Discussions
Sent: 11/6/2002 1:56 PM
Subject: RE: Exchange 2000 and GC
It is great to see the real reasons why I should not do this. I have
always got an answer like: ..in my mind its not a good and MS doesn't
recommends...
Just a few comments about the list:
1. When you have a real problems
;jippii.fi]
Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2002 2:56 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Exchange 2000 and GC
It is great to see the real reasons why I should not do this. I have
always got an answer like: ..in my mind its not a good and MS doesn't
recommends...
Just a few comments
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Exchange 2000 and GC
The way to do it is have a cisco local redirector in front of your 2 GC
and then do a load balancing rule on the cisco local redirector to send
all traffic to gc1 untill processor threshold reaches 80% and then after
80% to send traffic to GC2
It is great to see the real reasons why I should not do this. I have
always got an answer like: ..in my mind its not a good and MS doesn't
recommends...
Just a few comments about the list:
1. When you have a real problems they are always quite complexity
2. agree
3. if you create a separate site
PROTECTED] [mailto:omatesti;jippii.fi]
Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 5:27 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Exchange 2000 and GC
Thanks for your comments, but still a little sad. I have
received lot of
recommends. But unfortunately nobody has denied my idea neither
mentioned any
Your life may get more complicated is you have to deal with another layer - Domain
Controller Security Policy.
-Original Message-
From: Petri [mailto:omatesti;jippii.fi]
Sent: Thursday, October 31, 2002 12:08 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Exchange 2000 and GC
Hi Folks,
I have
You also want to consider the more applications/processes you run the
more likely one of them will stop working. This translates into
downtime. If for some reason your GC stops replicating or answering
requests and the normal recovery steps don't work, you may have to
reboot. It is the same for
The way to do it is have a cisco local redirector in front of your 2 GC
and then do a load balancing rule on the cisco local redirector to send
all traffic to gc1 untill processor threshold reaches 80% and then after
80% to send traffic to GC2 this way gc1 will answer all requests until
its
General recommendation is to keep Exchange off your domain controllers, in
all but the smallest environments. It sounds like you're well beyond small
environments, so that's a good start.
The best estimator I've seen is to use a 4-to-1 ratio of CPUs in Exchange to
GCs. So, 4 Exchange servers with
Thanks for your comments, but still a little sad. I have received lot of
recommends. But unfortunately nobody has denied my idea neither
mentioned any reason why it is recommend to separate GCs and E2k's.
I don't know what are you thinking about E2k, but somehow its one of the
biggest lack is
I don't like putting Exchange on domain controllers because of the extra
load and because it complicates your disaster recovery.
Ed Crowley MCSE+I MVP
Technical Consultant
hp Services
There are seldom good technological solutions to behavioral problems.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL
11 matches
Mail list logo
