RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering

Like it! Do you mind if I borrow that phrase?! -Original Message- From: Ed Crowley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 14 October 2002 22:05 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering I tout the virtues of single-node clusters. Ed Crowley MCSE

RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering

PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, October 11, 2002 2:50 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering Stay away from active/active. Go Active/passive instead. You can get more users on Active/Passive. Denny -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto

RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering

PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 5:07 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering Let me know if you change your mind! I enjoyed working with (for) you! Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP kcCC+I Tech Consultant hp Services Protecting

RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering

[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, October 11, 2002 2:50 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering Stay away from active/active. Go Active/passive instead. You can get more users on Active/Passive. Denny -Original Message- From: [EMAIL

RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering

To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering Like it! Do you mind if I borrow that phrase?! -Original Message- From: Ed Crowley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 14 October 2002 22:05 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active

RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering

, October 11, 2002 2:50 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering Stay away from active/active. Go Active/passive instead. You can get more users on Active/Passive. Denny -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED

RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering

and the alternate server is not the same version as the original, the information store would not mount) -Original Message- From: Dennis Depp [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, October 11, 2002 3:15 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering I've looked

RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering

]] Sent: Friday, October 11, 2002 2:50 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering Stay away from active/active. Go Active/passive instead. You can get more users on Active/Passive. Denny -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED

RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering

- Formerly Harbinger and Extricity Atlanta, GA -Original Message- From: Andrey Fyodorov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 10:35 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering What happens if you apply a new service pack

RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering

. -Original Message- From: Great Cthulhu Jones [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Saturday, October 12, 2002 9:02 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering Heck, just write a batch file that stops all services and bounces the box Sunday at 2AM and you don't

RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering

ESEUTIL /R ? -Original Message- From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 10:38 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering You run eseutil on the patched node to update the stores to the new version

RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering

] Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 09:36 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering You'd be wrong there. You can get the same amount of users on active/active or active/passive, although realistically, active/passive allows for more users

RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering

I love theories. -Original Message- From: Andrey Fyodorov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 9:32 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering No, according to the theory you can get more users on Active/Active

RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering

Whats brown and sticky? -Original Message- From: Chris Scharff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 10:54 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering I love theories. -Original Message- From: Andrey Fyodorov

RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering

]]On Behalf Of Andrey Fyodorov Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 9:32 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering No, according to the theory you can get more users on Active/Active because both cluster nodes are being used to do something useful. But if one

RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering

Hehe, that's why I wrote in theory -Original Message- From: Chris Scharff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 10:54 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering I love theories. -Original Message- From: Andrey

RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering

To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering Which meant if you had 3 databases on each cluster, the other active node would fail as soon as it failed to mount one store too many. That's why MS now pushes a/a/a/p clustering. a/a was an unmitigated disaster

RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering

:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 10:46 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering I did just that. From personal experience I prefer to reboot the machine after stopping the service (as opposed to simply restarting the services

RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering

, 2002 10:48 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering ESEUTIL /R ? -Original Message- From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 10:38 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active

RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering

and Extricity Atlanta, GA -Original Message- From: Couch, Nate [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 10:51 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering One article I read said that in an A/A situation such that you plan

RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering

To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering Just disable the DNS Client service - it only causes problems anyway. -- Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity

RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering

/P may cause big problems :) -Original Message- From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 11:07 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering Methinks that's the one

RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering

- MCSE Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity Atlanta, GA -Original Message- From: Andrey Fyodorov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 11:04 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering 3

RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering

, October 14, 2002 11:10 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering I vaguely remember talking about it in the past. Although we were talking about domain controllers. I thought that on the Exchange server I should still have it running

RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering

Only the best. Microsoft DNS, active-directory integrated. :) -Original Message- From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 11:11 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering Only if you have crappy DNS servers

RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering

Hi there I have an active\active E2k box and there is only one thing I like about it - it looks good on a resume. Here is why I am not happy with clustering Exchange: If you have a problem with email, you need to see if you have a cluster issue or Exchange issue before you can start to look

RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering

No I am just preparing for the worst-case scenario. -Original Message- From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 11:11 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering If you're basing your life around 4

RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering

Excellent! -Original Message- From: Etts, Russell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 11:15 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering Hi there I have an active\active E2k box and there is only one thing I like about

RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering

A tootsie roll. -- From: Morrison, Mike L. Reply To: Exchange Discussions Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 10:07 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering A stick. Mike -Original Message- From: Andy

RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering

Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 8:15 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering No I am just preparing for the worst-case scenario. -Original Message- From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 11:11 AM

RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering

Thanks Russell. Good summation. -- From: Andrey Fyodorov Reply To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 10:16 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering Excellent! -Original Message- From

RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering

Fyodorov Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 8:15 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering No I am just preparing for the worst-case scenario. -Original Message- From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 11:11 AM

RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering

. -Original Message- From: Andrey Fyodorov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 11:54 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering I prefer not to mess with Exchange clustering unless a customer insists on having a dedicated Exchange

RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering

MEC Typical Exchange environment. -Original Message- From: Andy David [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 11:14 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering Perhaps it would be better if you educated that customer

RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering

it looks like you may not need to update the stores. I can't say I have tested this though. -Original Message- From: Andrey Fyodorov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 14 October 2002 15:48 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering ESEUTIL /R

RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering

, October 14, 2002 11:14 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering Only the best. Microsoft DNS, active-directory integrated. :) -Original Message- From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 11:11 AM

RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering

. (:= -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Andrey Fyodorov Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 10:04 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering 3 Storage Groups on each node, right? :) I like the idea

RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering

thought it a lot less. -Original Message- From: Andrey Fyodorov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 11:54 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering I prefer not to mess with Exchange clustering unless a customer insists

RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering

MEC = a lot of non-Exchange aware managers who came there on a habitual basis. -Original Message- From: Chris Scharff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 12:42 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering MEC Typical

RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering

Of course on outside we have Bind DNS. But for internal use within the AD - AD's own DNS. -Original Message- From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 1:45 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering

RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering

Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 12:45 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering Then you don't need it active anywhere. -- Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis - Formerly Harbinger

RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering

A tootsie roll? My bad... I got the threads crossed, there... (:= -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Ed Crowley Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 10:35 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering

RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering

and Extricity Atlanta, GA -Original Message- From: Andrey Fyodorov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 3:49 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering When a customer wants it AND wants to pay money for it... customer

RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering

:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 4:00 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering My passive/passive/passive/passive Datacenter cluster has a perfect 100% downtime. Top that, I say! We even keep the power cables in a separate area

RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering

Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering As always, I bow to your greatness. How's the little tentacles? -- Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity Atlanta, GA

RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering

You must be a different type of a customer. -Original Message- From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 4:03 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering As a customer, I appreciate when I'm shown that I

RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering

: Monday, October 14, 2002 4:16 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering Doing fine, doing fine. Cthough'ng'aa chewed up her first gas giant yesterday. I'll post pics soon. How's you and yours? (:= -Original Message- From: [EMAIL

RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering

Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity Atlanta, GA -Original Message- From: Andrey Fyodorov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 4:25 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering You must be a different type

RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering

14, 2002 3:04 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering As always, I bow to your greatness. How's the little tentacles? -- Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis - Formerly Harbinger

RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering

PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering You must be a different type of a customer. -Original Message- From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 4:03 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views

RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering

Can you please be my customer? -Original Message- From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 4:28 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering An intelligent one? If that makes me different, so be it. I'm also

RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering

- From: Andrey Fyodorov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 4:31 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering Can you please be my customer? -Original Message- From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent

RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering

: Monday, October 14, 2002 8:54 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering I prefer not to mess with Exchange clustering unless a customer insists on having a dedicated Exchange cluster. -Original Message- From: Ed Crowley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED

RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering

PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Andy David Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 9:14 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering Perhaps it would be better if you educated that customer on better alternatives. Just as an aside, during Tony Redmond's

RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering

14, 2002 1:00 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering My passive/passive/passive/passive Datacenter cluster has a perfect 100% downtime. Top that, I say! We even keep the power cables in a separate area to prevent any accidental uptime

RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering

Seielstad Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 1:28 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering An intelligent one? If that makes me different, so be it. I'm also the first to send an arse clown out the door for recommending solutions that are way out of line

RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering

Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 1:35 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering I'm sure CJ and others would support me in saying that I don't need the services of Exchange consultants. -- Roger D

RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering

I am not a consultant. -Original Message- From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 4:35 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering I'm sure CJ and others would support me in saying that I don't need

RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering

, 2002 5:11 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering I think at this stage of its development clustering provides very poor business value. It really protects you from very few failure scenarios. Instead, I'd make sure I had the most highly internally

RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering

brick. In this case both main apps are databases and that can't be good. Nate Couch EDS Messaging -- From: Ed Crowley Reply To: Exchange Discussions Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2002 16:11 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active

RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering

] On Behalf Of Dennis Depp Sent: Friday, October 11, 2002 12:15 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering I've looked into Exchange Active/Passive clustering for our Exchange 2000 servers. The largest Exchange problem that causes downtime is corruption

RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering

] On Behalf Of Dennis Depp Sent: Friday, October 11, 2002 12:15 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering I've looked into Exchange Active/Passive clustering for our Exchange 2000 servers. The largest Exchange problem that causes downtime is corruption

Re: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering

What do you mean each will have 800 users? - Original Message - From: Imran Iqbal [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2002 4:35 AM Subject: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering We are currently an Exchange 5.5 site, as part

RE: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering

I think at this stage of its development clustering provides very poor business value. It really protects you from very few failure scenarios. Instead, I'd make sure I had the most highly internally redundant system I could afford, buy a capable recovery and hot standby server, and practice my

Re: Views on Exchange Active Active clustering

I have not done any clustering nor have much XCH 2000 experience but if it is worth anything I am at MEC right now and so far 3 speakers over 3 days on HA have said to stick with active/passive and avoid active/active. Chris - Original Message - From: Imran Iqbal [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: