RE: Clustering... is it worth it?
What client configurations are you thinking of supporting? We have a centralized architecture but line speeds are not fast enough to support online access - a word doc can take over a minute to stream down to some locations. Thus we have configured Outlook in offline mode, but this makes the use of public folders very painful since if the public folders are large and marked as available offline the ost file gets very large and is more likely to break. Can't see a good way around this apart from using Notes, which seems to cope with a centralized architecture and disconnected users much better :( . Anyone got any good ideas other than Exchange 2003? -Original Message- From: Slinger, Gary [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 02 July 2003 04:33 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Clustering... is it worth it? (Can't resist - it's a 4-node cluster, with a passive same-scale server as part of the mix g). Which is 4,000 per node... Sounding reasonable to me so far... Oh, and if anyone's wondering if it's real world or Microsoft/HP playing - yes, I'm seriously considering (and have the budget to back it up) using it as a deployment model for my environment (no, I don't have 16,000+ users, but the concept remains the same). -Original Message- From: William Lefkovics [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2003 12:20 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Clustering... is it worth it? As you've read... No, I can't count. 16,000 users on a 7-node cluster, which is really a 5-node cluster. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Fyodorov, Andrey Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2003 6:16 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Clustering... is it worth it? only 16,000 users? on an 8-node cluster? -Original Message- From: William Lefkovics [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June 27, 2003 8:11 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Re: Clustering... is it worth it? But do consider revisiting this with 2003. With Microsoft running 16,000 users on an 8-node cluster now. Windows2003 and Exchange2003 of course. - Original Message - From: Martin Blackstone [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June 27, 2003 5:04 PM Subject: RE: Clustering... is it worth it? That's pretty much the argument against clustering. In fact, many folks will tell you that Exchange needs much more hand holding in a cluster. _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=lang =english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=lang =english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ** This e-mail and any files transmitted with it are confidential to the intended recipient(s). If you have received the e-mail in error please notify the author by replying to this e-mail and delete it and all copies from your system. Any unauthorised disclosure, use, or dissemination, either whole or partial, is prohibited. Any views or opinions contained in this email are those of the author and are not necessarily endorsed by The Company, and The Company cannot be held responsible for any misuse. The Company does not accept responsibility or liability for any loss or damage arising in any way from its receipt or use or for any errors or omissions in its contents, which may arise as a result of its transmission. This email is covered by The Company Terms and Conditions of Business, a copy of which can be obtained on request. ** ** _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Clustering... is it worth it?
XP Pro Win2KPro, plus some OWA. -Original Message- From: Midgley, Ian [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2003 09:24 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Clustering... is it worth it? What client configurations are you thinking of supporting? We have a centralized architecture but line speeds are not fast enough to support online access - a word doc can take over a minute to stream down to some locations. Thus we have configured Outlook in offline mode, but this makes the use of public folders very painful since if the public folders are large and marked as available offline the ost file gets very large and is more likely to break. Can't see a good way around this apart from using Notes, which seems to cope with a centralized architecture and disconnected users much better :( . Anyone got any good ideas other than Exchange 2003? -Original Message- From: Slinger, Gary [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 02 July 2003 04:33 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Clustering... is it worth it? (Can't resist - it's a 4-node cluster, with a passive same-scale server as part of the mix g). Which is 4,000 per node... Sounding reasonable to me so far... Oh, and if anyone's wondering if it's real world or Microsoft/HP playing - yes, I'm seriously considering (and have the budget to back it up) using it as a deployment model for my environment (no, I don't have 16,000+ users, but the concept remains the same). -Original Message- From: William Lefkovics [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2003 12:20 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Clustering... is it worth it? As you've read... No, I can't count. 16,000 users on a 7-node cluster, which is really a 5-node cluster. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Fyodorov, Andrey Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2003 6:16 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Clustering... is it worth it? only 16,000 users? on an 8-node cluster? -Original Message- From: William Lefkovics [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June 27, 2003 8:11 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Re: Clustering... is it worth it? But do consider revisiting this with 2003. With Microsoft running 16,000 users on an 8-node cluster now. Windows2003 and Exchange2003 of course. - Original Message - From: Martin Blackstone [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June 27, 2003 5:04 PM Subject: RE: Clustering... is it worth it? That's pretty much the argument against clustering. In fact, many folks will tell you that Exchange needs much more hand holding in a cluster. _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=lang =english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=lang =english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ** This e-mail and any files transmitted with it are confidential to the intended recipient(s). If you have received the e-mail in error please notify the author by replying to this e-mail and delete it and all copies from your system. Any unauthorised disclosure, use, or dissemination, either whole or partial, is prohibited. Any views or opinions contained in this email are those of the author and are not necessarily endorsed by The Company, and The Company cannot be held responsible for any misuse. The Company does not accept responsibility or liability for any loss or damage arising in any way from its receipt or use or for any errors or omissions in its contents, which may arise as a result of its transmission. This email is covered by The Company Terms and Conditions of Business, a copy of which can be obtained on request. ** ** _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=lang =english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL
RE: Clustering... is it worth it?
only 16,000 users? on an 8-node cluster? -Original Message- From: William Lefkovics [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June 27, 2003 8:11 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Re: Clustering... is it worth it? But do consider revisiting this with 2003. With Microsoft running 16,000 users on an 8-node cluster now. Windows2003 and Exchange2003 of course. - Original Message - From: Martin Blackstone [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June 27, 2003 5:04 PM Subject: RE: Clustering... is it worth it? That's pretty much the argument against clustering. In fact, many folks will tell you that Exchange needs much more hand holding in a cluster. -Original Message- From: MSX dude [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June 27, 2003 4:50 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Clustering... is it worth it? Upper management here is inquiring about clustering our exchange server. We already have our PRIV, PUB and DIR on a SAN. I don't see the benefit. If the server itself fails, I can rebuild it in an hour. If the database corrupts it would have taken the cluster down too. I have searched the internet but all I find are vendors praising clustering because they want to see you something. Does anyone have any links or whitepapers are unbiased in their opinions? _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Clustering... is it worth it?
As you've read... No, I can't count. 16,000 users on a 7-node cluster, which is really a 5-node cluster. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Fyodorov, Andrey Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2003 6:16 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Clustering... is it worth it? only 16,000 users? on an 8-node cluster? -Original Message- From: William Lefkovics [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June 27, 2003 8:11 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Re: Clustering... is it worth it? But do consider revisiting this with 2003. With Microsoft running 16,000 users on an 8-node cluster now. Windows2003 and Exchange2003 of course. - Original Message - From: Martin Blackstone [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June 27, 2003 5:04 PM Subject: RE: Clustering... is it worth it? That's pretty much the argument against clustering. In fact, many folks will tell you that Exchange needs much more hand holding in a cluster. _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Clustering... is it worth it?
(Can't resist - it's a 4-node cluster, with a passive same-scale server as part of the mix g). Which is 4,000 per node... Sounding reasonable to me so far... Oh, and if anyone's wondering if it's real world or Microsoft/HP playing - yes, I'm seriously considering (and have the budget to back it up) using it as a deployment model for my environment (no, I don't have 16,000+ users, but the concept remains the same). -Original Message- From: William Lefkovics [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2003 12:20 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Clustering... is it worth it? As you've read... No, I can't count. 16,000 users on a 7-node cluster, which is really a 5-node cluster. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Fyodorov, Andrey Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2003 6:16 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Clustering... is it worth it? only 16,000 users? on an 8-node cluster? -Original Message- From: William Lefkovics [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June 27, 2003 8:11 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Re: Clustering... is it worth it? But do consider revisiting this with 2003. With Microsoft running 16,000 users on an 8-node cluster now. Windows2003 and Exchange2003 of course. - Original Message - From: Martin Blackstone [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June 27, 2003 5:04 PM Subject: RE: Clustering... is it worth it? That's pretty much the argument against clustering. In fact, many folks will tell you that Exchange needs much more hand holding in a cluster. _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=lang =english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Clustering... is it worth it?
you two kiss and make up now. -Original Message- From: William Lefkovics [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, June 28, 2003 1:40 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Clustering... is it worth it? You are totally right. Cochran's slides do say that. My notes do not. I am wrong. I'm sorry, Gary. 7-node cluster per the slides. 4-1-2. Not 5-1-2. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Slinger, Gary Sent: Friday, June 27, 2003 9:55 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Clustering... is it worth it? OK, I'll try it another way - the presentation that I heard at Tech-Ed, matched up against my notes, indicated that it was: A) 4 x 4-way servers, active, plus B) 1 x 4-way server, passive, plus C) 2 x 2-way servers, passive, for backups, etc. Equals 7. I never claimed 8. I'm perfectly capable of basic math. 8, to my recollection, notes, and thoughts of the PPT, is wrong., -Original Message- From: William Lefkovics [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, June 28, 2003 12:58 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Clustering... is it worth it? The PPT would be wrong then as 4+1+2 8 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Slinger, Gary Sent: Friday, June 27, 2003 9:45 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Clustering... is it worth it? The TechEd PPT was 4-1-2; other than that, concur. -Original Message- From: William Lefkovics [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June 27, 2003 9:21 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Re: Clustering... is it worth it? Definitely Active/Passive. The 8-node cluster I mentioned it 5-1 with 2 for snap back up to stream to tape after. This is per a TechEd presentation. William - Original Message - From: Schneider, Bryan D [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June 27, 2003 6:13 PM Subject: RE: Clustering... is it worth it? You have the benefit of quick recovery in event of hardware failure on the server (not likely typically). But, it is really nice for maintenance where you have to apply patches, security updates, virus engine updates, service packs, etc... You can failover in a matter of seconds and you have as much time as you need to work on the server without interrupting users or bouncing email. On an active/active cluster we host 16,000 users, 2500 using Outlook and the rest using OWA 2000. We can have both virtual machines running on one quad-Xeon 700Mhz without users noticing much of a slowdown at all. Exchange 2003 with Windows 2003 runs more efficiently so far in our tests. However, Microsoft is now recommending ACTIVE / PASSIVE so you have a fresh server to failover to. You already have a key component - SAN - so I would cluster in a heartbeat. We haven't had any issues - except for a corrupted db which we attributed to the SAN. 2003 promisses to make clustering better, but we haven't tested that yet. -Original Message- From: William Lefkovics [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Fri 6/27/2003 7:10 PM To: Exchange Discussions Cc: Subject: Re: Clustering... is it worth it? But do consider revisiting this with 2003. With Microsoft running 16,000 users on an 8-node cluster now. Windows2003 and Exchange2003 of course. - Original Message - From: Martin Blackstone [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June 27, 2003 5:04 PM Subject: RE: Clustering... is it worth it? That's pretty much the argument against clustering. In fact, many folks will tell you that Exchange needs much more hand holding in a cluster. _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchanget ext_mode=lang =english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=lang =english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=lang= english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http
RE: Clustering... is it worth it?
You're confusing me with Andi... Oh, wait - wrong list. Never mind :) -Original Message- From: Erik Sojka [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, June 30, 2003 08:42 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Clustering... is it worth it? you two kiss and make up now. -Original Message- From: William Lefkovics [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, June 28, 2003 1:40 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Clustering... is it worth it? You are totally right. Cochran's slides do say that. My notes do not. I am wrong. I'm sorry, Gary. 7-node cluster per the slides. 4-1-2. Not 5-1-2. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Slinger, Gary Sent: Friday, June 27, 2003 9:55 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Clustering... is it worth it? OK, I'll try it another way - the presentation that I heard at Tech-Ed, matched up against my notes, indicated that it was: A) 4 x 4-way servers, active, plus B) 1 x 4-way server, passive, plus C) 2 x 2-way servers, passive, for backups, etc. Equals 7. I never claimed 8. I'm perfectly capable of basic math. 8, to my recollection, notes, and thoughts of the PPT, is wrong., -Original Message- From: William Lefkovics [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, June 28, 2003 12:58 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Clustering... is it worth it? The PPT would be wrong then as 4+1+2 8 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Slinger, Gary Sent: Friday, June 27, 2003 9:45 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Clustering... is it worth it? The TechEd PPT was 4-1-2; other than that, concur. -Original Message- From: William Lefkovics [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June 27, 2003 9:21 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Re: Clustering... is it worth it? Definitely Active/Passive. The 8-node cluster I mentioned it 5-1 with 2 for snap back up to stream to tape after. This is per a TechEd presentation. William - Original Message - From: Schneider, Bryan D [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June 27, 2003 6:13 PM Subject: RE: Clustering... is it worth it? You have the benefit of quick recovery in event of hardware failure on the server (not likely typically). But, it is really nice for maintenance where you have to apply patches, security updates, virus engine updates, service packs, etc... You can failover in a matter of seconds and you have as much time as you need to work on the server without interrupting users or bouncing email. On an active/active cluster we host 16,000 users, 2500 using Outlook and the rest using OWA 2000. We can have both virtual machines running on one quad-Xeon 700Mhz without users noticing much of a slowdown at all. Exchange 2003 with Windows 2003 runs more efficiently so far in our tests. However, Microsoft is now recommending ACTIVE / PASSIVE so you have a fresh server to failover to. You already have a key component - SAN - so I would cluster in a heartbeat. We haven't had any issues - except for a corrupted db which we attributed to the SAN. 2003 promisses to make clustering better, but we haven't tested that yet. -Original Message- From: William Lefkovics [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Fri 6/27/2003 7:10 PM To: Exchange Discussions Cc: Subject: Re: Clustering... is it worth it? But do consider revisiting this with 2003. With Microsoft running 16,000 users on an 8-node cluster now. Windows2003 and Exchange2003 of course. - Original Message - From: Martin Blackstone [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June 27, 2003 5:04 PM Subject: RE: Clustering... is it worth it? That's pretty much the argument against clustering. In fact, many folks will tell you that Exchange needs much more hand holding in a cluster. _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchanget ext_mode=lang =english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=lang =english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=lang = english
RE: Clustering... is it worth it?
And I don't wear make up. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Slinger, Gary Sent: Monday, June 30, 2003 6:15 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Clustering... is it worth it? You're confusing me with Andi... Oh, wait - wrong list. Never mind :) -Original Message- From: Erik Sojka [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, June 30, 2003 08:42 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Clustering... is it worth it? you two kiss and make up now. -Original Message- From: William Lefkovics [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, June 28, 2003 1:40 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Clustering... is it worth it? You are totally right. Cochran's slides do say that. My notes do not. I am wrong. I'm sorry, Gary. 7-node cluster per the slides. 4-1-2. Not 5-1-2. _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Clustering... is it worth it?
IIRC Active/Active was the initial recommendation under E2k, until some of these MAPI session limits starts cropping up, and with memory fragmentation in ESE. We were in discussions with MS about deploying a large Active/Active cluster during this period, and they changed their tune part-way through the discussions and recommended Active/Passive rather than Active/Active. With all of the redundancy we were building in with the Exchange design anyway (see below), clustering was only going to save us from physical hardware failure of one of the front-end servers, but we pretty much had that covered anyway. As others have said, clustering doesn't protect you from DB corruption. Config for single mailbox server was: Multi-Processor Server ECC Memory Multiple hot-plug power supplies on different physical power curcits, running on building UPS' (optionally local UPS for each power supply as well) Multiple hot-plug fans for cooling RAID'ed disk (obviously), on multiple channels, with hot spares Multiple Physical, Multi-Port NICs using port aggregation over multiple redundant switches. We also had a hot-standby server incase of total-systems failure (move the entire disk array to new server), and hot spares of every major component. We also deployed multiple Exchange servers, so in the case of complete failure of one server, only portions of the organisation were affected. We ensured that members of the same work area were located on physically seperate machines, so if one server did fail, at least one mailbox in each section was still able to send and receive important emails. Multiple incoming and outgoing connector servers provded some measure of protection against a single connector server failure (the fault-tolerance levels of these machines were much lower to save costs). All Public folders were replicated to at least two different servers. Even with clustering, a number of the measures described above were still required, such as building some level of redundancy into the front-end servers, but you now have the added complexity of the redundancy and fault tolerance required for the SAN device. My gripe with clustering is that there is a tendency to try and throw the entire org onto a single cluster (either Active/Active or Active/Passive), but when the cluster itself fails, the entire organisation is off the air. Something that isn't tolerated these days with mission critical mail systems. Exchange has so many built-in redundany and load sharing features, that clustering just introduces unnecessary complexity into the mix, especially in recovery scenarios. That being said, when I have deployed them and got the kinks worked out, they have been pretty solid. 2k3 may be a different kettle of fish. My $0.02 G. - Original Message - From: Martin Blackstone [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, June 28, 2003 11:34 AM Subject: RE: Clustering... is it worth it? I believe they have always recommended an Active/Active cluster. Paul Roubicheux sais the E2K3 clusters awesomely. -Original Message- From: Schneider, Bryan D [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June 27, 2003 6:14 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Clustering... is it worth it? You have the benefit of quick recovery in event of hardware failure on the server (not likely typically). But, it is really nice for maintenance where you have to apply patches, security updates, virus engine updates, service packs, etc... You can failover in a matter of seconds and you have as much time as you need to work on the server without interrupting users or bouncing email. On an active/active cluster we host 16,000 users, 2500 using Outlook and the rest using OWA 2000. We can have both virtual machines running on one quad-Xeon 700Mhz without users noticing much of a slowdown at all. Exchange 2003 with Windows 2003 runs more efficiently so far in our tests. However, Microsoft is now recommending ACTIVE / PASSIVE so you have a fresh server to failover to. You already have a key component - SAN - so I would cluster in a heartbeat. We haven't had any issues - except for a corrupted db which we attributed to the SAN. 2003 promisses to make clustering better, but we haven't tested that yet. -Original Message- From: William Lefkovics [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Fri 6/27/2003 7:10 PM To: Exchange Discussions Cc: Subject: Re: Clustering... is it worth it? But do consider revisiting this with 2003. With Microsoft running 16,000 users on an 8-node cluster now. Windows2003 and Exchange2003 of course. - Original Message - From: Martin Blackstone [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June 27, 2003 5:04 PM Subject: RE: Clustering... is it worth it? That's pretty much the argument against clustering. In fact, many folks will tell you that Exchange needs much more hand holding in a cluster. -Original Message- From: MSX dude
RE: Clustering... is it worth it?
I don't see the benefits either. Your two points are spot on. Exchange failures are generally due to poor hardware or poor administration. Mitigate these two issues and you will have a great single-node [1] cluster. [1] Single-Node copyright Ed Crowley. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of MSX dude Sent: Friday, June 27, 2003 7:50 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Clustering... is it worth it? Upper management here is inquiring about clustering our exchange server. We already have our PRIV, PUB and DIR on a SAN. I don't see the benefit. If the server itself fails, I can rebuild it in an hour. If the database corrupts it would have taken the cluster down too. I have searched the internet but all I find are vendors praising clustering because they want to see you something. Does anyone have any links or whitepapers are unbiased in their opinions? _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=lang =english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Clustering... is it worth it?
That's pretty much the argument against clustering. In fact, many folks will tell you that Exchange needs much more hand holding in a cluster. -Original Message- From: MSX dude [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June 27, 2003 4:50 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Clustering... is it worth it? Upper management here is inquiring about clustering our exchange server. We already have our PRIV, PUB and DIR on a SAN. I don't see the benefit. If the server itself fails, I can rebuild it in an hour. If the database corrupts it would have taken the cluster down too. I have searched the internet but all I find are vendors praising clustering because they want to see you something. Does anyone have any links or whitepapers are unbiased in their opinions? _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=lang =english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Clustering... is it worth it?
But do consider revisiting this with 2003. With Microsoft running 16,000 users on an 8-node cluster now. Windows2003 and Exchange2003 of course. - Original Message - From: Martin Blackstone [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June 27, 2003 5:04 PM Subject: RE: Clustering... is it worth it? That's pretty much the argument against clustering. In fact, many folks will tell you that Exchange needs much more hand holding in a cluster. -Original Message- From: MSX dude [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June 27, 2003 4:50 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Clustering... is it worth it? Upper management here is inquiring about clustering our exchange server. We already have our PRIV, PUB and DIR on a SAN. I don't see the benefit. If the server itself fails, I can rebuild it in an hour. If the database corrupts it would have taken the cluster down too. I have searched the internet but all I find are vendors praising clustering because they want to see you something. Does anyone have any links or whitepapers are unbiased in their opinions? _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Clustering... is it worth it?
You have the benefit of quick recovery in event of hardware failure on the server (not
likely typically). But, it is really nice for maintenance where you have to apply
patches, security updates, virus engine updates, service packs, etc... You can
failover in a matter of seconds and you have as much time as you need to work on the
server without interrupting users or bouncing email.
On an active/active cluster we host 16,000 users, 2500 using Outlook and the rest
using OWA 2000. We can have both virtual machines running on one quad-Xeon 700Mhz
without users noticing much of a slowdown at all. Exchange 2003 with Windows 2003 runs
more efficiently so far in our tests. However, Microsoft is now recommending ACTIVE /
PASSIVE so you have a fresh server to failover to.
You already have a key component - SAN - so I would cluster in a heartbeat. We haven't
had any issues - except for a corrupted db which we attributed to the SAN.
2003 promisses to make clustering better, but we haven't tested that yet.
-Original Message-
From: William Lefkovics [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Fri 6/27/2003 7:10 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Cc:
Subject: Re: Clustering... is it worth it?
But do consider revisiting this with 2003.
With Microsoft running 16,000 users on an 8-node cluster now.
Windows2003 and Exchange2003 of course.
- Original Message -
From: Martin Blackstone [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, June 27, 2003 5:04 PM
Subject: RE: Clustering... is it worth it?
That's pretty much the argument against clustering.
In fact, many folks will tell you that Exchange needs much more hand
holding
in a cluster.
-Original Message-
From: MSX dude [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, June 27, 2003 4:50 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Clustering... is it worth it?
Upper management here is inquiring about clustering our exchange server.
We already have our PRIV, PUB and DIR on a SAN. I don't see the benefit.
If the server itself fails, I can rebuild it in an hour. If the database
corrupts it would have taken the cluster down too.
I have searched the internet but all I find are vendors praising
clustering
because they want to see you something. Does anyone have any links or
whitepapers are unbiased in their opinions?
_
List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Web Interface:
http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=lang=english
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
.+-¦-xm¶ÿÃ
,Â)Ür¿ë(º· ýì\
öªy²'µêßi¶Úþ)íÙl¥ªä+-r¿r嬦W§µêÞÅÈZ{f¡jx
b²èº{.nÇ+·¦j)m¢W½ç±r§él³ §Ê!jx .+-iX¬µ§f{0Êy ¢
RE: Clustering... is it worth it?
Havent they recommended Active/Passive for awhile now?
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Schneider, Bryan D
Sent: Friday, June 27, 2003 9:14 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Clustering... is it worth it?
You have the benefit of quick recovery in event of hardware failure on the server (not
likely typically). But, it is really nice for maintenance where you have to apply
patches, security updates, virus engine updates, service packs, etc... You can
failover in a matter of seconds and you have as much time as you need to work on the
server without interrupting users or bouncing email.
On an active/active cluster we host 16,000 users, 2500 using Outlook and the rest
using OWA 2000. We can have both virtual machines running on one quad-Xeon 700Mhz
without users noticing much of a slowdown at all. Exchange 2003 with Windows 2003 runs
more efficiently so far in our tests. However, Microsoft is now recommending ACTIVE /
PASSIVE so you have a fresh server to failover to.
You already have a key component - SAN - so I would cluster in a heartbeat. We haven't
had any issues - except for a corrupted db which we attributed to the SAN.
2003 promisses to make clustering better, but we haven't tested that yet.
-Original Message-
From: William Lefkovics [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Fri 6/27/2003 7:10 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Cc:
Subject: Re: Clustering... is it worth it?
But do consider revisiting this with 2003.
With Microsoft running 16,000 users on an 8-node cluster now.
Windows2003 and Exchange2003 of course.
- Original Message -
From: Martin Blackstone [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, June 27, 2003 5:04 PM
Subject: RE: Clustering... is it worth it?
That's pretty much the argument against clustering.
In fact, many folks will tell you that Exchange needs much more hand
holding
in a cluster.
-Original Message-
From: MSX dude [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, June 27, 2003 4:50 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Clustering... is it worth it?
Upper management here is inquiring about clustering our exchange server.
We already have our PRIV, PUB and DIR on a SAN. I don't see the benefit.
If the server itself fails, I can rebuild it in an hour. If the database
corrupts it would have taken the cluster down too.
I have searched the internet but all I find are vendors praising
clustering
because they want to see you something. Does anyone have any links or
whitepapers are unbiased in their opinions?
_
List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Web Interface:
http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=lang=english
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
..+--xm ,) r( \ y' i�� ) l+-rr W{jx Vmyzr vi
_
List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Web Interface:
http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=lang=english
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Clustering... is it worth it?
Definitely Active/Passive.
The 8-node cluster I mentioned it 5-1 with 2 for snap back up to stream to
tape after.
This is per a TechEd presentation.
William
- Original Message -
From: Schneider, Bryan D [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, June 27, 2003 6:13 PM
Subject: RE: Clustering... is it worth it?
You have the benefit of quick recovery in event of hardware failure on the
server (not likely typically). But, it is really nice for maintenance where
you have to apply patches, security updates, virus engine updates, service
packs, etc... You can failover in a matter of seconds and you have as much
time as you need to work on the server without interrupting users or
bouncing email.
On an active/active cluster we host 16,000 users, 2500 using Outlook and
the rest using OWA 2000. We can have both virtual machines running on one
quad-Xeon 700Mhz without users noticing much of a slowdown at all. Exchange
2003 with Windows 2003 runs more efficiently so far in our tests. However,
Microsoft is now recommending ACTIVE / PASSIVE so you have a fresh server to
failover to.
You already have a key component - SAN - so I would cluster in a
heartbeat. We haven't had any issues - except for a corrupted db which we
attributed to the SAN.
2003 promisses to make clustering better, but we haven't tested that yet.
-Original Message-
From: William Lefkovics [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Fri 6/27/2003 7:10 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Cc:
Subject: Re: Clustering... is it worth it?
But do consider revisiting this with 2003.
With Microsoft running 16,000 users on an 8-node cluster now.
Windows2003 and Exchange2003 of course.
- Original Message -
From: Martin Blackstone [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, June 27, 2003 5:04 PM
Subject: RE: Clustering... is it worth it?
That's pretty much the argument against clustering.
In fact, many folks will tell you that Exchange needs much more hand
holding
in a cluster.
-Original Message-
From: MSX dude [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, June 27, 2003 4:50 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Clustering... is it worth it?
Upper management here is inquiring about clustering our exchange server.
We already have our PRIV, PUB and DIR on a SAN. I don't see the
benefit.
If the server itself fails, I can rebuild it in an hour. If the
database
corrupts it would have taken the cluster down too.
I have searched the internet but all I find are vendors praising
clustering
because they want to see you something. Does anyone have any links or
whitepapers are unbiased in their opinions?
_
List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Web Interface:
http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=lang=english
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
.+--xm ,)r( \y'i)l+-rrW{jxVmyzrvi
_
List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Web Interface:
http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=lang=english
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Clustering... is it worth it?
I believe they have always recommended an Active/Active cluster.
Paul Roubicheux sais the E2K3 clusters awesomely.
-Original Message-
From: Schneider, Bryan D [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, June 27, 2003 6:14 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Clustering... is it worth it?
You have the benefit of quick recovery in event of hardware failure on the
server (not likely typically). But, it is really nice for maintenance where
you have to apply patches, security updates, virus engine updates, service
packs, etc... You can failover in a matter of seconds and you have as much
time as you need to work on the server without interrupting users or
bouncing email.
On an active/active cluster we host 16,000 users, 2500 using Outlook and the
rest using OWA 2000. We can have both virtual machines running on one
quad-Xeon 700Mhz without users noticing much of a slowdown at all. Exchange
2003 with Windows 2003 runs more efficiently so far in our tests. However,
Microsoft is now recommending ACTIVE / PASSIVE so you have a fresh server to
failover to.
You already have a key component - SAN - so I would cluster in a heartbeat.
We haven't had any issues - except for a corrupted db which we attributed to
the SAN.
2003 promisses to make clustering better, but we haven't tested that yet.
-Original Message-
From: William Lefkovics [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Fri 6/27/2003 7:10 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Cc:
Subject: Re: Clustering... is it worth it?
But do consider revisiting this with 2003.
With Microsoft running 16,000 users on an 8-node cluster now.
Windows2003 and Exchange2003 of course.
- Original Message -
From: Martin Blackstone [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, June 27, 2003 5:04 PM
Subject: RE: Clustering... is it worth it?
That's pretty much the argument against clustering.
In fact, many folks will tell you that Exchange needs much more
hand
holding
in a cluster.
-Original Message-
From: MSX dude [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, June 27, 2003 4:50 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Clustering... is it worth it?
Upper management here is inquiring about clustering our exchange
server.
We already have our PRIV, PUB and DIR on a SAN. I don't see the
benefit.
If the server itself fails, I can rebuild it in an hour. If the
database
corrupts it would have taken the cluster down too.
I have searched the internet but all I find are vendors praising
clustering
because they want to see you something. Does anyone have any
links or
whitepapers are unbiased in their opinions?
_
List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Web Interface:
http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=lang
=english
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
.+--xm ,)r( \y'i)l+-rrW{jxm^zx%S ^jZ 2G(L\xfyb))
_
List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Web Interface:
http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=lang=english
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Clustering... is it worth it?
Active/Active Clusters however are limited to 1900 mapi connections (Sp2+) so for that
reason and others, Active/Passive is generally recommended.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Martin Blackstone
Sent: Friday, June 27, 2003 9:35 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Clustering... is it worth it?
I believe they have always recommended an Active/Active cluster.
Paul Roubicheux sais the E2K3 clusters awesomely.
-Original Message-
From: Schneider, Bryan D [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, June 27, 2003 6:14 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Clustering... is it worth it?
You have the benefit of quick recovery in event of hardware failure on the server (not
likely typically). But, it is really nice for maintenance where you have to apply
patches, security updates, virus engine updates, service packs, etc... You can
failover in a matter of seconds and you have as much time as you need to work on the
server without interrupting users or bouncing email.
On an active/active cluster we host 16,000 users, 2500 using Outlook and the rest
using OWA 2000. We can have both virtual machines running on one quad-Xeon 700Mhz
without users noticing much of a slowdown at all. Exchange 2003 with Windows 2003 runs
more efficiently so far in our tests. However, Microsoft is now recommending ACTIVE /
PASSIVE so you have a fresh server to failover to.
You already have a key component - SAN - so I would cluster in a heartbeat. We haven't
had any issues - except for a corrupted db which we attributed to the SAN.
2003 promisses to make clustering better, but we haven't tested that yet.
-Original Message-
From: William Lefkovics [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Fri 6/27/2003 7:10 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Cc:
Subject: Re: Clustering... is it worth it?
But do consider revisiting this with 2003.
With Microsoft running 16,000 users on an 8-node cluster now.
Windows2003 and Exchange2003 of course.
- Original Message -
From: Martin Blackstone [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, June 27, 2003 5:04 PM
Subject: RE: Clustering... is it worth it?
That's pretty much the argument against clustering.
In fact, many folks will tell you that Exchange needs much more hand
holding
in a cluster.
-Original Message-
From: MSX dude [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, June 27, 2003 4:50 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Clustering... is it worth it?
Upper management here is inquiring about clustering our exchange server.
We already have our PRIV, PUB and DIR on a SAN. I don't see the benefit.
If the server itself fails, I can rebuild it in an hour. If the database
corrupts it would have taken the cluster down too.
I have searched the internet but all I find are vendors praising
clustering
because they want to see you something. Does anyone have any links or
whitepapers are unbiased in their opinions?
_
List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Web Interface:
http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=lang
=english
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
..+--xm ,)r( \y'i)l+-rrW{jxm^zx%S ^jZ 2G(L\xfyb))
_
List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Web Interface:
http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=lang=english
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
_
List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Web Interface:
http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=lang=english
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Clustering... is it worth it?
The TechEd PPT was 4-1-2; other than that, concur.
-Original Message-
From: William Lefkovics [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, June 27, 2003 9:21 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Re: Clustering... is it worth it?
Definitely Active/Passive.
The 8-node cluster I mentioned it 5-1 with 2 for snap back up to stream to
tape after.
This is per a TechEd presentation.
William
- Original Message -
From: Schneider, Bryan D [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, June 27, 2003 6:13 PM
Subject: RE: Clustering... is it worth it?
You have the benefit of quick recovery in event of hardware failure on the
server (not likely typically). But, it is really nice for maintenance where
you have to apply patches, security updates, virus engine updates, service
packs, etc... You can failover in a matter of seconds and you have as much
time as you need to work on the server without interrupting users or
bouncing email.
On an active/active cluster we host 16,000 users, 2500 using Outlook and
the rest using OWA 2000. We can have both virtual machines running on one
quad-Xeon 700Mhz without users noticing much of a slowdown at all. Exchange
2003 with Windows 2003 runs more efficiently so far in our tests. However,
Microsoft is now recommending ACTIVE / PASSIVE so you have a fresh server to
failover to.
You already have a key component - SAN - so I would cluster in a
heartbeat. We haven't had any issues - except for a corrupted db which we
attributed to the SAN.
2003 promisses to make clustering better, but we haven't tested that yet.
-Original Message-
From: William Lefkovics [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Fri 6/27/2003 7:10 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Cc:
Subject: Re: Clustering... is it worth it?
But do consider revisiting this with 2003.
With Microsoft running 16,000 users on an 8-node cluster now.
Windows2003 and Exchange2003 of course.
- Original Message -
From: Martin Blackstone [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, June 27, 2003 5:04 PM
Subject: RE: Clustering... is it worth it?
That's pretty much the argument against clustering.
In fact, many folks will tell you that Exchange needs much more hand
holding
in a cluster.
-Original Message-
From: MSX dude [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, June 27, 2003 4:50 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Clustering... is it worth it?
Upper management here is inquiring about clustering our exchange server.
We already have our PRIV, PUB and DIR on a SAN. I don't see the
benefit.
If the server itself fails, I can rebuild it in an hour. If the
database
corrupts it would have taken the cluster down too.
I have searched the internet but all I find are vendors praising
clustering
because they want to see you something. Does anyone have any links or
whitepapers are unbiased in their opinions?
_
List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Web Interface:
http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=lang
=english
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
.+--xm ,)r( \y'i)l+-rrW{jxVmyzrvi
_
List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Web Interface:
http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=lang
=english
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
_
List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Web Interface:
http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=lang=english
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Clustering... is it worth it?
The PPT would be wrong then as 4+1+2 8 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Slinger, Gary Sent: Friday, June 27, 2003 9:45 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Clustering... is it worth it? The TechEd PPT was 4-1-2; other than that, concur. -Original Message- From: William Lefkovics [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June 27, 2003 9:21 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Re: Clustering... is it worth it? Definitely Active/Passive. The 8-node cluster I mentioned it 5-1 with 2 for snap back up to stream to tape after. This is per a TechEd presentation. William - Original Message - From: Schneider, Bryan D [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June 27, 2003 6:13 PM Subject: RE: Clustering... is it worth it? You have the benefit of quick recovery in event of hardware failure on the server (not likely typically). But, it is really nice for maintenance where you have to apply patches, security updates, virus engine updates, service packs, etc... You can failover in a matter of seconds and you have as much time as you need to work on the server without interrupting users or bouncing email. On an active/active cluster we host 16,000 users, 2500 using Outlook and the rest using OWA 2000. We can have both virtual machines running on one quad-Xeon 700Mhz without users noticing much of a slowdown at all. Exchange 2003 with Windows 2003 runs more efficiently so far in our tests. However, Microsoft is now recommending ACTIVE / PASSIVE so you have a fresh server to failover to. You already have a key component - SAN - so I would cluster in a heartbeat. We haven't had any issues - except for a corrupted db which we attributed to the SAN. 2003 promisses to make clustering better, but we haven't tested that yet. -Original Message- From: William Lefkovics [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Fri 6/27/2003 7:10 PM To: Exchange Discussions Cc: Subject: Re: Clustering... is it worth it? But do consider revisiting this with 2003. With Microsoft running 16,000 users on an 8-node cluster now. Windows2003 and Exchange2003 of course. - Original Message - From: Martin Blackstone [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June 27, 2003 5:04 PM Subject: RE: Clustering... is it worth it? That's pretty much the argument against clustering. In fact, many folks will tell you that Exchange needs much more hand holding in a cluster. _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Clustering... is it worth it?
OK, I'll try it another way - the presentation that I heard at Tech-Ed, matched up against my notes, indicated that it was: A) 4 x 4-way servers, active, plus B) 1 x 4-way server, passive, plus C) 2 x 2-way servers, passive, for backups, etc. Equals 7. I never claimed 8. I'm perfectly capable of basic math. 8, to my recollection, notes, and thoughts of the PPT, is wrong., -Original Message- From: William Lefkovics [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, June 28, 2003 12:58 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Clustering... is it worth it? The PPT would be wrong then as 4+1+2 8 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Slinger, Gary Sent: Friday, June 27, 2003 9:45 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Clustering... is it worth it? The TechEd PPT was 4-1-2; other than that, concur. -Original Message- From: William Lefkovics [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June 27, 2003 9:21 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Re: Clustering... is it worth it? Definitely Active/Passive. The 8-node cluster I mentioned it 5-1 with 2 for snap back up to stream to tape after. This is per a TechEd presentation. William - Original Message - From: Schneider, Bryan D [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June 27, 2003 6:13 PM Subject: RE: Clustering... is it worth it? You have the benefit of quick recovery in event of hardware failure on the server (not likely typically). But, it is really nice for maintenance where you have to apply patches, security updates, virus engine updates, service packs, etc... You can failover in a matter of seconds and you have as much time as you need to work on the server without interrupting users or bouncing email. On an active/active cluster we host 16,000 users, 2500 using Outlook and the rest using OWA 2000. We can have both virtual machines running on one quad-Xeon 700Mhz without users noticing much of a slowdown at all. Exchange 2003 with Windows 2003 runs more efficiently so far in our tests. However, Microsoft is now recommending ACTIVE / PASSIVE so you have a fresh server to failover to. You already have a key component - SAN - so I would cluster in a heartbeat. We haven't had any issues - except for a corrupted db which we attributed to the SAN. 2003 promisses to make clustering better, but we haven't tested that yet. -Original Message- From: William Lefkovics [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Fri 6/27/2003 7:10 PM To: Exchange Discussions Cc: Subject: Re: Clustering... is it worth it? But do consider revisiting this with 2003. With Microsoft running 16,000 users on an 8-node cluster now. Windows2003 and Exchange2003 of course. - Original Message - From: Martin Blackstone [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June 27, 2003 5:04 PM Subject: RE: Clustering... is it worth it? That's pretty much the argument against clustering. In fact, many folks will tell you that Exchange needs much more hand holding in a cluster. _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=lang =english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Clustering... is it worth it?
You are totally right. Cochran's slides do say that. My notes do not. I am wrong. I'm sorry, Gary. 7-node cluster per the slides. 4-1-2. Not 5-1-2. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Slinger, Gary Sent: Friday, June 27, 2003 9:55 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Clustering... is it worth it? OK, I'll try it another way - the presentation that I heard at Tech-Ed, matched up against my notes, indicated that it was: A) 4 x 4-way servers, active, plus B) 1 x 4-way server, passive, plus C) 2 x 2-way servers, passive, for backups, etc. Equals 7. I never claimed 8. I'm perfectly capable of basic math. 8, to my recollection, notes, and thoughts of the PPT, is wrong., -Original Message- From: William Lefkovics [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, June 28, 2003 12:58 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Clustering... is it worth it? The PPT would be wrong then as 4+1+2 8 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Slinger, Gary Sent: Friday, June 27, 2003 9:45 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Clustering... is it worth it? The TechEd PPT was 4-1-2; other than that, concur. -Original Message- From: William Lefkovics [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June 27, 2003 9:21 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Re: Clustering... is it worth it? Definitely Active/Passive. The 8-node cluster I mentioned it 5-1 with 2 for snap back up to stream to tape after. This is per a TechEd presentation. William - Original Message - From: Schneider, Bryan D [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June 27, 2003 6:13 PM Subject: RE: Clustering... is it worth it? You have the benefit of quick recovery in event of hardware failure on the server (not likely typically). But, it is really nice for maintenance where you have to apply patches, security updates, virus engine updates, service packs, etc... You can failover in a matter of seconds and you have as much time as you need to work on the server without interrupting users or bouncing email. On an active/active cluster we host 16,000 users, 2500 using Outlook and the rest using OWA 2000. We can have both virtual machines running on one quad-Xeon 700Mhz without users noticing much of a slowdown at all. Exchange 2003 with Windows 2003 runs more efficiently so far in our tests. However, Microsoft is now recommending ACTIVE / PASSIVE so you have a fresh server to failover to. You already have a key component - SAN - so I would cluster in a heartbeat. We haven't had any issues - except for a corrupted db which we attributed to the SAN. 2003 promisses to make clustering better, but we haven't tested that yet. -Original Message- From: William Lefkovics [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Fri 6/27/2003 7:10 PM To: Exchange Discussions Cc: Subject: Re: Clustering... is it worth it? But do consider revisiting this with 2003. With Microsoft running 16,000 users on an 8-node cluster now. Windows2003 and Exchange2003 of course. - Original Message - From: Martin Blackstone [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June 27, 2003 5:04 PM Subject: RE: Clustering... is it worth it? That's pretty much the argument against clustering. In fact, many folks will tell you that Exchange needs much more hand holding in a cluster. _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=lang =english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=lang =english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Clustering OWA but not IM ?
I can't answer your question about load-balancing IM because I would have to research it and you can do that yourself. However, you can point IM to the non-load-balanced port address of the server. Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP Freelance E-Mail Philosopher Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups!T -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Erik L. Vesneski Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2003 11:32 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Clustering OWA but not IM ? Hi, I currently administer, out of other hosts, a combined front end OWA and IM server. I am interested in Network Load Balancing this server however I am under the impression IM is not supported under the Network Load Balancing architecture. Is that true? I cannot find it specifically about IM in NLB white papers however I have found it in the Exchange 2k Cluster white paper. Thanks in advance, Erik L. Vesneski Sr. Systems Specialist ISO - Intel Systems Ph#: 925-685-6161 www.pmigroup.com mailto:[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: Clustering Exchange 2000
You need only one. It provides poor business value. Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP Freelance E-Mail Philosopher Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups!T -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Hutchins, Mike Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2003 12:38 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Clustering Exchange 2000 I remember seeing all the reasons to not cluster exchange, can someone point me to those please? Thanks! :-) _ List posting FAQ: http://www.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: Clustering Exchange 2000
Hello Mike, You can search the archives for this list at: http://www.mail-archive.com/exchange%40ls.swynk.com/ If that link doesn't work, just go to http://www.mail-archive.com and search for 'exchange'. Regards, Allison Am Don, 2003-03-27 um 21.37 schrieb Hutchins, Mike: I remember seeing all the reasons to not cluster exchange, can someone point me to those please? Thanks! :-) _ List posting FAQ: http://www.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: Clustering Exchange 2000
Hi there As a person that has a cluster exchange, let me comment: 1) You cannot run the SRS service on a cluster. 2) Microsoft highly recommends an Active - Passive setup 3) There are extra steps needed to get a front end/ back configuration to work properly 4) The cluster is much more complicated than a regular server. 5) False sense of security. I have had issues where a mailbox store corrupted (1018 error). My cluster didn't save me from that. Trust me, Exchange 2000 is a wonderful product. It is also a complex product. Why would you want to make things even more complicated by throwing this on a cluster server? HTH Russell -Original Message- From: Hutchins, Mike [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2003 3:38 PM To: Exchange Discussions I remember seeing all the reasons to not cluster exchange, can someone point me to those please? Thanks! :-) _ List posting FAQ: http://www.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: Clustering questions
1) Do you really want to interupt you users twice in the same day? Once when the problem occurs and then again when it is resolved? 2) How many Storage Groups do you have on each node. Is it possible when both fail you have to many Storage Groups? 3) Not sure. -Original Message- From: M2web [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2003 5:28 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Clustering questions I have setup a 2+1 cluster node in our lab (two active one passive)as back-end server plus a front-end server. It looks like that the cluster works as far as when one shuts down a node the passive node takes over the services of that node, or even when the network cable is unplugged. However, there are three qustions that I have not been able to answer or find any on, would anyone have any insight, any help would be appreciated? they are: 1. when one node is shut down, the services are seen in the cluster administrator to be taken over by the passive node Should not the services fall back to the original node when it is on line again? Or must this be done manually which then does it not mean that the serivces to be moved must first be taken offline and then the ownership moved which defeats clustering purpose? 2. When the node which had taken over all the services was shut down , I got errors that MTA data could not be saved and looking at the cluster administrator on the first node it says that the cluster has failed! But should not the first node server take over immediately (10 secs)? 3. In all the papers that I read, it is mentioned that if one has a front-end server that on each exchange virtual node an HTTP connection be mapped to the front-end. Follwing the procedure of creating the HTTP, I can not start the service unless I take offline the automatically created HTTP service which was created when Exchange SA was installed by the server itself! But according to the papers I should have, not only the one which was created automatially but also have the mapped ones too!? _ List posting FAQ: http://www.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: Clustering Exchange
As someone said, the reason people cluster is to get the high availability. Our experience has been good - E2K certainly still has issues but a reboot often fixes it. In the case of a cluster, I can limit the minutes of downtime quite a bit over a reboot. Also, when I have to do maintenance, I can limit the impact to a quick failover. This may not matter in most environments but when you have dollars tied to an SLA, those minutes are seriously worth it - at least it has worked out well for us. If I were building systems in anything other than a service provider situation, I probably wouldn't bother with clusters either. Matt Goodell Mi8 Corporation -Original Message- From: Ed Crowley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Sunday, November 24, 2002 11:24 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Clustering Exchange If you want maximum uptime, don't cluster. I am convinced that clustering increases downtime. 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 Callan, Chris Sent: Friday, November 22, 2002 7:57 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Clustering Exchange To answer your reasons not to 1. Already have hardware. Higher ups, didn't mind spending money. 2. Thinking about N plus 1 3. True 4. No reason why I would want my server to be a Domain Controller 5. No reason why I would want my server to be a Global Catalogue Server 6. Have another machine with the srs, and only need it while 2000 and 5.5 are co-existing. 7. True. The reason my company would like a cluster, to have the most available uptime as possible. So if a server does happen to go down, we wouldn't have much downtime, as if we had to fix a standalone server. -Original Message- From: Etts, Russell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, November 22, 2002 10:44 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Clustering Exchange Oh Boy (Time to get on my soap box)... Reasons not to have an exchange cluster: Clustering is generally expensive Clustering is more complex than two servers Front end\ Back end configurations are more complicated Exchange cluster nodes cannot be domain controllers Exchange cluster nodes cannot be global catalog servers Clusters cannot support the SRS service Clustering will not save you in the event of a hardware failure leading to a -1018 error and corrupting your mailbox store. Reasons to cluster exchange: Looks good on your resume Trust me... I have a cluster. Exchange 2000 is complex enough. Why would you want to introduce a cluster and complicate your environment even more? (Off soap box) HTH Russell Friends don't let friends cluster exchange -Original Message- From: Callan, Chris [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, November 22, 2002 10:29 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Clustering Exchange Okay, we have been beating our heads around looking for a cluster option that will work for us, obviously Active/Active was shot down, because of the memory fragmentation, even though initially MS told us it could be done, for the meantime we are looking to just go Active/Passive, I was wondering though what the general consensus on going N+1 is. We are going to explore the possibility to go to this, but I wanted to get some opinions on it first. Chris _ List posting FAQ: http://www.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] ** Mi8 Powered Applications - Brains for Business ** This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error
RE: Clustering Exchange
If you want maximum uptime, don't cluster. I am convinced that clustering increases downtime. 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 Callan, Chris Sent: Friday, November 22, 2002 7:57 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Clustering Exchange To answer your reasons not to 1. Already have hardware. Higher ups, didn't mind spending money. 2. Thinking about N plus 1 3. True 4. No reason why I would want my server to be a Domain Controller 5. No reason why I would want my server to be a Global Catalogue Server 6. Have another machine with the srs, and only need it while 2000 and 5.5 are co-existing. 7. True. The reason my company would like a cluster, to have the most available uptime as possible. So if a server does happen to go down, we wouldn't have much downtime, as if we had to fix a standalone server. -Original Message- From: Etts, Russell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, November 22, 2002 10:44 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Clustering Exchange Oh Boy (Time to get on my soap box)... Reasons not to have an exchange cluster: Clustering is generally expensive Clustering is more complex than two servers Front end\ Back end configurations are more complicated Exchange cluster nodes cannot be domain controllers Exchange cluster nodes cannot be global catalog servers Clusters cannot support the SRS service Clustering will not save you in the event of a hardware failure leading to a -1018 error and corrupting your mailbox store. Reasons to cluster exchange: Looks good on your resume Trust me... I have a cluster. Exchange 2000 is complex enough. Why would you want to introduce a cluster and complicate your environment even more? (Off soap box) HTH Russell Friends don't let friends cluster exchange -Original Message- From: Callan, Chris [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, November 22, 2002 10:29 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Clustering Exchange Okay, we have been beating our heads around looking for a cluster option that will work for us, obviously Active/Active was shot down, because of the memory fragmentation, even though initially MS told us it could be done, for the meantime we are looking to just go Active/Passive, I was wondering though what the general consensus on going N+1 is. We are going to explore the possibility to go to this, but I wanted to get some opinions on it first. Chris _ List posting FAQ: http://www.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: Clustering Exchange
Don't do it. Been there done it you'll be sorry. Search the archives for cluster. We are moving away from a cluster and using hot spare server and booting off the SAN for redundancy. Brian -Original Message- From: Callan, Chris [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, November 22, 2002 10:29 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Clustering Exchange Okay, we have been beating our heads around looking for a cluster option that will work for us, obviously Active/Active was shot down, because of the memory fragmentation, even though initially MS told us it could be done, for the meantime we are looking to just go Active/Passive, I was wondering though what the general consensus on going N+1 is. We are going to explore the possibility to go to this, but I wanted to get some opinions on it first. Chris _ List posting FAQ: http://www.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: Clustering Exchange
Insufficient data. -Original Message- From: Callan, Chris [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, November 22, 2002 9:29 AM To: Exchange Discussions Okay, we have been beating our heads around looking for a cluster option that will work for us, obviously Active/Active was shot down, because of the memory fragmentation, even though initially MS told us it could be done, for the meantime we are looking to just go Active/Passive, I was wondering though what the general consensus on going N+1 is. We are going to explore the possibility to go to this, but I wanted to get some opinions on it first. _ List posting FAQ: http://www.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: Clustering Exchange
Oh Boy (Time to get on my soap box)... Reasons not to have an exchange cluster: Clustering is generally expensive Clustering is more complex than two servers Front end\ Back end configurations are more complicated Exchange cluster nodes cannot be domain controllers Exchange cluster nodes cannot be global catalog servers Clusters cannot support the SRS service Clustering will not save you in the event of a hardware failure leading to a -1018 error and corrupting your mailbox store. Reasons to cluster exchange: Looks good on your resume Trust me... I have a cluster. Exchange 2000 is complex enough. Why would you want to introduce a cluster and complicate your environment even more? (Off soap box) HTH Russell Friends don't let friends cluster exchange -Original Message- From: Callan, Chris [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, November 22, 2002 10:29 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Clustering Exchange Okay, we have been beating our heads around looking for a cluster option that will work for us, obviously Active/Active was shot down, because of the memory fragmentation, even though initially MS told us it could be done, for the meantime we are looking to just go Active/Passive, I was wondering though what the general consensus on going N+1 is. We are going to explore the possibility to go to this, but I wanted to get some opinions on it first. Chris _ List posting FAQ: http://www.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: Clustering Exchange
To answer your reasons not to 1. Already have hardware. Higher ups, didn't mind spending money. 2. Thinking about N plus 1 3. True 4. No reason why I would want my server to be a Domain Controller 5. No reason why I would want my server to be a Global Catalogue Server 6. Have another machine with the srs, and only need it while 2000 and 5.5 are co-existing. 7. True. The reason my company would like a cluster, to have the most available uptime as possible. So if a server does happen to go down, we wouldn't have much downtime, as if we had to fix a standalone server. -Original Message- From: Etts, Russell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, November 22, 2002 10:44 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Clustering Exchange Oh Boy (Time to get on my soap box)... Reasons not to have an exchange cluster: Clustering is generally expensive Clustering is more complex than two servers Front end\ Back end configurations are more complicated Exchange cluster nodes cannot be domain controllers Exchange cluster nodes cannot be global catalog servers Clusters cannot support the SRS service Clustering will not save you in the event of a hardware failure leading to a -1018 error and corrupting your mailbox store. Reasons to cluster exchange: Looks good on your resume Trust me... I have a cluster. Exchange 2000 is complex enough. Why would you want to introduce a cluster and complicate your environment even more? (Off soap box) HTH Russell Friends don't let friends cluster exchange -Original Message- From: Callan, Chris [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, November 22, 2002 10:29 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Clustering Exchange Okay, we have been beating our heads around looking for a cluster option that will work for us, obviously Active/Active was shot down, because of the memory fragmentation, even though initially MS told us it could be done, for the meantime we are looking to just go Active/Passive, I was wondering though what the general consensus on going N+1 is. We are going to explore the possibility to go to this, but I wanted to get some opinions on it first. Chris _ List posting FAQ: http://www.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: Clustering Exchange
I think the general opinion on this list is don't do clusters. I am currently working to implement a cluster and it does add an additional level of difficulty. In my opinion, if you are going to use a cluster, an N+1 senario does give you the cluster technology with less hardware expense. It does seem to an an additional layer of complexity when you are initially setting up the cluster. Dennis -Original Message- From: Callan, Chris [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, November 22, 2002 10:29 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Clustering Exchange Okay, we have been beating our heads around looking for a cluster option that will work for us, obviously Active/Active was shot down, because of the memory fragmentation, even though initially MS told us it could be done, for the meantime we are looking to just go Active/Passive, I was wondering though what the general consensus on going N+1 is. We are going to explore the possibility to go to this, but I wanted to get some opinions on it first. Chris _ List posting FAQ: http://www.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: Clustering Exchange 2000
Change the display name of the 5.5 org before upgrading and their E2K org will reflect the new name. -Original Message- From: Sebnem [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, April 04, 2002 3:37 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Clustering Exchange 2000 Hi all- I am working with a client who has Exchange 5.5 single server running in their AD. They want to go for Exchange 2000 2-node active/passive clustered environment w/o any downtime. I know that I cannot upgrade an Exchange server to a clustered exchange server. My approach is to install Exchange cluster into the same site and move users from the old Exchange 5.5. Move the bridgehead from the old exchange 5.5 to the new one and get rid of the old one. In that approach do you see any pitfalls? Also if they want to change the organization name, would the same approach work if I install a new organization with the clustered exchange 2000 servers? _ List posting FAQ: http://www.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: Clustering Exchange
Can you cluster hot tubs? -Original Message- From: Bowles, John L. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, January 18, 2002 1:20 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Clustering Exchange Kevin...what exactly are you doing there? ___ John Bowles Exchange Administrator Enterprise Support Engineering Celera Genomics [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: Darcy Adams [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, January 18, 2002 4:19 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Clustering Exchange Working from your hot tub again, Kevin? -Original Message- From: Kevin Miller [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, January 18, 2002 1:15 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Clustering Exchange I work on them with most of my body being wet all the time? Infact I am right now.. What is wrong with that --Kevinm M, WLKMMAS, UCC+WCA, And Beyond He's a Dentist, a Detective, a MindReader, No He is in IT. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Lefkovics, William Sent: Friday, January 18, 2002 11:36 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Clustering Exchange Do not work on servers while your feet are wet. Trut me. -Original Message- From: Ed Smits [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, January 18, 2002 11:38 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Clustering Exchange Interesting debate on clustering Exchange. We just put in an Exchange cluster (5.5, sp4, Win2K servers) and I'm slowing getting my feet wet with the whole thing. In was working from home today, reading the debate, when my colleague calls me and says our system just failed over (down time aprox. 1 minute). I terminalled in to the servers and discovered an application error that started the whole thing: Event ID: 12800 Description:Message processing failed because there is not enough available memory (8007000E-F2000200). And this on machines with 4 GB RAM. A check of the KB brings up article Q193782 which informs me that: CAUSE The Internet Mail Service submits a message to the information store, which in turn parses the addresses to get the corresponding display names. It detects the corrupted address and generates MAPI_E_CALL_FAILED, but later this error is overwritten as MAPI_E_NOT_ENOUGH_MEMORY. The information store logs an Event ID: 12800, and the error is returned to the Internet Mail Service. The Internet Mail Service detects this as a serious error and logs an Event ID: 4182, shutting itself down. Now, I'm not sure why our server was shut down, it is running SP4, and will have to investigate this further, but I must admit that I am glad that my management was willing to cluster the thing if Exchange can do this to itself. Ed Smits Canada _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.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] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.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: Clustering Exchange
Yes. However it does not provide any protection against DOS (Denial of Soap) attacks. S. -Original Message- From: Dupler, Craig [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, January 21, 2002 2:47 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Clustering Exchange Can you cluster hot tubs? -Original Message- From: Bowles, John L. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, January 18, 2002 1:20 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Clustering Exchange Kevin...what exactly are you doing there? ___ John Bowles Exchange Administrator Enterprise Support Engineering Celera Genomics [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: Darcy Adams [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, January 18, 2002 4:19 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Clustering Exchange Working from your hot tub again, Kevin? -Original Message- From: Kevin Miller [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, January 18, 2002 1:15 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Clustering Exchange I work on them with most of my body being wet all the time? Infact I am right now.. What is wrong with that --Kevinm M, WLKMMAS, UCC+WCA, And Beyond He's a Dentist, a Detective, a MindReader, No He is in IT. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Lefkovics, William Sent: Friday, January 18, 2002 11:36 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Clustering Exchange Do not work on servers while your feet are wet. Trut me. -Original Message- From: Ed Smits [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, January 18, 2002 11:38 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Clustering Exchange Interesting debate on clustering Exchange. We just put in an Exchange cluster (5.5, sp4, Win2K servers) and I'm slowing getting my feet wet with the whole thing. In was working from home today, reading the debate, when my colleague calls me and says our system just failed over (down time aprox. 1 minute). I terminalled in to the servers and discovered an application error that started the whole thing: Event ID: 12800 Description:Message processing failed because there is not enough available memory (8007000E-F2000200). And this on machines with 4 GB RAM. A check of the KB brings up article Q193782 which informs me that: CAUSE The Internet Mail Service submits a message to the information store, which in turn parses the addresses to get the corresponding display names. It detects the corrupted address and generates MAPI_E_CALL_FAILED, but later this error is overwritten as MAPI_E_NOT_ENOUGH_MEMORY. The information store logs an Event ID: 12800, and the error is returned to the Internet Mail Service. The Internet Mail Service detects this as a serious error and logs an Event ID: 4182, shutting itself down. Now, I'm not sure why our server was shut down, it is running SP4, and will have to investigate this further, but I must admit that I am glad that my management was willing to cluster the thing if Exchange can do this to itself. Ed Smits Canada _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.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] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.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: Clustering Exchange
If you do cluster, make sure that you have protection. -Original Message- From: Dupler, Craig [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, January 21, 2002 11:47 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject:RE: Clustering Exchange Can you cluster hot tubs? -Original Message- From: Bowles, John L. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, January 18, 2002 1:20 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Clustering Exchange Kevin...what exactly are you doing there? ___ John Bowles Exchange Administrator Enterprise Support Engineering Celera Genomics [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: Darcy Adams [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, January 18, 2002 4:19 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Clustering Exchange Working from your hot tub again, Kevin? -Original Message- From: Kevin Miller [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, January 18, 2002 1:15 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Clustering Exchange I work on them with most of my body being wet all the time? Infact I am right now.. What is wrong with that --Kevinm M, WLKMMAS, UCC+WCA, And Beyond He's a Dentist, a Detective, a MindReader, No He is in IT. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Lefkovics, William Sent: Friday, January 18, 2002 11:36 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Clustering Exchange Do not work on servers while your feet are wet. Trut me. -Original Message- From: Ed Smits [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, January 18, 2002 11:38 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Clustering Exchange Interesting debate on clustering Exchange. We just put in an Exchange cluster (5.5, sp4, Win2K servers) and I'm slowing getting my feet wet with the whole thing. In was working from home today, reading the debate, when my colleague calls me and says our system just failed over (down time aprox. 1 minute). I terminalled in to the servers and discovered an application error that started the whole thing: Event ID: 12800 Description:Message processing failed because there is not enough available memory (8007000E-F2000200). And this on machines with 4 GB RAM. A check of the KB brings up article Q193782 which informs me that: CAUSE The Internet Mail Service submits a message to the information store, which in turn parses the addresses to get the corresponding display names. It detects the corrupted address and generates MAPI_E_CALL_FAILED, but later this error is overwritten as MAPI_E_NOT_ENOUGH_MEMORY. The information store logs an Event ID: 12800, and the error is returned to the Internet Mail Service. The Internet Mail Service detects this as a serious error and logs an Event ID: 4182, shutting itself down. Now, I'm not sure why our server was shut down, it is running SP4, and will have to investigate this further, but I must admit that I am glad that my management was willing to cluster the thing if Exchange can do this to itself. Ed Smits Canada _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.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] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.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: clustering wireless
No dick it wasnt me -Original Message- From: Ed Crowley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2002 10:41 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: clustering wireless You're an idea guy, aren't you, Richard? I think I've met you before. You go to MCP classes and sit in the front row and constantly ask the teacher about things that aren't remotely related to the course subject, causing lengthy hours-long digressions. You ask questions like, What happens if I try to run my Exchange server on a MacIntosh? or What would happen if I moved my information store to DECTape? Ed Crowley MCSE+I MVP Tech Consultant Compaq Computer There are seldom good technological solutions to behavioral problems. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Tener, Richard Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2002 6:35 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: clustering wireless Hello, Has anyone ever set MCSC between two building over a wireless bridge. I was wondering if it is possible to cluster two exchange servers over a Cisco Aironet 340. Thanks Richard _ List posting FAQ: http://www.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: clustering wireless
I guess I could be wrong, but I thought Ed was short for Edgar and Dick was short for Richard. If that's not the case, then people have been calling my dad by the wrong name for years! -Original Message- From: Tener, Richard To: Exchange Discussions Sent: 1/18/2002 7:31 AM Subject: RE: clustering wireless No dick it wasnt me -Original Message- From: Ed Crowley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2002 10:41 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: clustering wireless You're an idea guy, aren't you, Richard? I think I've met you before. You go to MCP classes and sit in the front row and constantly ask the teacher about things that aren't remotely related to the course subject, causing lengthy hours-long digressions. You ask questions like, What happens if I try to run my Exchange server on a MacIntosh? or What would happen if I moved my information store to DECTape? Ed Crowley MCSE+I MVP Tech Consultant Compaq Computer There are seldom good technological solutions to behavioral problems. _ List posting FAQ: http://www.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: clustering wireless
Poor Richard. Can't even get a flame right! -Original Message- From: Chris Scharff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, January 18, 2002 9:00 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: clustering wireless I guess I could be wrong, but I thought Ed was short for Edgar and Dick was short for Richard. If that's not the case, then people have been calling my dad by the wrong name for years! -Original Message- From: Tener, Richard To: Exchange Discussions Sent: 1/18/2002 7:31 AM Subject: RE: clustering wireless No dick it wasnt me -Original Message- From: Ed Crowley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2002 10:41 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: clustering wireless You're an idea guy, aren't you, Richard? I think I've met you before. You go to MCP classes and sit in the front row and constantly ask the teacher about things that aren't remotely related to the course subject, causing lengthy hours-long digressions. You ask questions like, What happens if I try to run my Exchange server on a MacIntosh? or What would happen if I moved my information store to DECTape? Ed Crowley MCSE+I MVP Tech Consultant Compaq Computer There are seldom good technological solutions to behavioral problems. _ List posting FAQ: http://www.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: clustering wireless
No. Poor Richard was much smarter. -Original Message- From: Andy David [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, January 18, 2002 9:15 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: clustering wireless Poor Richard. Can't even get a flame right! -Original Message- From: Chris Scharff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, January 18, 2002 9:00 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: clustering wireless I guess I could be wrong, but I thought Ed was short for Edgar and Dick was short for Richard. If that's not the case, then people have been calling my dad by the wrong name for years! -Original Message- From: Tener, Richard To: Exchange Discussions Sent: 1/18/2002 7:31 AM Subject: RE: clustering wireless No dick it wasnt me -Original Message- From: Ed Crowley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2002 10:41 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: clustering wireless You're an idea guy, aren't you, Richard? I think I've met you before. You go to MCP classes and sit in the front row and constantly ask the teacher about things that aren't remotely related to the course subject, causing lengthy hours-long digressions. You ask questions like, What happens if I try to run my Exchange server on a MacIntosh? or What would happen if I moved my information store to DECTape? Ed Crowley MCSE+I MVP Tech Consultant Compaq Computer There are seldom good technological solutions to behavioral problems. _ List posting FAQ: http://www.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]
RE: clustering wireless
Mmmm flaming Richard -Original Message- From: Andy David [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, January 18, 2002 6:15 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: clustering wireless Poor Richard. Can't even get a flame right! -Original Message- From: Chris Scharff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, January 18, 2002 9:00 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: clustering wireless I guess I could be wrong, but I thought Ed was short for Edgar and Dick was short for Richard. If that's not the case, then people have been calling my dad by the wrong name for years! -Original Message- From: Tener, Richard To: Exchange Discussions Sent: 1/18/2002 7:31 AM Subject: RE: clustering wireless No dick it wasnt me -Original Message- From: Ed Crowley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2002 10:41 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: clustering wireless You're an idea guy, aren't you, Richard? I think I've met you before. You go to MCP classes and sit in the front row and constantly ask the teacher about things that aren't remotely related to the course subject, causing lengthy hours-long digressions. You ask questions like, What happens if I try to run my Exchange server on a MacIntosh? or What would happen if I moved my information store to DECTape? Ed Crowley MCSE+I MVP Tech Consultant Compaq Computer There are seldom good technological solutions to behavioral problems. _ List posting FAQ: http://www.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]
RE: clustering wireless
wooo h -Original Message- From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, January 18, 2002 9:18 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: clustering wireless Mmmm flaming Richard -Original Message- From: Andy David [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, January 18, 2002 6:15 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: clustering wireless Poor Richard. Can't even get a flame right! -Original Message- From: Chris Scharff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, January 18, 2002 9:00 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: clustering wireless I guess I could be wrong, but I thought Ed was short for Edgar and Dick was short for Richard. If that's not the case, then people have been calling my dad by the wrong name for years! -Original Message- From: Tener, Richard To: Exchange Discussions Sent: 1/18/2002 7:31 AM Subject: RE: clustering wireless No dick it wasnt me -Original Message- From: Ed Crowley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2002 10:41 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: clustering wireless You're an idea guy, aren't you, Richard? I think I've met you before. You go to MCP classes and sit in the front row and constantly ask the teacher about things that aren't remotely related to the course subject, causing lengthy hours-long digressions. You ask questions like, What happens if I try to run my Exchange server on a MacIntosh? or What would happen if I moved my information store to DECTape? Ed Crowley MCSE+I MVP Tech Consultant Compaq Computer There are seldom good technological solutions to behavioral problems. _ List posting FAQ: http://www.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: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: clustering wireless
Looks like teacher has left the room for a second... Regards Mr Louis Joyce Network Support Analyst Exchange Administrator BT Ignite eSolutions -Original Message- From: Tener, Richard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 18 January 2002 14:29 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: clustering wireless wooo h -Original Message- From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, January 18, 2002 9:18 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: clustering wireless Mmmm flaming Richard -Original Message- From: Andy David [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, January 18, 2002 6:15 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: clustering wireless Poor Richard. Can't even get a flame right! -Original Message- From: Chris Scharff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, January 18, 2002 9:00 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: clustering wireless I guess I could be wrong, but I thought Ed was short for Edgar and Dick was short for Richard. If that's not the case, then people have been calling my dad by the wrong name for years! -Original Message- From: Tener, Richard To: Exchange Discussions Sent: 1/18/2002 7:31 AM Subject: RE: clustering wireless No dick it wasnt me -Original Message- From: Ed Crowley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2002 10:41 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: clustering wireless You're an idea guy, aren't you, Richard? I think I've met you before. You go to MCP classes and sit in the front row and constantly ask the teacher about things that aren't remotely related to the course subject, causing lengthy hours-long digressions. You ask questions like, What happens if I try to run my Exchange server on a MacIntosh? or What would happen if I moved my information store to DECTape? Ed Crowley MCSE+I MVP Tech Consultant Compaq Computer There are seldom good technological solutions to behavioral problems. _ List posting FAQ: http://www.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: 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: Clustering Exchange
What is the real cost of planned downtime? Does it really cost your company anything at all? (Some have suggested that productivity might actually increase when e-mail is down!) Does reducing planned downtime really justify the added cost, a very significant cost, of clustering, especially considering that planned downtime can be taken at times when few users are on the system? It seems to me that clusters for Exchange seldom can be cost-justified. Ed Crowley MCSE+I MVP Tech Consultant Compaq Computer There are seldom good technological solutions to behavioral problems. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Exchange Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2002 9:09 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Clustering Exchange Hmmm...So everyone likes to cut down clustering. I don't fully agree. I have worked with it tons, both on the 5.5 and 2000 platforms. It is more complex, more things can go wrong, many times 'the clustering part of it' lags behind the other parts of the program, third party products aren't always cluster aware and therefore can cause problems, human error is much more common because people aren't sufficiently trained on it, etc. But, if you educate yourself on the technology, work with 3rd parties that do consider clustering, etc. it is possible to, first and foremost, have less planned downtime. That really is one of clustering's major benefits. You can deploy service packs, etc. on the passive nodes while the active one is still running, and effectively cut a 1/2 hour downtime situation to 2 minutes (if everything goes well ;-) ). Also, if the hardware, OS, or a service, goes South on a system, failovers happen quite gracefully (given you're up to date on service packs) and you will have the service back up faster than if you weren't clustered. I've had systems with 5,000 users on them failover with minimal reports to the customers help desk...it does work. If you're in an environment that has people who know what they're doing, and the decision makers above are willing to spend the money for adding possibly another 9, clustering can help. If you are new to the technology, let others do it - your stand alone server will run just fine and will be easier for you to maintain. If you do go with clustering: Don't do active/active clusters, and don't forget that the single point of failure is your SAN/external disks - clustering won't save you from database corruption or external disk failure. In your situation it certainly sounds like not clustering is the right thing to do. I just wanted to defend the technology a bit, because I feel given the right circumstances, it performs as advertised. 'Hope it helps, Per Farny Senior Network Architect Goliath Networks Inc [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: Callan, Chris [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Posted At: Thursday, January 17, 2002 11:34 AM Posted To: Exchange Conversation: Clustering Exchange Subject: Clustering Exchange My immediate supervisor mentioned that when we finally get new Exchange Servers that we should have them clustered. Now I have never clustered servers before and wouldn't know how to start, but I just wanted to get everyone's opinions on the subject to begin with. How hard is it to do, and how is it to maintain. What are the pro's and con's. Any help would be appreciated. __ Do You Yahoo!? Send FREE video emails in Yahoo! Mail! http://promo.yahoo.com/videomail/ _ List posting FAQ: http://www.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: Clustering Exchange
Agreed. I am speaking for the few companies that have money to spend, and say, Yes, I am willing to pay for that. It's worth it to me to get the reduced (planned) downtime. Per Farny Senior Network Architect Goliath Networks Inc [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: Ed Crowley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Posted At: Friday, January 18, 2002 10:59 AM Posted To: Exchange Conversation: Clustering Exchange Subject: RE: Clustering Exchange What is the real cost of planned downtime? Does it really cost your company anything at all? (Some have suggested that productivity might actually increase when e-mail is down!) Does reducing planned downtime really justify the added cost, a very significant cost, of clustering, especially considering that planned downtime can be taken at times when few users are on the system? It seems to me that clusters for Exchange seldom can be cost-justified. Ed Crowley MCSE+I MVP Tech Consultant Compaq Computer There are seldom good technological solutions to behavioral problems. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Exchange Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2002 9:09 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Clustering Exchange Hmmm...So everyone likes to cut down clustering. I don't fully agree. I have worked with it tons, both on the 5.5 and 2000 platforms. It is more complex, more things can go wrong, many times 'the clustering part of it' lags behind the other parts of the program, third party products aren't always cluster aware and therefore can cause problems, human error is much more common because people aren't sufficiently trained on it, etc. But, if you educate yourself on the technology, work with 3rd parties that do consider clustering, etc. it is possible to, first and foremost, have less planned downtime. That really is one of clustering's major benefits. You can deploy service packs, etc. on the passive nodes while the active one is still running, and effectively cut a 1/2 hour downtime situation to 2 minutes (if everything goes well ;-) ). Also, if the hardware, OS, or a service, goes South on a system, failovers happen quite gracefully (given you're up to date on service packs) and you will have the service back up faster than if you weren't clustered. I've had systems with 5,000 users on them failover with minimal reports to the customers help desk...it does work. If you're in an environment that has people who know what they're doing, and the decision makers above are willing to spend the money for adding possibly another 9, clustering can help. If you are new to the technology, let others do it - your stand alone server will run just fine and will be easier for you to maintain. If you do go with clustering: Don't do active/active clusters, and don't forget that the single point of failure is your SAN/external disks - clustering won't save you from database corruption or external disk failure. In your situation it certainly sounds like not clustering is the right thing to do. I just wanted to defend the technology a bit, because I feel given the right circumstances, it performs as advertised. 'Hope it helps, Per Farny Senior Network Architect Goliath Networks Inc [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: Callan, Chris [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Posted At: Thursday, January 17, 2002 11:34 AM Posted To: Exchange Conversation: Clustering Exchange Subject: Clustering Exchange My immediate supervisor mentioned that when we finally get new Exchange Servers that we should have them clustered. Now I have never clustered servers before and wouldn't know how to start, but I just wanted to get everyone's opinions on the subject to begin with. How hard is it to do, and how is it to maintain. What are the pro's and con's. Any help would be appreciated. __ Do You Yahoo!? Send FREE video emails in Yahoo! Mail! http://promo.yahoo.com/videomail/ _ List posting FAQ: http://www.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: clustering wireless
Well said Daniel. The only thing you didn't mention (maybe it didn't happen to you) is that when you want to stop/start a service for a good reason, the cluster admin sometimes finds that as a reason to failover the whole darn server. -Original Message- From: Atkinson, Daniel [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2002 9:32 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: clustering wireless exchange + mscs = sleep deprivation look forward to cluster services failing for no apparent reason, exchange services not responding properly to actions in cluster administrator, dubious failover etc etc in 4 months with the cluster we had plenty of downtime during working hours, terrible. Since trashing the cluster and using the two servers as seperate exchange servers in the same site, we've had no downtime, and both servers are busy delivering mail instead of one just sitting there waiting to not work when called upon. while i'm on the subject, does anyone know the correct way to get exchange databases (particularly the directory i think) to forget that they are part of a clustered exchange server? . The problem is that the IMS won't install on a clean, non-clustered exchange server with restored databases from a clustered exchange server. It throws an error saying the cluster services aren't installed, so there must be something in the databases that tells exchange it should be on a cluster. i couldn't figure it out, so ended up migrating users to another server using ed's server move method. dan. _ List posting FAQ: http://www.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: Clustering Exchange
Pro: You'll have lots of opportunities to tell your supervisor what an eejit they truly are. Con: Everything else about clustering. -Original Message- From: Callan, Chris [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2002 11:34 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Clustering Exchange My immediate supervisor mentioned that when we finally get new Exchange Servers that we should have them clustered. Now I have never clustered servers before and wouldn't know how to start, but I just wanted to get everyone's opinions on the subject to begin with. How hard is it to do, and how is it to maintain. What are the pro's and con's. Any help would be appreciated. _ List posting FAQ: http://www.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: clustering wireless
If I throw a stick, will you go away? -Original Message- From: Tener, Richard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, January 18, 2002 5:32 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: clustering wireless No dick it wasnt me -Original Message- From: Ed Crowley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2002 10:41 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: clustering wireless You're an idea guy, aren't you, Richard? I think I've met you before. You go to MCP classes and sit in the front row and constantly ask the teacher about things that aren't remotely related to the course subject, causing lengthy hours-long digressions. You ask questions like, What happens if I try to run my Exchange server on a MacIntosh? or What would happen if I moved my information store to DECTape? Ed Crowley MCSE+I MVP Tech Consultant Compaq Computer There are seldom good technological solutions to behavioral problems. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Tener, Richard Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2002 6:35 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: clustering wireless Hello, Has anyone ever set MCSC between two building over a wireless bridge. I was wondering if it is possible to cluster two exchange servers over a Cisco Aironet 340. Thanks Richard _ List posting FAQ: http://www.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: clustering wireless
Make it so Number 1. -Original Message- From: Jennifer Baker [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, January 18, 2002 2:32 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: clustering wireless If I throw a stick, will you go away? -Original Message- From: Tener, Richard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, January 18, 2002 5:32 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: clustering wireless No dick it wasnt me -Original Message- From: Ed Crowley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2002 10:41 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: clustering wireless You're an idea guy, aren't you, Richard? I think I've met you before. You go to MCP classes and sit in the front row and constantly ask the teacher about things that aren't remotely related to the course subject, causing lengthy hours-long digressions. You ask questions like, What happens if I try to run my Exchange server on a MacIntosh? or What would happen if I moved my information store to DECTape? Ed Crowley MCSE+I MVP Tech Consultant Compaq Computer There are seldom good technological solutions to behavioral problems. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Tener, Richard Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2002 6:35 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: clustering wireless Hello, Has anyone ever set MCSC between two building over a wireless bridge. I was wondering if it is possible to cluster two exchange servers over a Cisco Aironet 340. Thanks Richard _ List posting FAQ: http://www.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: Clustering Exchange
Interesting debate on clustering Exchange. We just put in an Exchange cluster (5.5, sp4, Win2K servers) and I'm slowing getting my feet wet with the whole thing. In was working from home today, reading the debate, when my colleague calls me and says our system just failed over (down time aprox. 1 minute). I terminalled in to the servers and discovered an application error that started the whole thing: Event ID: 12800 Description:Message processing failed because there is not enough available memory (8007000E-F2000200). And this on machines with 4 GB RAM. A check of the KB brings up article Q193782 which informs me that: CAUSE The Internet Mail Service submits a message to the information store, which in turn parses the addresses to get the corresponding display names. It detects the corrupted address and generates MAPI_E_CALL_FAILED, but later this error is overwritten as MAPI_E_NOT_ENOUGH_MEMORY. The information store logs an Event ID: 12800, and the error is returned to the Internet Mail Service. The Internet Mail Service detects this as a serious error and logs an Event ID: 4182, shutting itself down. Now, I'm not sure why our server was shut down, it is running SP4, and will have to investigate this further, but I must admit that I am glad that my management was willing to cluster the thing if Exchange can do this to itself. Ed Smits Canada _ List posting FAQ: http://www.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: Clustering Exchange
Agreed, especially when it's cold outside. But why should I truss you? Into kink, are we? -Original Message- From: Lefkovics, William [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, January 18, 2002 2:36 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Clustering Exchange Do not work on servers while your feet are wet. Trut me. _ List posting FAQ: http://www.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: Clustering Exchange
I work on them with most of my body being wet all the time? Infact I am right now.. What is wrong with that --Kevinm M, WLKMMAS, UCC+WCA, And Beyond He's a Dentist, a Detective, a MindReader, No He is in IT. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Lefkovics, William Sent: Friday, January 18, 2002 11:36 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Clustering Exchange Do not work on servers while your feet are wet. Trut me. -Original Message- From: Ed Smits [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, January 18, 2002 11:38 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Clustering Exchange Interesting debate on clustering Exchange. We just put in an Exchange cluster (5.5, sp4, Win2K servers) and I'm slowing getting my feet wet with the whole thing. In was working from home today, reading the debate, when my colleague calls me and says our system just failed over (down time aprox. 1 minute). I terminalled in to the servers and discovered an application error that started the whole thing: Event ID: 12800 Description:Message processing failed because there is not enough available memory (8007000E-F2000200). And this on machines with 4 GB RAM. A check of the KB brings up article Q193782 which informs me that: CAUSE The Internet Mail Service submits a message to the information store, which in turn parses the addresses to get the corresponding display names. It detects the corrupted address and generates MAPI_E_CALL_FAILED, but later this error is overwritten as MAPI_E_NOT_ENOUGH_MEMORY. The information store logs an Event ID: 12800, and the error is returned to the Internet Mail Service. The Internet Mail Service detects this as a serious error and logs an Event ID: 4182, shutting itself down. Now, I'm not sure why our server was shut down, it is running SP4, and will have to investigate this further, but I must admit that I am glad that my management was willing to cluster the thing if Exchange can do this to itself. Ed Smits Canada _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.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]
RE: Clustering Exchange
That is nasty -Original Message- From: Kevin Miller [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, January 18, 2002 4:15 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Clustering Exchange I work on them with most of my body being wet all the time? Infact I am right now.. What is wrong with that --Kevinm M, WLKMMAS, UCC+WCA, And Beyond He's a Dentist, a Detective, a MindReader, No He is in IT. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Lefkovics, William Sent: Friday, January 18, 2002 11:36 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Clustering Exchange Do not work on servers while your feet are wet. Trut me. -Original Message- From: Ed Smits [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, January 18, 2002 11:38 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Clustering Exchange Interesting debate on clustering Exchange. We just put in an Exchange cluster (5.5, sp4, Win2K servers) and I'm slowing getting my feet wet with the whole thing. In was working from home today, reading the debate, when my colleague calls me and says our system just failed over (down time aprox. 1 minute). I terminalled in to the servers and discovered an application error that started the whole thing: Event ID: 12800 Description:Message processing failed because there is not enough available memory (8007000E-F2000200). And this on machines with 4 GB RAM. A check of the KB brings up article Q193782 which informs me that: CAUSE The Internet Mail Service submits a message to the information store, which in turn parses the addresses to get the corresponding display names. It detects the corrupted address and generates MAPI_E_CALL_FAILED, but later this error is overwritten as MAPI_E_NOT_ENOUGH_MEMORY. The information store logs an Event ID: 12800, and the error is returned to the Internet Mail Service. The Internet Mail Service detects this as a serious error and logs an Event ID: 4182, shutting itself down. Now, I'm not sure why our server was shut down, it is running SP4, and will have to investigate this further, but I must admit that I am glad that my management was willing to cluster the thing if Exchange can do this to itself. Ed Smits Canada _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.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: Clustering Exchange
Working from your hot tub again, Kevin? -Original Message- From: Kevin Miller [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, January 18, 2002 1:15 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Clustering Exchange I work on them with most of my body being wet all the time? Infact I am right now.. What is wrong with that --Kevinm M, WLKMMAS, UCC+WCA, And Beyond He's a Dentist, a Detective, a MindReader, No He is in IT. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Lefkovics, William Sent: Friday, January 18, 2002 11:36 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Clustering Exchange Do not work on servers while your feet are wet. Trut me. -Original Message- From: Ed Smits [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, January 18, 2002 11:38 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Clustering Exchange Interesting debate on clustering Exchange. We just put in an Exchange cluster (5.5, sp4, Win2K servers) and I'm slowing getting my feet wet with the whole thing. In was working from home today, reading the debate, when my colleague calls me and says our system just failed over (down time aprox. 1 minute). I terminalled in to the servers and discovered an application error that started the whole thing: Event ID: 12800 Description:Message processing failed because there is not enough available memory (8007000E-F2000200). And this on machines with 4 GB RAM. A check of the KB brings up article Q193782 which informs me that: CAUSE The Internet Mail Service submits a message to the information store, which in turn parses the addresses to get the corresponding display names. It detects the corrupted address and generates MAPI_E_CALL_FAILED, but later this error is overwritten as MAPI_E_NOT_ENOUGH_MEMORY. The information store logs an Event ID: 12800, and the error is returned to the Internet Mail Service. The Internet Mail Service detects this as a serious error and logs an Event ID: 4182, shutting itself down. Now, I'm not sure why our server was shut down, it is running SP4, and will have to investigate this further, but I must admit that I am glad that my management was willing to cluster the thing if Exchange can do this to itself. Ed Smits Canada _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.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: Clustering Exchange
Not nasty at all. It is called working from the hot tub. No better place to work from. --Kevinm M, WLKMMAS, UCC+WCA, And Beyond He's a Dentist, a Detective, a MindReader, No He is in IT. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Tener, Richard Sent: Friday, January 18, 2002 1:20 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Clustering Exchange That is nasty -Original Message- From: Kevin Miller [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, January 18, 2002 4:15 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Clustering Exchange I work on them with most of my body being wet all the time? Infact I am right now.. What is wrong with that --Kevinm M, WLKMMAS, UCC+WCA, And Beyond He's a Dentist, a Detective, a MindReader, No He is in IT. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Lefkovics, William Sent: Friday, January 18, 2002 11:36 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Clustering Exchange Do not work on servers while your feet are wet. Trut me. -Original Message- From: Ed Smits [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, January 18, 2002 11:38 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Clustering Exchange Interesting debate on clustering Exchange. We just put in an Exchange cluster (5.5, sp4, Win2K servers) and I'm slowing getting my feet wet with the whole thing. In was working from home today, reading the debate, when my colleague calls me and says our system just failed over (down time aprox. 1 minute). I terminalled in to the servers and discovered an application error that started the whole thing: Event ID: 12800 Description:Message processing failed because there is not enough available memory (8007000E-F2000200). And this on machines with 4 GB RAM. A check of the KB brings up article Q193782 which informs me that: CAUSE The Internet Mail Service submits a message to the information store, which in turn parses the addresses to get the corresponding display names. It detects the corrupted address and generates MAPI_E_CALL_FAILED, but later this error is overwritten as MAPI_E_NOT_ENOUGH_MEMORY. The information store logs an Event ID: 12800, and the error is returned to the Internet Mail Service. The Internet Mail Service detects this as a serious error and logs an Event ID: 4182, shutting itself down. Now, I'm not sure why our server was shut down, it is running SP4, and will have to investigate this further, but I must admit that I am glad that my management was willing to cluster the thing if Exchange can do this to itself. Ed Smits Canada _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.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] _ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.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]
RE: Clustering Exchange
Kevin...what exactly are you doing there? ___ John Bowles Exchange Administrator Enterprise Support Engineering Celera Genomics [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: Darcy Adams [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, January 18, 2002 4:19 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Clustering Exchange Working from your hot tub again, Kevin? -Original Message- From: Kevin Miller [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, January 18, 2002 1:15 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Clustering Exchange I work on them with most of my body being wet all the time? Infact I am right now.. What is wrong with that --Kevinm M, WLKMMAS, UCC+WCA, And Beyond He's a Dentist, a Detective, a MindReader, No He is in IT. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Lefkovics, William Sent: Friday, January 18, 2002 11:36 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Clustering Exchange Do not work on servers while your feet are wet. Trut me. -Original Message- From: Ed Smits [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, January 18, 2002 11:38 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Clustering Exchange Interesting debate on clustering Exchange. We just put in an Exchange cluster (5.5, sp4, Win2K servers) and I'm slowing getting my feet wet with the whole thing. In was working from home today, reading the debate, when my colleague calls me and says our system just failed over (down time aprox. 1 minute). I terminalled in to the servers and discovered an application error that started the whole thing: Event ID: 12800 Description:Message processing failed because there is not enough available memory (8007000E-F2000200). And this on machines with 4 GB RAM. A check of the KB brings up article Q193782 which informs me that: CAUSE The Internet Mail Service submits a message to the information store, which in turn parses the addresses to get the corresponding display names. It detects the corrupted address and generates MAPI_E_CALL_FAILED, but later this error is overwritten as MAPI_E_NOT_ENOUGH_MEMORY. The information store logs an Event ID: 12800, and the error is returned to the Internet Mail Service. The Internet Mail Service detects this as a serious error and logs an Event ID: 4182, shutting itself down. Now, I'm not sure why our server was shut down, it is running SP4, and will have to investigate this further, but I must admit that I am glad that my management was willing to cluster the thing if Exchange can do this to itself. Ed Smits Canada _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.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: Clustering Exchange
Figured as much... -Original Message- From: Kevin Miller [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, January 18, 2002 1:19 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Clustering Exchange Not nasty at all. It is called working from the hot tub. No better place to work from. --Kevinm M, WLKMMAS, UCC+WCA, And Beyond He's a Dentist, a Detective, a MindReader, No He is in IT. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Tener, Richard Sent: Friday, January 18, 2002 1:20 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Clustering Exchange That is nasty -Original Message- From: Kevin Miller [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, January 18, 2002 4:15 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Clustering Exchange I work on them with most of my body being wet all the time? Infact I am right now.. What is wrong with that --Kevinm M, WLKMMAS, UCC+WCA, And Beyond He's a Dentist, a Detective, a MindReader, No He is in IT. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Lefkovics, William Sent: Friday, January 18, 2002 11:36 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Clustering Exchange Do not work on servers while your feet are wet. Trut me. -Original Message- From: Ed Smits [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, January 18, 2002 11:38 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Clustering Exchange Interesting debate on clustering Exchange. We just put in an Exchange cluster (5.5, sp4, Win2K servers) and I'm slowing getting my feet wet with the whole thing. In was working from home today, reading the debate, when my colleague calls me and says our system just failed over (down time aprox. 1 minute). I terminalled in to the servers and discovered an application error that started the whole thing: Event ID: 12800 Description:Message processing failed because there is not enough available memory (8007000E-F2000200). And this on machines with 4 GB RAM. A check of the KB brings up article Q193782 which informs me that: CAUSE The Internet Mail Service submits a message to the information store, which in turn parses the addresses to get the corresponding display names. It detects the corrupted address and generates MAPI_E_CALL_FAILED, but later this error is overwritten as MAPI_E_NOT_ENOUGH_MEMORY. The information store logs an Event ID: 12800, and the error is returned to the Internet Mail Service. The Internet Mail Service detects this as a serious error and logs an Event ID: 4182, shutting itself down. Now, I'm not sure why our server was shut down, it is running SP4, and will have to investigate this further, but I must admit that I am glad that my management was willing to cluster the thing if Exchange can do this to itself. Ed Smits Canada _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.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] _ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.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: Clustering Exchange
Just got to my cabin from work, Son is in bed sick, he feel sleep on the drive out. I am in the hot tub finishing off a file server I started building this morning at work. Need to get this DFS thingie all setup. --Kevinm M, WLKMMAS, UCC+WCA, And Beyond He's a Dentist, a Detective, a MindReader, No He is in IT. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Bowles, John L. Sent: Friday, January 18, 2002 1:20 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Clustering Exchange Kevin...what exactly are you doing there? ___ John Bowles Exchange Administrator Enterprise Support Engineering Celera Genomics [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: Darcy Adams [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, January 18, 2002 4:19 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Clustering Exchange Working from your hot tub again, Kevin? -Original Message- From: Kevin Miller [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, January 18, 2002 1:15 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Clustering Exchange I work on them with most of my body being wet all the time? Infact I am right now.. What is wrong with that --Kevinm M, WLKMMAS, UCC+WCA, And Beyond He's a Dentist, a Detective, a MindReader, No He is in IT. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Lefkovics, William Sent: Friday, January 18, 2002 11:36 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Clustering Exchange Do not work on servers while your feet are wet. Trut me. -Original Message- From: Ed Smits [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, January 18, 2002 11:38 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Clustering Exchange Interesting debate on clustering Exchange. We just put in an Exchange cluster (5.5, sp4, Win2K servers) and I'm slowing getting my feet wet with the whole thing. In was working from home today, reading the debate, when my colleague calls me and says our system just failed over (down time aprox. 1 minute). I terminalled in to the servers and discovered an application error that started the whole thing: Event ID: 12800 Description:Message processing failed because there is not enough available memory (8007000E-F2000200). And this on machines with 4 GB RAM. A check of the KB brings up article Q193782 which informs me that: CAUSE The Internet Mail Service submits a message to the information store, which in turn parses the addresses to get the corresponding display names. It detects the corrupted address and generates MAPI_E_CALL_FAILED, but later this error is overwritten as MAPI_E_NOT_ENOUGH_MEMORY. The information store logs an Event ID: 12800, and the error is returned to the Internet Mail Service. The Internet Mail Service detects this as a serious error and logs an Event ID: 4182, shutting itself down. Now, I'm not sure why our server was shut down, it is running SP4, and will have to investigate this further, but I must admit that I am glad that my management was willing to cluster the thing if Exchange can do this to itself. Ed Smits Canada _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.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] _ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.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]
RE: clustering wireless
Mscs??? The only good cluster in exchange is a single node cluster. --Kevinm M, WLKMMAS, UCC+WCA, And Beyond He's a Dentist, a Detective, a MindReader, No He is in IT. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Tener, Richard Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2002 6:35 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: clustering wireless Hello, Has anyone ever set MCSC between two building over a wireless bridge. I was wondering if it is possible to cluster two exchange servers over a Cisco Aironet 340. Thanks Richard _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.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]
RE: clustering wireless
Kevin do you know any good documentation for beginners to set up two exchange servers for clustering -Original Message- From: Kevin Miller [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2002 9:35 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: clustering wireless Mscs??? The only good cluster in exchange is a single node cluster. --Kevinm M, WLKMMAS, UCC+WCA, And Beyond He's a Dentist, a Detective, a MindReader, No He is in IT. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Tener, Richard Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2002 6:35 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: clustering wireless Hello, Has anyone ever set MCSC between two building over a wireless bridge. I was wondering if it is possible to cluster two exchange servers over a Cisco Aironet 340. Thanks Richard _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.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: clustering wireless
Sounds like a cluster fsck -Original Message- From: Tener, Richard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2002 9:35 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: clustering wireless Hello, Has anyone ever set MCSC between two building over a wireless bridge. I was wondering if it is possible to cluster two exchange servers over a Cisco Aironet 340. Thanks Richard _ List posting FAQ: http://www.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: clustering wireless
Beginners shouldn't be setting up clustering. -Original Message- From: Tener, Richard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2002 9:42 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: clustering wireless Kevin do you know any good documentation for beginners to set up two exchange servers for clustering -Original Message- From: Kevin Miller [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2002 9:35 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: clustering wireless Mscs??? The only good cluster in exchange is a single node cluster. --Kevinm M, WLKMMAS, UCC+WCA, And Beyond He's a Dentist, a Detective, a MindReader, No He is in IT. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Tener, Richard Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2002 6:35 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: clustering wireless Hello, Has anyone ever set MCSC between two building over a wireless bridge. I was wondering if it is possible to cluster two exchange servers over a Cisco Aironet 340. Thanks Richard _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.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] -- 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: clustering wireless
Best documentation. Dont do it. What do you plan on gaining? --Kevinm M, WLKMMAS, UCC+WCA, And Beyond He's a Dentist, a Detective, a MindReader, No He is in IT. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Tener, Richard Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2002 6:42 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: clustering wireless Kevin do you know any good documentation for beginners to set up two exchange servers for clustering -Original Message- From: Kevin Miller [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2002 9:35 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: clustering wireless Mscs??? The only good cluster in exchange is a single node cluster. --Kevinm M, WLKMMAS, UCC+WCA, And Beyond He's a Dentist, a Detective, a MindReader, No He is in IT. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Tener, Richard Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2002 6:35 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: clustering wireless Hello, Has anyone ever set MCSC between two building over a wireless bridge. I was wondering if it is possible to cluster two exchange servers over a Cisco Aironet 340. Thanks Richard _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.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] _ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.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]
RE: clustering wireless
This is just a bad idea. A cluster across a shared 11mbs link while broadcasting all your data on a product with weak encryption is just not good. _ List posting FAQ: http://www.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: clustering wireless
no im not trying to set it up i want to get a solution on how we are going to connect the two buildings wireless with failover -Original Message- From: Andy David [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2002 9:37 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: clustering wireless Sounds like a cluster fsck -Original Message- From: Tener, Richard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2002 9:35 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: clustering wireless Hello, Has anyone ever set MCSC between two building over a wireless bridge. I was wondering if it is possible to cluster two exchange servers over a Cisco Aironet 340. Thanks Richard _ List posting FAQ: http://www.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]
RE: clustering wireless
so i should get another t1 or possible fiber line/ -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2002 9:47 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: clustering wireless This is just a bad idea. A cluster across a shared 11mbs link while broadcasting all your data on a product with weak encryption is just not good. _ List posting FAQ: http://www.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: clustering wireless
Is anyone seeing this message when posting to the board Trend SMEX Content Filter has detected sensitive content. Place = Exchange Discussions; ; ; Exchange Discussions Sender = Tener, Richard Subject = RE: clustering wireless Delivery Time = January 17, 2002 (Thursday) 08:46:23 Policy = Anti-Spam Action on this mail = Quarantine message Warning message from administrator: Content filter has detected a sensitive e-mail. -Original Message- From: Tener, Richard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2002 9:50 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: clustering wireless so i should get another t1 or possible fiber line/ -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2002 9:47 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: clustering wireless This is just a bad idea. A cluster across a shared 11mbs link while broadcasting all your data on a product with weak encryption is just not good. _ List posting FAQ: http://www.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: clustering wireless
That is what happens when you use the words cluster and exchange in the same post. Milton R Dogg Of The Dogg Foundation.. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Tener, Richard Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2002 6:52 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: clustering wireless Is anyone seeing this message when posting to the board Trend SMEX Content Filter has detected sensitive content. Place = Exchange Discussions; ; ; Exchange Discussions Sender = Tener, Richard Subject = RE: clustering wireless Delivery Time = January 17, 2002 (Thursday) 08:46:23 Policy = Anti-Spam Action on this mail = Quarantine message Warning message from administrator: Content filter has detected a sensitive e-mail. -Original Message- From: Tener, Richard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2002 9:50 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: clustering wireless so i should get another t1 or possible fiber line/ -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2002 9:47 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: clustering wireless This is just a bad idea. A cluster across a shared 11mbs link while broadcasting all your data on a product with weak encryption is just not good. _ List posting FAQ: http://www.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] _ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.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]
RE: clustering wireless
Do you have content filtering on at your site there Richard? If so, most likely the trigger was when the replier to your message said It sounds like a cluster Bob Sadler City of Leawood, KS, USA Internet/WAN Specialist 913-339-6700 X194 [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: Tener, Richard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2002 8:52 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: clustering wireless Is anyone seeing this message when posting to the board Trend SMEX Content Filter has detected sensitive content. Place = Exchange Discussions; ; ; Exchange Discussions Sender = Tener, Richard Subject = RE: clustering wireless Delivery Time = January 17, 2002 (Thursday) 08:46:23 Policy = Anti-Spam Action on this mail = Quarantine message Warning message from administrator: Content filter has detected a sensitive e-mail. -Original Message- From: Tener, Richard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2002 9:50 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: clustering wireless so i should get another t1 or possible fiber line/ -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2002 9:47 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: clustering wireless This is just a bad idea. A cluster across a shared 11mbs link while broadcasting all your data on a product with weak encryption is just not good. _ List posting FAQ: http://www.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: clustering wireless
Fiber would be the way to go. It is secure, not suseptable to Electromagnetic interferance, and with ethernet protocols you will more than likely meet any speed and distance requirements. _ List posting FAQ: http://www.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: clustering wireless
I would go with the fiber. I'm guessing you could use a good bowl of oatmeal. -Original Message- From: Tener, Richard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2002 9:50 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: clustering wireless so i should get another t1 or possible fiber line/ -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2002 9:47 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: clustering wireless This is just a bad idea. A cluster across a shared 11mbs link while broadcasting all your data on a product with weak encryption is just not good. _ List posting FAQ: http://www.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: clustering wireless
nice and crunchy with a good shine too it. -Original Message- From: Andy David [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2002 9:56 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: clustering wireless I would go with the fiber. I'm guessing you could use a good bowl of oatmeal. -Original Message- From: Tener, Richard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2002 9:50 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: clustering wireless so i should get another t1 or possible fiber line/ -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2002 9:47 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: clustering wireless This is just a bad idea. A cluster across a shared 11mbs link while broadcasting all your data on a product with weak encryption is just not good. _ List posting FAQ: http://www.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]
RE: clustering wireless
Remember, with MS clustering, you will need a shared storage array. That most likely means you would need fiber between the buildings. There are also 3rd party packages that claim to do clustering over a WAN without a shared array. Maybe you should take a step back and really decide if you need true failover. I think most people on this list will tell you that clusters aren't worth the effort - there are better ways to ensure availability. Remember also with a cluster, if you corrupt the database, you corrupt the database :-) Having a cluster doesn't protect you against the corruption. -Original Message- From: Tener, Richard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2002 9:49 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: clustering wireless no im not trying to set it up i want to get a solution on how we are going to connect the two buildings wireless with failover -Original Message- From: Andy David [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2002 9:37 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: clustering wireless Sounds like a cluster fsck -Original Message- From: Tener, Richard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2002 9:35 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: clustering wireless Hello, Has anyone ever set MCSC between two building over a wireless bridge. I was wondering if it is possible to cluster two exchange servers over a Cisco Aironet 340. Thanks Richard _ List posting FAQ: http://www.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: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: clustering wireless
Trust us on this one, clustering won't buy you a thing. I inherited a clustered exchange server here at work and Kevin is right, when the Db is corrupt, you're toast. Simple as that. Stick with Raid level redundancy, backups, and a recovery server. Peter Seitz Operating Systems Analyst Cubic Corporation San Diego, Ca. 92021 (858) 505-2724 -Original Message- From: Tener, Richard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2002 6:35 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: clustering wireless Hello, Has anyone ever set MCSC between two building over a wireless bridge. I was wondering if it is possible to cluster two exchange servers over a Cisco Aironet 340. Thanks Richard _ List posting FAQ: http://www.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: clustering wireless
So the best bet would get another server in the other building with a new site to cut down on the existing server load. And of course move over some one companys mailboxes because there is two companys on one server right now. And get a phat tape drive to backup up my DB. -Original Message- From: Seitz, Peter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2002 10:14 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: clustering wireless Trust us on this one, clustering won't buy you a thing. I inherited a clustered exchange server here at work and Kevin is right, when the Db is corrupt, you're toast. Simple as that. Stick with Raid level redundancy, backups, and a recovery server. Peter Seitz Operating Systems Analyst Cubic Corporation San Diego, Ca. 92021 (858) 505-2724 -Original Message- From: Tener, Richard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2002 6:35 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: clustering wireless Hello, Has anyone ever set MCSC between two building over a wireless bridge. I was wondering if it is possible to cluster two exchange servers over a Cisco Aironet 340. Thanks Richard _ List posting FAQ: http://www.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: clustering wireless
Sites with buildings as a boundary? Generally, no that wouldn't be a best bet. Unless the building happen to be on separate continents. Chris -- Chris Scharff Senior Sales Engineer MessageOne If you can't measure, you can't manage! -Original Message- From: Tener, Richard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2002 9:29 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: clustering wireless So the best bet would get another server in the other building with a new site to cut down on the existing server load. And of course move over some one companys mailboxes because there is two companys on one server right now. And get a phat tape drive to backup up my DB. -Original Message- From: Seitz, Peter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2002 10:14 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: clustering wireless Trust us on this one, clustering won't buy you a thing. I inherited a clustered exchange server here at work and Kevin is right, when the Db is corrupt, you're toast. Simple as that. Stick with Raid level redundancy, backups, and a recovery server. Peter Seitz Operating Systems Analyst Cubic Corporation San Diego, Ca. 92021 (858) 505-2724 -Original Message- From: Tener, Richard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2002 6:35 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: clustering wireless Hello, Has anyone ever set MCSC between two building over a wireless bridge. I was wondering if it is possible to cluster two exchange servers over a Cisco Aironet 340. Thanks Richard _ List posting FAQ: http://www.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: clustering wireless
All part of disaster recovery. Have you read the Disaster Recovery White Paper? Regards Mr Louis Joyce Network Support Analyst Exchange Administrator BT Ignite eSolutions -Original Message- From: Tener, Richard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 17 January 2002 15:41 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: clustering wireless Is that possible though to have two exchange servers on the same netowrk so if one fails I can take the tape backup from the other server and just put the info on the other server temporarily. So if one building went on fire and the server got fried can I take the information from the tape and put it on the other server that doesnt have that info on it. _ List posting FAQ: http://www.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: clustering wireless
No. Milton R Dogg Of The Dogg Foundation.. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Tener, Richard Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2002 7:41 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: clustering wireless Is that possible though to have two exchange servers on the same netowrk so if one fails I can take the tape backup from the other server and just put the info on the other server temporarily. So if one building went on fire and the server got fried can I take the information from the tape and put it on the other server that doesnt have that info on it. _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.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]
RE: clustering wireless
no, a little -Original Message- From: Milton R Dogg [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2002 10:40 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: clustering wireless No. Milton R Dogg Of The Dogg Foundation.. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Tener, Richard Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2002 7:41 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: clustering wireless Is that possible though to have two exchange servers on the same netowrk so if one fails I can take the tape backup from the other server and just put the info on the other server temporarily. So if one building went on fire and the server got fried can I take the information from the tape and put it on the other server that doesnt have that info on it. _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.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: clustering wireless
Richard, I detect a trend in your posts...have you read the Disaster Recovery White Paper by MS? Reading it would give you a good understanding of the issues that your questions indicate you have... -Original Message- From: Tener, Richard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2002 10:41 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: clustering wireless Is that possible though to have two exchange servers on the same netowrk so if one fails I can take the tape backup from the other server and just put the info on the other server temporarily. So if one building went on fire and the server got fried can I take the information from the tape and put it on the other server that doesnt have that info on it. _ List posting FAQ: http://www.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: clustering wireless
exchange + mscs = sleep deprivation look forward to cluster services failing for no apparent reason, exchange services not responding properly to actions in cluster administrator, dubious failover etc etc in 4 months with the cluster we had plenty of downtime during working hours, terrible. Since trashing the cluster and using the two servers as seperate exchange servers in the same site, we've had no downtime, and both servers are busy delivering mail instead of one just sitting there waiting to not work when called upon. while i'm on the subject, does anyone know the correct way to get exchange databases (particularly the directory i think) to forget that they are part of a clustered exchange server? . The problem is that the IMS won't install on a clean, non-clustered exchange server with restored databases from a clustered exchange server. It throws an error saying the cluster services aren't installed, so there must be something in the databases that tells exchange it should be on a cluster. i couldn't figure it out, so ended up migrating users to another server using ed's server move method. dan. _ List posting FAQ: http://www.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: clustering wireless
Isn't this a new topic (hence worthy of a new subject line)? There are a number of high availability solutions, some of them are even listed in the weblinks section of www.mail-resources.com, but there's still no substitute for planning, testing and documenting disaster recovery procedures. Chris -- Chris Scharff Senior Sales Engineer MessageOne If you can't measure, you can't manage! -Original Message- From: Tener, Richard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2002 9:41 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: clustering wireless Is that possible though to have two exchange servers on the same netowrk so if one fails I can take the tape backup from the other server and just put the info on the other server temporarily. So if one building went on fire and the server got fried can I take the information from the tape and put it on the other server that doesnt have that info on it. _ List posting FAQ: http://www.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: clustering wireless
Read these.. Then let us know what you think about that question. 5.5 DR white paper http://www.microsoft.com/Exchange/techinfo/administration/55/BackupResto re.asp 2k DR white paper http://www.microsoft.com/Exchange/techinfo/deployment/2000/e2krecovery.a sp Milton R Dogg Of The Dogg Foundation.. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Tener, Richard Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2002 7:44 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: clustering wireless no, a little -Original Message- From: Milton R Dogg [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2002 10:40 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: clustering wireless No. Milton R Dogg Of The Dogg Foundation.. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Tener, Richard Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2002 7:41 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: clustering wireless Is that possible though to have two exchange servers on the same netowrk so if one fails I can take the tape backup from the other server and just put the info on the other server temporarily. So if one building went on fire and the server got fried can I take the information from the tape and put it on the other server that doesnt have that info on it. _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.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] _ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.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]
RE: clustering wireless
You could get some of the way in E2k, providing you were running E2k Enterprise on both servers and the mailbox stores on each server had different names. If one mailbox store died (or the server died) you could re-create that mailbox store on the remaining server and restore (then reconnect the mailboxes, etc). At least, in some initial testing I did on this, it seemed to work. But I wouldn't recommend it. Neil Hobson Silversands http://www.silversands.co.uk Microsoft Gold Certified Partner For Enterprise Systems For Collaborative Solutions -Original Message- From: Tener, Richard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Posted At: 17 January 2002 15:41 Posted To: Exchange Mailing List Conversation: clustering wireless Subject: clustering wireless Is that possible though to have two exchange servers on the same netowrk so if one fails I can take the tape backup from the other server and just put the info on the other server temporarily. So if one building went on fire and the server got fried can I take the information from the tape and put it on the other server that doesnt have that info on it. _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ** This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual to whom it is addressed. Any view or opinions presented are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of Silversands, or any of its subsidiary companies. If you have received this email in error, please contact our Support Desk immediately by telephone on 01202-36 or via email at [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: clustering wireless
or competence. -Original Message- From: Chris Scharff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2002 10:31 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: clustering wireless Isn't this a new topic (hence worthy of a new subject line)? There are a number of high availability solutions, some of them are even listed in the weblinks section of www.mail-resources.com, but there's still no substitute for planning, testing and documenting disaster recovery procedures. Chris -- Chris Scharff Senior Sales Engineer MessageOne If you can't measure, you can't manage! -Original Message- From: Tener, Richard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2002 9:41 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: clustering wireless Is that possible though to have two exchange servers on the same netowrk so if one fails I can take the tape backup from the other server and just put the info on the other server temporarily. So if one building went on fire and the server got fried can I take the information from the tape and put it on the other server that doesnt have that info on it. _ List posting FAQ: http://www.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: Clustering Exchange
Pro: Con: Tener is thinking of clustering as well. -Original Message- From: Callan, Chris [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2002 12:34 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Clustering Exchange My immediate supervisor mentioned that when we finally get new Exchange Servers that we should have them clustered. Now I have never clustered servers before and wouldn't know how to start, but I just wanted to get everyone's opinions on the subject to begin with. How hard is it to do, and how is it to maintain. What are the pro's and con's. Any help would be appreciated. _ List posting FAQ: http://www.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: Clustering Exchange
Now stop it! Damn you Andy, coke coming out my nose just isn't what I wanted to experience today! Bob Sadler City of Leawood, KS, USA Internet/WAN Specialist 913-339-6700 X194 [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: Andy David [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2002 11:36 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Clustering Exchange Pro: Con: Tener is thinking of clustering as well. -Original Message- From: Callan, Chris [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2002 12:34 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Clustering Exchange My immediate supervisor mentioned that when we finally get new Exchange Servers that we should have them clustered. Now I have never clustered servers before and wouldn't know how to start, but I just wanted to get everyone's opinions on the subject to begin with. How hard is it to do, and how is it to maintain. What are the pro's and con's. Any help would be appreciated. _ List posting FAQ: http://www.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]
RE: Clustering Exchange
My favourite cluster deployment is single-node - Ed Crowley I assume that to be an active cluster. -Original Message- From: Andy David [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2002 9:36 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Clustering Exchange Pro: Con: Tener is thinking of clustering as well. -Original Message- From: Callan, Chris [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2002 12:34 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Clustering Exchange _ List posting FAQ: http://www.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: Clustering Exchange
William gets me all the time with the coke. Ruined a Keyboard last week. --Kevinm M, WLKMMAS, UCC+WCA, And Beyond He's a Dentist, a Detective, a MindReader, No He is in IT. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Bob Sadler Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2002 9:39 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Clustering Exchange Now stop it! Damn you Andy, coke coming out my nose just isn't what I wanted to experience today! Bob Sadler City of Leawood, KS, USA Internet/WAN Specialist 913-339-6700 X194 [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: Andy David [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2002 11:36 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Clustering Exchange Pro: Con: Tener is thinking of clustering as well. -Original Message- From: Callan, Chris [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2002 12:34 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Clustering Exchange My immediate supervisor mentioned that when we finally get new Exchange Servers that we should have them clustered. Now I have never clustered servers before and wouldn't know how to start, but I just wanted to get everyone's opinions on the subject to begin with. How hard is it to do, and how is it to maintain. What are the pro's and con's. Any help would be appreciated. _ List posting FAQ: http://www.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] _ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.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]
RE: Clustering Exchange
-Original Message- From: Callan, Chris [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 17 January 2002 17:34 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Clustering Exchange My immediate supervisor mentioned that when we finally get new Exchange Servers that we should have them clustered. Nope you shouldn't. Now I have never clustered servers before and wouldn't know how to start, but I just wanted to get everyone's opinions on the subject to begin with. How hard is it to do, and how is it to maintain. What are the pro's and con's. Any help would be appreciated. The cons are it's a sod to set up, and gains you very little additional functionality or reliability or disaster recovery abilities. The Pros are umm..ah... That you'll know how to setup a cluster after doing it, and it looks good on your resume to people who don't know what a bad idea it is to cluster exchange. -- Robert Moir, MSMVP IT Systems Engineer, Luton Sixth Form College Rome did not create a mighty empire by having management meetings -- This e-mail is intended for the addressee shown. It contains information that is confidential and protected from disclosure. Any review, dissemination or use of this transmission or its contents by persons or unauthorized employees of the intended organisations is strictly prohibited. The contents of this email do not necessarily represent the views or policies of Luton Sixth Form College, its employees or students. _ List posting FAQ: http://www.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: Clustering Exchange
Clustering...I was thinking about doing that w/my new E2K servers, but after everyone talking about suspected problems w/clustering I just bagged it and just bought a high end server that will take care of the servers we have hosting mailboxes. It's more of a problem then what it's worth. What if you drink Pepsi??? Does that ruin keyboards? ___ John Bowles Exchange Administrator Enterprise Support Engineering Celera Genomics [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: Kevin Miller [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2002 12:41 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Clustering Exchange William gets me all the time with the coke. Ruined a Keyboard last week. --Kevinm M, WLKMMAS, UCC+WCA, And Beyond He's a Dentist, a Detective, a MindReader, No He is in IT. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Bob Sadler Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2002 9:39 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Clustering Exchange Now stop it! Damn you Andy, coke coming out my nose just isn't what I wanted to experience today! Bob Sadler City of Leawood, KS, USA Internet/WAN Specialist 913-339-6700 X194 [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: Andy David [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2002 11:36 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Clustering Exchange Pro: Con: Tener is thinking of clustering as well. -Original Message- From: Callan, Chris [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2002 12:34 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Clustering Exchange My immediate supervisor mentioned that when we finally get new Exchange Servers that we should have them clustered. Now I have never clustered servers before and wouldn't know how to start, but I just wanted to get everyone's opinions on the subject to begin with. How hard is it to do, and how is it to maintain. What are the pro's and con's. Any help would be appreciated. _ List posting FAQ: http://www.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] _ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.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: Clustering Exchange
Good to hear you finally gave up on that one.. Now all you have to do it finish the upgrade then all will be well. You might be shot on the spot for dinking Pepsi. --Kevinm M, WLKMMAS, UCC+WCA, And Beyond He's a Dentist, a Detective, a MindReader, No He is in IT. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Bowles, John L. Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2002 9:49 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Clustering Exchange Clustering...I was thinking about doing that w/my new E2K servers, but after everyone talking about suspected problems w/clustering I just bagged it and just bought a high end server that will take care of the servers we have hosting mailboxes. It's more of a problem then what it's worth. What if you drink Pepsi??? Does that ruin keyboards? ___ John Bowles Exchange Administrator Enterprise Support Engineering Celera Genomics [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: Kevin Miller [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2002 12:41 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Clustering Exchange William gets me all the time with the coke. Ruined a Keyboard last week. --Kevinm M, WLKMMAS, UCC+WCA, And Beyond He's a Dentist, a Detective, a MindReader, No He is in IT. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Bob Sadler Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2002 9:39 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Clustering Exchange Now stop it! Damn you Andy, coke coming out my nose just isn't what I wanted to experience today! Bob Sadler City of Leawood, KS, USA Internet/WAN Specialist 913-339-6700 X194 [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: Andy David [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2002 11:36 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Clustering Exchange Pro: Con: Tener is thinking of clustering as well. -Original Message- From: Callan, Chris [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2002 12:34 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Clustering Exchange My immediate supervisor mentioned that when we finally get new Exchange Servers that we should have them clustered. Now I have never clustered servers before and wouldn't know how to start, but I just wanted to get everyone's opinions on the subject to begin with. How hard is it to do, and how is it to maintain. What are the pro's and con's. Any help would be appreciated. _ List posting FAQ: http://www.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] _ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.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] _ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
RE: Clustering Exchange
How about Mr. Pibb??? ___ John Bowles Exchange Administrator Enterprise Support Engineering Celera Genomics [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: Kevin Miller [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2002 12:51 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Clustering Exchange Good to hear you finally gave up on that one.. Now all you have to do it finish the upgrade then all will be well. You might be shot on the spot for dinking Pepsi. --Kevinm M, WLKMMAS, UCC+WCA, And Beyond He's a Dentist, a Detective, a MindReader, No He is in IT. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Bowles, John L. Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2002 9:49 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Clustering Exchange Clustering...I was thinking about doing that w/my new E2K servers, but after everyone talking about suspected problems w/clustering I just bagged it and just bought a high end server that will take care of the servers we have hosting mailboxes. It's more of a problem then what it's worth. What if you drink Pepsi??? Does that ruin keyboards? ___ John Bowles Exchange Administrator Enterprise Support Engineering Celera Genomics [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: Kevin Miller [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2002 12:41 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Clustering Exchange William gets me all the time with the coke. Ruined a Keyboard last week. --Kevinm M, WLKMMAS, UCC+WCA, And Beyond He's a Dentist, a Detective, a MindReader, No He is in IT. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Bob Sadler Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2002 9:39 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Clustering Exchange Now stop it! Damn you Andy, coke coming out my nose just isn't what I wanted to experience today! Bob Sadler City of Leawood, KS, USA Internet/WAN Specialist 913-339-6700 X194 [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: Andy David [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2002 11:36 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Clustering Exchange Pro: Con: Tener is thinking of clustering as well. -Original Message- From: Callan, Chris [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2002 12:34 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Clustering Exchange My immediate supervisor mentioned that when we finally get new Exchange Servers that we should have them clustered. Now I have never clustered servers before and wouldn't know how to start, but I just wanted to get everyone's opinions on the subject to begin with. How hard is it to do, and how is it to maintain. What are the pro's and con's. Any help would be appreciated. _ List posting FAQ: http://www.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] _ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.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
RE: Clustering Exchange
not anymore but if you want me too hahaha oh can I practice on your server first -Original Message- From: Andy David [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2002 12:36 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Clustering Exchange Pro: Con: Tener is thinking of clustering as well. -Original Message- From: Callan, Chris [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2002 12:34 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Clustering Exchange My immediate supervisor mentioned that when we finally get new Exchange Servers that we should have them clustered. Now I have never clustered servers before and wouldn't know how to start, but I just wanted to get everyone's opinions on the subject to begin with. How hard is it to do, and how is it to maintain. What are the pro's and con's. Any help would be appreciated. _ List posting FAQ: http://www.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]
RE: Clustering Exchange
You should benchmark your reliability. Work with your vendors to determine exactly what your current configuration will deliver in terms of: - mean time between data loss events Your first supporting table for this statistic should look like a seismic event map so you can project not just the frequency of an event, but the frequency of events of various magnitude. You need a second supporting table for this statistic should list all of the probable causes of data loss events, and their relative probability. - mean time between single server outages You need the same accompanying table showing the projected recovery times, assuming that you project that some outages will be more severe than others. You need the same second supporting table listing causes in order of probability. - mean time between total system outages You need the same accompanying table showing the projected recovery times, assuming that you project that some outages will be more severe than others. You need the same second supporting table listing causes in order of probability. Once you have all of this data in hand, and NOT BEFORE, then you have the data that you need to propose various procedural changes and technical upgrades, and you can project with a high degree of accuracy exactly how much additional reliability you will get for a given investment. After that, it is a simple business decision. Any other approach is simply playing with toys and making wild unsupported guesses. But hey, playing with clustering technology can be fun, even if it does drive down your reliability due to guaranteeing an increase in both system outages and data loss events, both deriving largely from sys admin error rates increasing due to the added complexity. -Original Message- From: Callan, Chris [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2002 9:34 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Clustering Exchange My immediate supervisor mentioned that when we finally get new Exchange Servers that we should have them clustered. Now I have never clustered servers before and wouldn't know how to start, but I just wanted to get everyone's opinions on the subject to begin with. How hard is it to do, and how is it to maintain. What are the pro's and con's. Any help would be appreciated. _ List posting FAQ: http://www.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: clustering wireless
Read a little bit more Wireless for now can be easily hacked. It's a gift for hacker. IF you use wireless, use stgrong encryption within it. IPSEC, PPTP or (TSL, please correct me if I'M wrong, TLS is one of the encryption to use to link 2 exchange ? ) SO if you go wireless, use encryption and WireLess device that change the WEP encryption key dynamically JF - Original Message - From: Tener, Richard [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2002 9:49 AM Subject: RE: clustering wireless no im not trying to set it up i want to get a solution on how we are going to connect the two buildings wireless with failover -Original Message- From: Andy David [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2002 9:37 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: clustering wireless Sounds like a cluster fsck -Original Message- From: Tener, Richard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2002 9:35 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: clustering wireless Hello, Has anyone ever set MCSC between two building over a wireless bridge. I was wondering if it is possible to cluster two exchange servers over a Cisco Aironet 340. Thanks Richard _ List posting FAQ: http://www.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: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: clustering wireless
Along those lines, anyone know where I can find docs on wireless security on a Windows LAN? Things like setting up certs, WEP encryption info, what the dif is between 40-bit and 128-bit, how a Win2k Cert server can help, etc... - Original Message - From: Jean-Francois Bourdeau [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2002 9:28 PM Subject: Re: clustering wireless Read a little bit more Wireless for now can be easily hacked. It's a gift for hacker. IF you use wireless, use stgrong encryption within it. IPSEC, PPTP or (TSL, please correct me if I'M wrong, TLS is one of the encryption to use to link 2 exchange ? ) SO if you go wireless, use encryption and WireLess device that change the WEP encryption key dynamically JF - Original Message - From: Tener, Richard [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2002 9:49 AM Subject: RE: clustering wireless no im not trying to set it up i want to get a solution on how we are going to connect the two buildings wireless with failover -Original Message- From: Andy David [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2002 9:37 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: clustering wireless Sounds like a cluster fsck -Original Message- From: Tener, Richard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2002 9:35 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: clustering wireless Hello, Has anyone ever set MCSC between two building over a wireless bridge. I was wondering if it is possible to cluster two exchange servers over a Cisco Aironet 340. Thanks Richard _ List posting FAQ: http://www.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: 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: clustering wireless
You're an idea guy, aren't you, Richard? I think I've met you before. You go to MCP classes and sit in the front row and constantly ask the teacher about things that aren't remotely related to the course subject, causing lengthy hours-long digressions. You ask questions like, What happens if I try to run my Exchange server on a MacIntosh? or What would happen if I moved my information store to DECTape? Ed Crowley MCSE+I MVP Tech Consultant Compaq Computer There are seldom good technological solutions to behavioral problems. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Tener, Richard Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2002 6:35 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: clustering wireless Hello, Has anyone ever set MCSC between two building over a wireless bridge. I was wondering if it is possible to cluster two exchange servers over a Cisco Aironet 340. Thanks Richard _ List posting FAQ: http://www.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: Clustering Exchange
My theory is that, at least at the current stage of the technology, clustering could actually decrease your reliability. Chris, ask you boss what specific benefits he is expecting to get from clustering. Then we can go from there. Ed Crowley MCSE+I MVP Tech Consultant Compaq Computer There are seldom good technological solutions to behavioral problems. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Dupler, Craig Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2002 9:47 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Clustering Exchange You should benchmark your reliability. Work with your vendors to determine exactly what your current configuration will deliver in terms of: - mean time between data loss events Your first supporting table for this statistic should look like a seismic event map so you can project not just the frequency of an event, but the frequency of events of various magnitude. You need a second supporting table for this statistic should list all of the probable causes of data loss events, and their relative probability. - mean time between single server outages You need the same accompanying table showing the projected recovery times, assuming that you project that some outages will be more severe than others. You need the same second supporting table listing causes in order of probability. - mean time between total system outages You need the same accompanying table showing the projected recovery times, assuming that you project that some outages will be more severe than others. You need the same second supporting table listing causes in order of probability. Once you have all of this data in hand, and NOT BEFORE, then you have the data that you need to propose various procedural changes and technical upgrades, and you can project with a high degree of accuracy exactly how much additional reliability you will get for a given investment. After that, it is a simple business decision. Any other approach is simply playing with toys and making wild unsupported guesses. But hey, playing with clustering technology can be fun, even if it does drive down your reliability due to guaranteeing an increase in both system outages and data loss events, both deriving largely from sys admin error rates increasing due to the added complexity. -Original Message- From: Callan, Chris [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2002 9:34 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Clustering Exchange My immediate supervisor mentioned that when we finally get new Exchange Servers that we should have them clustered. Now I have never clustered servers before and wouldn't know how to start, but I just wanted to get everyone's opinions on the subject to begin with. How hard is it to do, and how is it to maintain. What are the pro's and con's. Any help would be appreciated. _ List posting FAQ: http://www.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]
