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
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
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
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
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,
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
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
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-
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
]] 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
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,
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
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
-
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
: 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
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
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
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
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
: 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
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
[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
:[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
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
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
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
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
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
]] 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
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
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
, 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
: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
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
, 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
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,
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
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
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
, 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
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:
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
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
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
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
]
-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
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:
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
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 9:49 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
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
-
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
:[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
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
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
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
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:
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.
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.
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
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
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
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
]]
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
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
, 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
-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
, 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
-
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
1 - 100 of 107 matches
Mail list logo
