Sent: Monday, March 10, 2003 9:28 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: E2K Clustering advice
Talk them into using a proxy server to publish their front-end server to
the Internet.
Benefits:
1. You can make the non-clustered FE server the first server in site
without, as Ed points out, having
Crowley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, March 07, 2003 11:39 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: E2K Clustering advice
Building the non-clustered front-end as the first server in the site
would mean that your Site Replication Server would reside in the DMZ.
That's even worse than
- MCSE
Sr. Systems Administrator
Inovis Inc.
-Original Message-
From: Ken Cornetet [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, March 10, 2003 9:28 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: E2K Clustering advice
Talk them into using a proxy server to publish their
front-end server
Building the non-clustered front-end as the first server in the site
would mean that your Site Replication Server would reside in the DMZ.
That's even worse than a front-end server in a DMZ; I agree with your
opinion on that.
Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP
Freelance E-Mail Philosopher
Protecting
]
Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2002 11:00 AM
Subject: RE: E2k Clustering
I talked to compaq/microsoft today, I am confident in our situation here
that an active/active is the right choice for us.
Currently we have the following:
Server no. 1 - Quad Pentium Pro 200 MHZ (very old chipset technology
Damn good hardware.
-Original Message-
From: Dennis Depp [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2002 9:13 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Re: E2k Clustering
Missy,
If you would not recommend clustering, what do you recommend for high
availablility environments
]
-Original Message-
From: Andy David [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2002 9:20 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: E2k Clustering
Damn good hardware.
-Original Message-
From: Dennis Depp [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2002 9:13 AM
PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2002 9:13 AM
Subject: Re: E2k Clustering
Missy,
If you would not recommend clustering, what do you recommend for high
availablility environments?
Dennis Depp
At 11:17 AM 3/13/2002 -0500, missy koslosky wrote:
While I'm really not into arguing the point, while
had so many problems with that
it was unreal. Since going back to standalone servers I have had 100%
uptime, and sleep easy at night.
Dan
-Original Message-
From: Dennis Depp [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 14 March 2002 14:13
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Re: E2k Clustering
Missy
Yowza. Keep these posts coming.
They want to cluster here and I am fighting the good fight with these little
snippets!
-Original Message-
From: Atkinson, Daniel [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2002 9:22 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: E2k Clustering
My
, 2002 9:13 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Re: E2k Clustering
Missy,
If you would not recommend clustering, what do you recommend for high
availablility environments?
Dennis Depp
At 11:17 AM 3/13/2002 -0500, missy koslosky wrote:
While I'm really not into arguing the point
Mmmm solid box
-Original Message-
From: missy koslosky [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2002 6:27 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Re: E2k Clustering
Really good hardware with redundant components.
When I worked in a hosting environment, that's what we did
Yowza. Keep these posts coming.
They want to cluster here and I am fighting the good fight with these
little snippets!
Well, the arguments are simple...
1. you have to do active/passive clustering, so you'll always have one
expensive server doing absolutely nothing. What a waste!
2. All
:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2002 5:51 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: E2k Clustering
Make it Active/Passive as recommended and it's a moot point.
-Original Message-
From: Sabo, Eric [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Posted At: Tuesday, March 12, 2002 5:42 PM
Posted
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: E2k Clustering
Hi there
I was looking over the white paper, and according to Microsoft, both
active/passive and active/active are recommended in the below listed
whitepaper. Do you have access to information that suggests otherwise??
Thanks
Russell
:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2002 5:51 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: E2k Clustering
Make it Active/Passive as recommended and it's a moot point.
-Original Message-
From: Sabo, Eric [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Posted At: Tuesday, March 12, 2002 5:42 PM
Posted
Administrator
Computing Services Center
California University of Pennsylvania
-Original Message-
From: Woodrick, Ed [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2002 9:59 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: E2k Clustering
Use Active/Passive clusters when possible
Subject: RE: E2k Clustering
I talked to compaq/microsoft today, I am confident in our situation here
that an active/active is the right choice for us.
Currently we have the following:
Server no. 1 - Quad Pentium Pro 200 MHZ (very old chipset technology) -
1 MEG cache on each processor - 2 GB RAM
Center
California University of Pennsylvania
-Original Message-
From: Kevin Miller [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2002 11:14 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: E2k Clustering
And what do you plan on gaining from the active active?
--Kevinm M, WLKMMAS, UCC+WCA
Clustering
Subject: RE: E2k Clustering
I get to use both of my servers that I purchased. Cause of our budget
is so tight and I have get buy. It took me a year to get the following
equipment.
Don't you think active/active is right for me, since I am below the MS
recommendations.
Eric Sabo
NT
, March 13, 2002 10:17 AM
Posted To: Exchange
Conversation: E2k Clustering
Subject: RE: E2k Clustering
I get to use both of my servers that I purchased. Cause of our budget
is so tight and I have get buy. It took me a year to get the following
equipment.
Don't you think active/active is right
Message-
From: Exchange [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2002 11:43 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: E2k Clustering
Eric,
It's not such much the processor you should be worried about, but the
virtual memory. You'll see, the VM will get fragmented, and failover
might
- Original Message -
From: Sabo, Eric [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2002 11:48 AM
Subject: RE: E2k Clustering
Why does Microsoft say you can even do an active/active cluster in the
first place with those parameters as describe in the SP2
, and of course never
hyped the bad part once problems arose.
On top of that: what Missy said.
-Per
-Original Message-
From: missy koslosky [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Posted At: Wednesday, March 13, 2002 10:51 AM
Posted To: Exchange
Conversation: E2k Clustering
Subject: Re: E2k Clustering
Sheesh
: Wednesday, March 13, 2002 9:59 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: E2k Clustering
Use Active/Passive clusters when possible to increase scalability and
reduce failover times. Active/Active clusters are only supported in
2-node configurations in which each node has a maximum of 40 percent
loading
cluster.
-Original Message-
From: Etts, Russell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Posted At: Wednesday, March 13, 2002 12:15 PM
Posted To: Microsoft Exchange
Conversation: E2k Clustering
Subject: RE: E2k Clustering
Hi there
Let me start by saying two things:
1) I didn't mean to start
is already above it.
-Original Message-
From: Sabo, Eric [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Posted At: Wednesday, March 13, 2002 11:48 AM
Posted To: Microsoft Exchange
Conversation: E2k Clustering
Subject: RE: E2k Clustering
Why does Microsoft say you can even do an active/active cluster
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: E2k Clustering
You CANNOT add more users in Active/Active. That is a simple fact.
Active/Active has a limit of about 3900 users.
Active/Passive has no such limit. It is limited only by the hardware.
There are quite a few 6,000 user Active/Passive clusters
. Seielstad - MCSE
Sr. Systems Administrator
Peregrine Systems
Atlanta, GA
-Original Message-
From: Sabo, Eric [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2002 11:01 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: E2k Clustering
I talked to compaq/microsoft today, I am confident
--
Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE
Sr. Systems Administrator
Peregrine Systems
Atlanta, GA
[1] Big Arse
-Original Message-
From: Sabo, Eric [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2002 11:48 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: E2k Clustering
Why does
you want to be touched by just anyone.
Joel
-Original Message-
From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2002 12:01 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: E2k Clustering
Because you can make a BA-Cluster[1] for strictly IMAP/POP/OWA clients
(ie
those
Don't do Active/Active, do Active/Passive and everybody's happy. If
Active/Passive slows down user response too much, then Active/Active is
pretty well guaranteed to fail.
Read SP2 Release Notes
-Original Message-
From: Andrew [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Posted At: Tuesday, March 12,
Thanks, sorry for all the repeats.
Andrew
-Original Message-
From: Woodrick, Ed [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2002 4:04 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: E2k Clustering Active/Active
Don't do Active/Active, do Active/Passive and everybody's happy
-
From: Etts, Russell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2002 4:20 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: E2k Clustering
Hi there
According to the MS whitepaper, here are the limits for active / active:
After you deploy your cluster, make sure you do the following:
Limit
Make it Active/Passive as recommended and it's a moot point.
-Original Message-
From: Sabo, Eric [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Posted At: Tuesday, March 12, 2002 5:42 PM
Posted To: Microsoft Exchange
Conversation: E2k Clustering
Subject: RE: E2k Clustering
When they talk about concurrent
35 matches
Mail list logo
