usually ) just to do some testing Tom -Original Message- From: Tony Hlabse [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 3:53 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Re: Bulk creating Exchange 2000 mailboxes with CSVDE or ??? There may be a way via scripting but have found that there are many 3rd party apps. that do this very easily. the tough part was importing the password itself. The 3rd party apps. let you use csv files. But maybe someone else has done this. - Original Message - From: Alverson, Tom [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 2:48 PM Subject: Bulk creating Exchange 2000 mailboxes with CSVDE or ??? I have a test server that I am trying to create a bunch of mailboxes (user1, user2, [EMAIL PROTECTED]) in order to do some benchmarking on the server. All I want to do is create mailboxes with unique email addresses (which requires an accompanying AD user account I believe) and I would like to also give them some default password if possible. I have been experimenting with CSVDE but so far I have only created disabled accounts which have no exchange mailbox. Does anyone know what the minimum amount of info I can put in the CSV file to accomplish this? Tom Alverson _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: E2K question
Is Ms. Learnit a good teacher? William -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Tony Hlabse Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 12:48 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Re: E2K question I won't tell you the answer but I can tell you where to look. Try the Disaster Recovery for Exchange 2000 paper from Ms. Learn it and know it. - Original Message - From: Andrey Fyodorov [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 2:46 PM Subject: RE: E2K question Are you e-mailing straight from the testing facility? -Original Message- From: John Q Jr. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 2:18 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: E2K question Answer pelase. I think it's A. Your Exchange 2000 Server has a single storage group containing three Mailbox Stores and a Public Folder Store. You perform nightly backups that alter between a normal backup of two of the Mailbox Stores on one night and a normal backup of the other Mailbox Store and Public Folder Store on the following night. You notice that transaction log files are not being purged, and that they are now consuming nearly all available disk space. What should be done? a. Disable circular logging. b. Install a new hard disk and move the transaction log files to the new disk. c. Perform nightly incremental backups of the entire Storage Group in addition to the current backups. d. Perform differential backups of the Mailbox Stores and the Public Folder Store instead of normal backups. _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: E2K question
What about Ms. Knowit?? Mike -Original Message- From: William Lefkovics [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 1:56 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: E2K question Is Ms. Learnit a good teacher? William -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Tony Hlabse Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 12:48 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Re: E2K question I won't tell you the answer but I can tell you where to look. Try the Disaster Recovery for Exchange 2000 paper from Ms. Learn it and know it. - Original Message - From: Andrey Fyodorov [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 2:46 PM Subject: RE: E2K question Are you e-mailing straight from the testing facility? -Original Message- From: John Q Jr. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 2:18 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: E2K question Answer pelase. I think it's A. Your Exchange 2000 Server has a single storage group containing three Mailbox Stores and a Public Folder Store. You perform nightly backups that alter between a normal backup of two of the Mailbox Stores on one night and a normal backup of the other Mailbox Store and Public Folder Store on the following night. You notice that transaction log files are not being purged, and that they are now consuming nearly all available disk space. What should be done? a. Disable circular logging. b. Install a new hard disk and move the transaction log files to the new disk. c. Perform nightly incremental backups of the entire Storage Group in addition to the current backups. d. Perform differential backups of the Mailbox Stores and the Public Folder Store instead of normal backups. _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: E2K question
She's been stood up by Mr. Knowit-All --Gary -Original Message- From: Hutchins, Mike [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 12:58 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: E2K question What about Ms. Knowit?? Mike -Original Message- From: William Lefkovics [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 1:56 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: E2K question Is Ms. Learnit a good teacher? William -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Tony Hlabse Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 12:48 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Re: E2K question I won't tell you the answer but I can tell you where to look. Try the Disaster Recovery for Exchange 2000 paper from Ms. Learn it and know it. - Original Message - From: Andrey Fyodorov [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 2:46 PM Subject: RE: E2K question Are you e-mailing straight from the testing facility? -Original Message- From: John Q Jr. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 2:18 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: E2K question Answer pelase. I think it's A. Your Exchange 2000 Server has a single storage group containing three Mailbox Stores and a Public Folder Store. You perform nightly backups that alter between a normal backup of two of the Mailbox Stores on one night and a normal backup of the other Mailbox Store and Public Folder Store on the following night. You notice that transaction log files are not being purged, and that they are now consuming nearly all available disk space. What should be done? a. Disable circular logging. b. Install a new hard disk and move the transaction log files to the new disk. c. Perform nightly incremental backups of the entire Storage Group in addition to the current backups. d. Perform differential backups of the Mailbox Stores and the Public Folder Store instead of normal backups. _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering
My passive/passive/passive/passive Datacenter cluster has a perfect 100% downtime. Top that, I say! We even keep the power cables in a separate area to prevent any accidental uptime. (:= -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Roger Seielstad Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 12:45 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering Then you don't need it active anywhere. -- Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity Atlanta, GA -Original Message- From: Andrey Fyodorov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 11:14 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering Only the best. Microsoft DNS, active-directory integrated. :) -Original Message- From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 11:11 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering Only if you have crappy DNS servers. -- Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity Atlanta, GA -Original Message- From: Andrey Fyodorov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 11:10 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering I vaguely remember talking about it in the past. Although we were talking about domain controllers. I thought that on the Exchange server I should still have it running. -Original Message- From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 11:06 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering Just disable the DNS Client service - it only causes problems anyway. -- Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity Atlanta, GA -Original Message- From: Andrey Fyodorov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 10:46 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering I did just that. From personal experience I prefer to reboot the machine after stopping the service (as opposed to simply restarting the services). Sometimes the Information Store service takes hours to stop. And if a full backup is running at the same time (because it got delayed for whatever reason), IS will never stop. There was a period of time when I had to restart the back-end Exchange server every night after applying SP2. Otherwise OWA refused to work correctly the following day. But then I discovered that doing ipconfig /flushdns once in a while solved that problem. -Original Message- From: Great Cthulhu Jones [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Saturday, October 12, 2002 9:02 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering Heck, just write a batch file that stops all services and bounces the box Sunday at 2AM and you don't even have to call it in to an operator. Five nines, indeed. The box only really needs to be up when people are using it. (:= -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Ed Crowley Sent: Friday, October 11, 2002 9:00 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering It's a pretty steep price to pay to avoid an occasional Sunday morning reboot. Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP kcCC+I Tech Consultant hp Services Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups! -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Dennis Depp Sent: Friday, October 11, 2002 12:15 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering I've looked into Exchange Active/Passive clustering for our Exchange 2000 servers. The largest Exchange problem that causes downtime is corruption in the database. I agree with Ed that clustering cannot help in this senario. However, even with high quality hardware, you still have to deal with the 58 security patches and one Windows 2000 service pack that have been issued this year. Granted not all the 58 security patches are Windows 2000 related, but a large number of them are. An active/passive cluster gives me the capability of installing hotfixes and service packs without impacting my Exchange server even for a reboot. Also I can install the hotfixes during the day on the passive node and then failover that evening. If there is a
RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering
A tootsie roll? My bad... I got the threads crossed, there... (:= -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Ed Crowley Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 10:35 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering And when you deploy an Exchange cluster, that's exactly what you get! Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP kcCC+I Tech Consultant hp Services Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups! -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Andrey Fyodorov Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 8:15 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering No I am just preparing for the worst-case scenario. -Original Message- From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 11:11 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering If you're basing your life around 4 identical boxes that all experience hardware failures that close together, I suggest you switch hardware vendors. Fast. Keep in mind, too, that A/A/A/P means you're running Datacenter. -- Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity Atlanta, GA -Original Message- From: Andrey Fyodorov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 11:04 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering 3 Storage Groups on each node, right? :) I like the idea of a/a/a/p, but that's a one trick pony. You better hope that the other two nodes are not going to fail soon. -Original Message- From: Great Cthulhu Jones [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 10:59 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering Which meant if you had 3 databases on each cluster, the other active node would fail as soon as it failed to mount one store too many. That's why MS now pushes a/a/a/p clustering. a/a was an unmitigated disaster. (:= -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Andrey Fyodorov Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 9:32 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering No, according to the theory you can get more users on Active/Active because both cluster nodes are being used to do something useful. But if one fails, the other node better be able to take on the load. -Original Message- From: Dennis Depp [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, October 11, 2002 2:50 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering Stay away from active/active. Go Active/passive instead. You can get more users on Active/Passive. Denny -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Imran Iqbal Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2002 5:36 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering We are currently an Exchange 5.5 site, as part of our move to Exchange 2000 I am considering setting up Exchange on a 2 node Active Active cluster and would be interested in hearing anyone views or real world experiences with similar setups. Each server would have about 800 active users and would probably be connected to a SAN for the shared storage. I have heard that there were memory issues with this setup pre SP3. I would like to know if there are any other problems and if it is worth doing Thanks in advance Imran _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List
RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering
As a customer, I appreciate when I'm shown that I was wrong when planning to spend 100% more than I have to. Makes me want to use that provider again. -- Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity Atlanta, GA -Original Message- From: Andrey Fyodorov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 3:49 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering When a customer wants it AND wants to pay money for it... customer is always right. :) Customers hate when one proves them wrong. -Original Message- From: Andy David [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 12:14 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering Perhaps it would be better if you educated that customer on better alternatives. Just as an aside, during Tony Redmond's session last week he asked how many in the audience were using clusters and I swear, a third of the people there raised their hands. I would have thought it a lot less. -Original Message- From: Andrey Fyodorov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 11:54 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering I prefer not to mess with Exchange clustering unless a customer insists on having a dedicated Exchange cluster. -Original Message- From: Ed Crowley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 11:35 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering And when you deploy an Exchange cluster, that's exactly what you get! Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP kcCC+I Tech Consultant hp Services Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups! -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Andrey Fyodorov Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 8:15 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering No I am just preparing for the worst-case scenario. -Original Message- From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 11:11 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering If you're basing your life around 4 identical boxes that all experience hardware failures that close together, I suggest you switch hardware vendors. Fast. Keep in mind, too, that A/A/A/P means you're running Datacenter. -- Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity Atlanta, GA -Original Message- From: Andrey Fyodorov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 11:04 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering 3 Storage Groups on each node, right? :) I like the idea of a/a/a/p, but that's a one trick pony. You better hope that the other two nodes are not going to fail soon. -Original Message- From: Great Cthulhu Jones [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 10:59 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering Which meant if you had 3 databases on each cluster, the other active node would fail as soon as it failed to mount one store too many. That's why MS now pushes a/a/a/p clustering. a/a was an unmitigated disaster. (:= -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Andrey Fyodorov Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 9:32 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering No, according to the theory you can get more users on Active/Active because both cluster nodes are being used to do something useful. But if one fails, the other node better be able to take on the load. -Original Message- From: Dennis Depp [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, October 11, 2002 2:50 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering Stay away from active/active. Go Active/passive instead. You can get more users on Active/Passive. Denny -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Imran Iqbal Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2002 5:36 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering We are currently an Exchange 5.5 site, as part of our move to Exchange 2000 I am considering setting up Exchange on a 2 node Active Active cluster and would be interested in hearing anyone views or real world experiences with similar setups. Each server would have about 800 active users
Re: E2K question
Rough crowd today. Still must be an MEC effect going on. - Original Message - From: Hutchins, Mike [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 2:57 PM Subject: RE: E2K question What about Ms. Knowit?? Mike -Original Message- From: William Lefkovics [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 1:56 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: E2K question Is Ms. Learnit a good teacher? William -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Tony Hlabse Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 12:48 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Re: E2K question I won't tell you the answer but I can tell you where to look. Try the Disaster Recovery for Exchange 2000 paper from Ms. Learn it and know it. - Original Message - From: Andrey Fyodorov [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 2:46 PM Subject: RE: E2K question Are you e-mailing straight from the testing facility? -Original Message- From: John Q Jr. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 2:18 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: E2K question Answer pelase. I think it's A. Your Exchange 2000 Server has a single storage group containing three Mailbox Stores and a Public Folder Store. You perform nightly backups that alter between a normal backup of two of the Mailbox Stores on one night and a normal backup of the other Mailbox Store and Public Folder Store on the following night. You notice that transaction log files are not being purged, and that they are now consuming nearly all available disk space. What should be done? a. Disable circular logging. b. Install a new hard disk and move the transaction log files to the new disk. c. Perform nightly incremental backups of the entire Storage Group in addition to the current backups. d. Perform differential backups of the Mailbox Stores and the Public Folder Store instead of normal backups. _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: SMTP connector statistics in E2k
Those are darling little gifts. The kids love them. Buy them by the hundreds. NOW. (:= -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Etts, Russell Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 12:41 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: SMTP connector statistics in E2k FINALLY There is someone in the world that can truly appreciate how I feel when most users call me!! THANK YOU CTHULHU JONES!! Russell PS - Did you see the new stuffed Christmas Cthulhu yet?? -Original Message- From: Great Cthulhu Jones [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 10:59 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: SMTP connector statistics in E2k Whatever. I'm OLD and I'm CRANKY and I don't give a rat's hairy little ass what Microsoft calls its SMTP these days. You all know what I mean. And don't even get me STARTED on Smart Host. Gag. (:= -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Andrey Fyodorov Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 9:51 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: SMTP connector statistics in E2k Dude, Alexey is talking about Exchange 2000. IMC smells of 5.5 -Original Message- From: Great Cthulhu Jones [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Sunday, October 13, 2002 9:19 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: SMTP connector statistics in E2k Try MSExchangeIMC* things... Total inbound messages and total outbound messages *might* be what you're looking for. Egad, but I feel generous to-day! (:= -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Alexey Sent: Sunday, October 13, 2002 3:09 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: SMTP connector statistics in E2k I couldn't find anything better than MSExchangeMTAConnections, Inbound/Outbound Messages Total. It does not show me all instances of my SMTP connectors though. Alexey _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering
As always, I bow to your greatness. How's the little tentacles? -- Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity Atlanta, GA -Original Message- From: Great Cthulhu Jones [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 4:00 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering My passive/passive/passive/passive Datacenter cluster has a perfect 100% downtime. Top that, I say! We even keep the power cables in a separate area to prevent any accidental uptime. (:= -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Roger Seielstad Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 12:45 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering Then you don't need it active anywhere. -- Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity Atlanta, GA -Original Message- From: Andrey Fyodorov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 11:14 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering Only the best. Microsoft DNS, active-directory integrated. :) -Original Message- From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 11:11 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering Only if you have crappy DNS servers. -- Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity Atlanta, GA -Original Message- From: Andrey Fyodorov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 11:10 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering I vaguely remember talking about it in the past. Although we were talking about domain controllers. I thought that on the Exchange server I should still have it running. -Original Message- From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 11:06 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering Just disable the DNS Client service - it only causes problems anyway. -- Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity Atlanta, GA -Original Message- From: Andrey Fyodorov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 10:46 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering I did just that. From personal experience I prefer to reboot the machine after stopping the service (as opposed to simply restarting the services). Sometimes the Information Store service takes hours to stop. And if a full backup is running at the same time (because it got delayed for whatever reason), IS will never stop. There was a period of time when I had to restart the back-end Exchange server every night after applying SP2. Otherwise OWA refused to work correctly the following day. But then I discovered that doing ipconfig /flushdns once in a while solved that problem. -Original Message- From: Great Cthulhu Jones [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Saturday, October 12, 2002 9:02 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering Heck, just write a batch file that stops all services and bounces the box Sunday at 2AM and you don't even have to call it in to an operator. Five nines, indeed. The box only really needs to be up when people are using it. (:= -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Ed Crowley Sent: Friday, October 11, 2002 9:00 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering It's a pretty steep price to pay to avoid an occasional Sunday morning reboot. Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP kcCC+I Tech Consultant hp Services Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups! -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Dennis Depp Sent: Friday, October 11, 2002 12:15 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering I've looked into Exchange Active/Passive clustering for our Exchange 2000 servers. The largest Exchange problem that causes downtime is corruption in the database. I agree with Ed that clustering
RE: SMTP connector statistics in E2k
IF he knew in the first place, he wouldn't have asked. Don't you have a cluster to build or something? (:= -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Andrey Fyodorov Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 10:06 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: SMTP connector statistics in E2k Yeah but if you know what it is called these days, you will find it sooner in the Performance Monitor. -Original Message- From: Great Cthulhu Jones [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 10:59 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: SMTP connector statistics in E2k Whatever. I'm OLD and I'm CRANKY and I don't give a rat's hairy little ass what Microsoft calls its SMTP these days. You all know what I mean. And don't even get me STARTED on Smart Host. Gag. (:= -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Andrey Fyodorov Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 9:51 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: SMTP connector statistics in E2k Dude, Alexey is talking about Exchange 2000. IMC smells of 5.5 -Original Message- From: Great Cthulhu Jones [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Sunday, October 13, 2002 9:19 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: SMTP connector statistics in E2k Try MSExchangeIMC* things... Total inbound messages and total outbound messages *might* be what you're looking for. Egad, but I feel generous to-day! (:= -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Alexey Sent: Sunday, October 13, 2002 3:09 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: SMTP connector statistics in E2k I couldn't find anything better than MSExchangeMTAConnections, Inbound/Outbound Messages Total. It does not show me all instances of my SMTP connectors though. Alexey _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Shutting Down 5.5
I always use: Control Panel - Services - highlight System Attendant - right-click and select stop. It doesn't matter which ones you stop first. If you stop the wrong one, all dependent ones will stop first, so you don't make any egregious errors. Be sure to manually stop the spooler service, as well. Sometimes it likes to take advantage of the extended service shutdown times Exchange allows on the server. (:= -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Chris H Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 1:50 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Shutting Down 5.5 I have seen arguments both ways and am interested in the list's perspective. My predecessor here has it drilled into everyone that you have to use his batch script to stop Exchange services in a certain order. I know the info store stopping cleanly is the biggest one you want. Has anyone seen or use something like this to shut down the services in a certain order vs. letting NT take them down in the dependency order upon shutdown? _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Server migration
True dat. (:= -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Harmon, Michelle M. Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 2:40 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Server migration Very much true, yes. -Original Message- From: Orin Rehorst [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 2:36 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Server migration Thanks guys. But I learned we have to have AD installed before we can go to E2K. True? Regards, Orin Orin Rehorst Port of Houston Authority (Largest U.S. port in foreign tonnage) e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Phone: (713)670-2443 Fax: (713)670-2457 TOPAS web site: www.homestead.com/topas/topas.html -Original Message- From: Uso [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Sunday, October 13, 2002 10:06 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Re: Server migration Same what Tony H. sayed. - Original Message - From: Orin Rehorst [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, October 13, 2002 6:35 PM Subject: Server migration Using 5.5 (14 GB) on NT. Have new server with Win2k. Want new server to have 4 Exchange databases for faster restores to recover a mailbox. What is best way to migrate? a. Move mailboxes to 5.5 on new server, then upgrade to E2K. b. Move mailboxes to E2K. Pls advise. TIA Orin Rehorst _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: E2K question
The future Mech-Ed? William -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Tony Hlabse Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 1:02 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Re: E2K question Rough crowd today. Still must be an MEC effect going on. - Original Message - From: Hutchins, Mike [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 2:57 PM Subject: RE: E2K question What about Ms. Knowit?? Mike -Original Message- From: William Lefkovics [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 1:56 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: E2K question Is Ms. Learnit a good teacher? William -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Tony Hlabse Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 12:48 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Re: E2K question I won't tell you the answer but I can tell you where to look. Try the Disaster Recovery for Exchange 2000 paper from Ms. Learn it and know it. - Original Message - From: Andrey Fyodorov [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 2:46 PM Subject: RE: E2K question Are you e-mailing straight from the testing facility? -Original Message- From: John Q Jr. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 2:18 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: E2K question Answer pelase. I think it's A. _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: E2K question
After disabling circular logging and firing the moron who turned it on in the first place. (:= -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of William Lefkovics Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 2:02 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: E2K question e. perform full online nightly backups of entire storage group. :o) William -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of John Q Jr. Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 11:18 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: E2K question Answer pelase. I think it's A. Your Exchange 2000 Server has a single storage group containing three Mailbox Stores and a Public Folder Store. You perform nightly backups that alter between a normal backup of two of the Mailbox Stores on one night and a normal backup of the other Mailbox Store and Public Folder Store on the following night. You notice that transaction log files are not being purged, and that they are now consuming nearly all available disk space. What should be done? a. Disable circular logging. b. Install a new hard disk and move the transaction log files to the new disk. c. Perform nightly incremental backups of the entire Storage Group in addition to the current backups. d. Perform differential backups of the Mailbox Stores and the Public Folder Store instead of normal backups. _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering
Doing fine, doing fine. Cthough'ng'aa chewed up her first gas giant yesterday. I'll post pics soon. How's you and yours? (:= -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Roger Seielstad Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 3:04 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering As always, I bow to your greatness. How's the little tentacles? -- Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity Atlanta, GA -Original Message- From: Great Cthulhu Jones [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 4:00 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering My passive/passive/passive/passive Datacenter cluster has a perfect 100% downtime. Top that, I say! We even keep the power cables in a separate area to prevent any accidental uptime. (:= -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Roger Seielstad Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 12:45 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering Then you don't need it active anywhere. -- Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity Atlanta, GA -Original Message- From: Andrey Fyodorov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 11:14 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering Only the best. Microsoft DNS, active-directory integrated. :) -Original Message- From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 11:11 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering Only if you have crappy DNS servers. -- Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity Atlanta, GA -Original Message- From: Andrey Fyodorov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 11:10 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering I vaguely remember talking about it in the past. Although we were talking about domain controllers. I thought that on the Exchange server I should still have it running. -Original Message- From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 11:06 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering Just disable the DNS Client service - it only causes problems anyway. -- Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity Atlanta, GA -Original Message- From: Andrey Fyodorov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 10:46 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering I did just that. From personal experience I prefer to reboot the machine after stopping the service (as opposed to simply restarting the services). Sometimes the Information Store service takes hours to stop. And if a full backup is running at the same time (because it got delayed for whatever reason), IS will never stop. There was a period of time when I had to restart the back-end Exchange server every night after applying SP2. Otherwise OWA refused to work correctly the following day. But then I discovered that doing ipconfig /flushdns once in a while solved that problem. -Original Message- From: Great Cthulhu Jones [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Saturday, October 12, 2002 9:02 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering Heck, just write a batch file that stops all services and bounces the box Sunday at 2AM and you don't even have to call it in to an operator. Five nines, indeed. The box only really needs to be up when people are using it. (:= -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Ed Crowley Sent: Friday, October 11, 2002 9:00 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering It's a pretty steep price to pay to avoid an occasional Sunday morning reboot. Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP kcCC+I Tech Consultant hp Services Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups! -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Dennis Depp Sent:
RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering
You must be a different type of a customer. -Original Message- From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 4:03 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering As a customer, I appreciate when I'm shown that I was wrong when planning to spend 100% more than I have to. Makes me want to use that provider again. -- Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity Atlanta, GA -Original Message- From: Andrey Fyodorov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 3:49 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering When a customer wants it AND wants to pay money for it... customer is always right. :) Customers hate when one proves them wrong. -Original Message- From: Andy David [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 12:14 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering Perhaps it would be better if you educated that customer on better alternatives. Just as an aside, during Tony Redmond's session last week he asked how many in the audience were using clusters and I swear, a third of the people there raised their hands. I would have thought it a lot less. -Original Message- From: Andrey Fyodorov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 11:54 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering I prefer not to mess with Exchange clustering unless a customer insists on having a dedicated Exchange cluster. -Original Message- From: Ed Crowley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 11:35 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering And when you deploy an Exchange cluster, that's exactly what you get! Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP kcCC+I Tech Consultant hp Services Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups! -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Andrey Fyodorov Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 8:15 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering No I am just preparing for the worst-case scenario. -Original Message- From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 11:11 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering If you're basing your life around 4 identical boxes that all experience hardware failures that close together, I suggest you switch hardware vendors. Fast. Keep in mind, too, that A/A/A/P means you're running Datacenter. -- Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity Atlanta, GA -Original Message- From: Andrey Fyodorov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 11:04 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering 3 Storage Groups on each node, right? :) I like the idea of a/a/a/p, but that's a one trick pony. You better hope that the other two nodes are not going to fail soon. -Original Message- From: Great Cthulhu Jones [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 10:59 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering Which meant if you had 3 databases on each cluster, the other active node would fail as soon as it failed to mount one store too many. That's why MS now pushes a/a/a/p clustering. a/a was an unmitigated disaster. (:= -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Andrey Fyodorov Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 9:32 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering No, according to the theory you can get more users on Active/Active because both cluster nodes are being used to do something useful. But if one fails, the other node better be able to take on the load. -Original Message- From: Dennis Depp [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, October 11, 2002 2:50 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering Stay away from active/active. Go Active/passive instead. You can get more users on Active/Passive. Denny -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Imran Iqbal Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2002 5:36 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering We are currently an Exchange 5.5 site, as part of our move to
RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering
Nothing planet shattering. Just the usual. -- Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity Atlanta, GA -Original Message- From: Great Cthulhu Jones [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 4:16 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering Doing fine, doing fine. Cthough'ng'aa chewed up her first gas giant yesterday. I'll post pics soon. How's you and yours? (:= -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Roger Seielstad Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 3:04 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering As always, I bow to your greatness. How's the little tentacles? -- Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity Atlanta, GA -Original Message- From: Great Cthulhu Jones [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 4:00 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering My passive/passive/passive/passive Datacenter cluster has a perfect 100% downtime. Top that, I say! We even keep the power cables in a separate area to prevent any accidental uptime. (:= -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Roger Seielstad Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 12:45 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering Then you don't need it active anywhere. -- Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity Atlanta, GA -Original Message- From: Andrey Fyodorov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 11:14 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering Only the best. Microsoft DNS, active-directory integrated. :) -Original Message- From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 11:11 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering Only if you have crappy DNS servers. -- Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity Atlanta, GA -Original Message- From: Andrey Fyodorov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 11:10 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering I vaguely remember talking about it in the past. Although we were talking about domain controllers. I thought that on the Exchange server I should still have it running. -Original Message- From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 11:06 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering Just disable the DNS Client service - it only causes problems anyway. -- Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity Atlanta, GA -Original Message- From: Andrey Fyodorov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 10:46 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering I did just that. From personal experience I prefer to reboot the machine after stopping the service (as opposed to simply restarting the services). Sometimes the Information Store service takes hours to stop. And if a full backup is running at the same time (because it got delayed for whatever reason), IS will never stop. There was a period of time when I had to restart the back-end Exchange server every night after applying SP2. Otherwise OWA refused to work correctly the following day. But then I discovered that doing ipconfig /flushdns once in a while solved that problem. -Original Message- From: Great Cthulhu Jones [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Saturday, October 12, 2002 9:02 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering Heck, just write a batch file that stops all services and bounces the box Sunday at 2AM and you don't even have to call it in to an operator. Five nines, indeed. The box only really needs to be up when people are using it. (:= -Original Message- From: [EMAIL
RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering
An intelligent one? If that makes me different, so be it. I'm also the first to send an arse clown out the door for recommending solutions that are way out of line. Like Exchange clusters. -- Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity Atlanta, GA -Original Message- From: Andrey Fyodorov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 4:25 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering You must be a different type of a customer. -Original Message- From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 4:03 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering As a customer, I appreciate when I'm shown that I was wrong when planning to spend 100% more than I have to. Makes me want to use that provider again. -- Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity Atlanta, GA -Original Message- From: Andrey Fyodorov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 3:49 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering When a customer wants it AND wants to pay money for it... customer is always right. :) Customers hate when one proves them wrong. -Original Message- From: Andy David [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 12:14 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering Perhaps it would be better if you educated that customer on better alternatives. Just as an aside, during Tony Redmond's session last week he asked how many in the audience were using clusters and I swear, a third of the people there raised their hands. I would have thought it a lot less. -Original Message- From: Andrey Fyodorov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 11:54 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering I prefer not to mess with Exchange clustering unless a customer insists on having a dedicated Exchange cluster. -Original Message- From: Ed Crowley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 11:35 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering And when you deploy an Exchange cluster, that's exactly what you get! Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP kcCC+I Tech Consultant hp Services Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups! -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Andrey Fyodorov Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 8:15 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering No I am just preparing for the worst-case scenario. -Original Message- From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 11:11 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering If you're basing your life around 4 identical boxes that all experience hardware failures that close together, I suggest you switch hardware vendors. Fast. Keep in mind, too, that A/A/A/P means you're running Datacenter. -- Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity Atlanta, GA -Original Message- From: Andrey Fyodorov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 11:04 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering 3 Storage Groups on each node, right? :) I like the idea of a/a/a/p, but that's a one trick pony. You better hope that the other two nodes are not going to fail soon. -Original Message- From: Great Cthulhu Jones [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 10:59 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering Which meant if you had 3 databases on each cluster, the other active node would fail as soon as it failed to mount one store too many. That's why MS now pushes a/a/a/p clustering. a/a was an unmitigated disaster. (:= -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Andrey Fyodorov Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 9:32 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering No, according to the theory you can get more users on Active/Active because both cluster nodes are being used to do something useful. But
RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering
Is this the one? Kind of looked like the type of thing your training could inspire... http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap021014.html -Original Message- From: Great Cthulhu Jones [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 1:16 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering Doing fine, doing fine. Cthough'ng'aa chewed up her first gas giant yesterday. I'll post pics soon. How's you and yours? (:= -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Roger Seielstad Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 3:04 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering As always, I bow to your greatness. How's the little tentacles? -- Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity Atlanta, GA -Original Message- From: Great Cthulhu Jones [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 4:00 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering My passive/passive/passive/passive Datacenter cluster has a perfect 100% downtime. Top that, I say! We even keep the power cables in a separate area to prevent any accidental uptime. (:= -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Roger Seielstad Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 12:45 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering Then you don't need it active anywhere. -- Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity Atlanta, GA -Original Message- From: Andrey Fyodorov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 11:14 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering Only the best. Microsoft DNS, active-directory integrated. :) -Original Message- From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 11:11 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering Only if you have crappy DNS servers. -- Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity Atlanta, GA -Original Message- From: Andrey Fyodorov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 11:10 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering I vaguely remember talking about it in the past. Although we were talking about domain controllers. I thought that on the Exchange server I should still have it running. -Original Message- From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 11:06 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering Just disable the DNS Client service - it only causes problems anyway. -- Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity Atlanta, GA -Original Message- From: Andrey Fyodorov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 10:46 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering I did just that. From personal experience I prefer to reboot the machine after stopping the service (as opposed to simply restarting the services). Sometimes the Information Store service takes hours to stop. And if a full backup is running at the same time (because it got delayed for whatever reason), IS will never stop. There was a period of time when I had to restart the back-end Exchange server every night after applying SP2. Otherwise OWA refused to work correctly the following day. But then I discovered that doing ipconfig /flushdns once in a while solved that problem. -Original Message- From: Great Cthulhu Jones [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Saturday, October 12, 2002 9:02 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering Heck, just write a batch file that stops all services and bounces the box Sunday at 2AM and you don't even have to call it in to an operator. Five nines, indeed. The box only really needs to be up when people are using it. (:= -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Ed Crowley Sent: Friday, October 11, 2002 9:00 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering It's a
RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering
Depends on how you tell him... RIGHT WAY: Hey, looks like we can save a little money here... WRONG WAY: You set it up stupid. I'm smarter than you. (:= -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Andrey Fyodorov Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 3:25 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering You must be a different type of a customer. -Original Message- From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 4:03 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering As a customer, I appreciate when I'm shown that I was wrong when planning to spend 100% more than I have to. Makes me want to use that provider again. -- Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity Atlanta, GA -Original Message- From: Andrey Fyodorov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 3:49 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering When a customer wants it AND wants to pay money for it... customer is always right. :) Customers hate when one proves them wrong. -Original Message- From: Andy David [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 12:14 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering Perhaps it would be better if you educated that customer on better alternatives. Just as an aside, during Tony Redmond's session last week he asked how many in the audience were using clusters and I swear, a third of the people there raised their hands. I would have thought it a lot less. -Original Message- From: Andrey Fyodorov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 11:54 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering I prefer not to mess with Exchange clustering unless a customer insists on having a dedicated Exchange cluster. -Original Message- From: Ed Crowley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 11:35 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering And when you deploy an Exchange cluster, that's exactly what you get! Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP kcCC+I Tech Consultant hp Services Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups! -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Andrey Fyodorov Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 8:15 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering No I am just preparing for the worst-case scenario. -Original Message- From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 11:11 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering If you're basing your life around 4 identical boxes that all experience hardware failures that close together, I suggest you switch hardware vendors. Fast. Keep in mind, too, that A/A/A/P means you're running Datacenter. -- Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity Atlanta, GA -Original Message- From: Andrey Fyodorov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 11:04 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering 3 Storage Groups on each node, right? :) I like the idea of a/a/a/p, but that's a one trick pony. You better hope that the other two nodes are not going to fail soon. -Original Message- From: Great Cthulhu Jones [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 10:59 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering Which meant if you had 3 databases on each cluster, the other active node would fail as soon as it failed to mount one store too many. That's why MS now pushes a/a/a/p clustering. a/a was an unmitigated disaster. (:= -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Andrey Fyodorov Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 9:32 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering No, according to the theory you can get more users on Active/Active because both cluster nodes are being used to do something useful. But if one fails, the other node better be able to take on the load. -Original Message- From: Dennis Depp [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, October 11, 2002 2:50 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering Stay away from active/active. Go Active/passive instead. You can get more users on
RE: Bulk creating Exchange 2000 mailboxes with CSVDE or ???
this has worked for me in the past. They are still disabled and lack password, but that's how CSVDE works. DN,homeMDB,cn,displayName,givenName,sn,distinguishedName,objectCategory,objectClass,name,sAMAccountName,userPrincipalName,mailNickname,homeMTA,msExchHomeServerName,mDBUseDefaults,msExchQueryBaseDN,proxyAddresses -Original Message- From: Alverson, Tom [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 3:48 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Bulk creating Exchange 2000 mailboxes with CSVDE or ??? I have a test server that I am trying to create a bunch of mailboxes (user1, user2, [EMAIL PROTECTED]) in order to do some benchmarking on the server. All I want to do is create mailboxes with unique email addresses (which requires an accompanying AD user account I believe) and I would like to also give them some default password if possible. I have been experimenting with CSVDE but so far I have only created disabled accounts which have no exchange mailbox. Does anyone know what the minimum amount of info I can put in the CSV file to accomplish this? Tom Alverson _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering
Can you please be my customer? -Original Message- From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 4:28 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering An intelligent one? If that makes me different, so be it. I'm also the first to send an arse clown out the door for recommending solutions that are way out of line. Like Exchange clusters. -- Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity Atlanta, GA -Original Message- From: Andrey Fyodorov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 4:25 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering You must be a different type of a customer. -Original Message- From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 4:03 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering As a customer, I appreciate when I'm shown that I was wrong when planning to spend 100% more than I have to. Makes me want to use that provider again. -- Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity Atlanta, GA -Original Message- From: Andrey Fyodorov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 3:49 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering When a customer wants it AND wants to pay money for it... customer is always right. :) Customers hate when one proves them wrong. -Original Message- From: Andy David [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 12:14 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering Perhaps it would be better if you educated that customer on better alternatives. Just as an aside, during Tony Redmond's session last week he asked how many in the audience were using clusters and I swear, a third of the people there raised their hands. I would have thought it a lot less. -Original Message- From: Andrey Fyodorov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 11:54 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering I prefer not to mess with Exchange clustering unless a customer insists on having a dedicated Exchange cluster. -Original Message- From: Ed Crowley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 11:35 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering And when you deploy an Exchange cluster, that's exactly what you get! Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP kcCC+I Tech Consultant hp Services Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups! -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Andrey Fyodorov Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 8:15 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering No I am just preparing for the worst-case scenario. -Original Message- From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 11:11 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering If you're basing your life around 4 identical boxes that all experience hardware failures that close together, I suggest you switch hardware vendors. Fast. Keep in mind, too, that A/A/A/P means you're running Datacenter. -- Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity Atlanta, GA -Original Message- From: Andrey Fyodorov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 11:04 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering 3 Storage Groups on each node, right? :) I like the idea of a/a/a/p, but that's a one trick pony. You better hope that the other two nodes are not going to fail soon. -Original Message- From: Great Cthulhu Jones [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 10:59 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering Which meant if you had 3 databases on each cluster, the other active node would fail as soon as it failed to mount one store too many. That's why MS now pushes a/a/a/p clustering. a/a was an unmitigated disaster. (:= -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Andrey Fyodorov Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 9:32 AM To: Exchange
