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
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
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
: 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
: 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
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
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
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
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
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:
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...
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
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
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
, 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
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
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
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
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
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
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
21 matches
Mail list logo
