Tek-Tips is the largest IT community on the Internet today!
Members share and learn making Tek-Tips Forums the best source of peer-reviewed technical information on the Internet!
-
Congratulations Chriss Miller on being selected by the Tek-Tips community for having the most helpful posts in the forums last week. Way to Go!
Clustering Exchange
- Thread starter RRM
- Start date
here's some further reading
i had somewhere a MS white paper but it got lost in a huge pile of unmanaged downloaded files
hope this gives you some insight.....
//Bart
i had somewhere a MS white paper but it got lost in a huge pile of unmanaged downloaded files
hope this gives you some insight.....
//Bart
We have it set up in one of our offices.
It wasn't too bad to install. You'll need to do lots of reading up. Microsoft do a white paper that we worked on. You'll find it on the MS site.
Works a treat. Capacity is really the same as for one server, if you have it in Active-Passive mode. We have two nodes in our cluster.
You can choose Active-Active where both nodes act as Exchange Servers. But one disadvantage of this is that if a service on one node fails, then services on that node fail over to the other node, which is already busy.
Or you can choose Active-Passive. This is recommended my MS. You use one node as your seerver, with failover to a passive node that is 'fresh' and unstressed.
Basically, a clustered exchange server is all about improving reliability. Other times where a service would fail on a non-cluster, a service failure (or a hardware failure) would have the system automatically failover to the other node.
It wasn't too bad to install. You'll need to do lots of reading up. Microsoft do a white paper that we worked on. You'll find it on the MS site.
Works a treat. Capacity is really the same as for one server, if you have it in Active-Passive mode. We have two nodes in our cluster.
You can choose Active-Active where both nodes act as Exchange Servers. But one disadvantage of this is that if a service on one node fails, then services on that node fail over to the other node, which is already busy.
Or you can choose Active-Passive. This is recommended my MS. You use one node as your seerver, with failover to a passive node that is 'fresh' and unstressed.
Basically, a clustered exchange server is all about improving reliability. Other times where a service would fail on a non-cluster, a service failure (or a hardware failure) would have the system automatically failover to the other node.
- Thread starter
- #4
Thanks for the help so far,
I want to implement a Active Active senario, so that if one server fails the other can continue to run without a complete loss of service.
I have read some of the earlier threads that say there are problems with memory fragmentation in Exchange clusters?
Another thing I need to know is what is the maximum capacity of users one server can handle if the spec was approx 1Ghz dual processor and approx 1Gb memory.
Thanks
I want to implement a Active Active senario, so that if one server fails the other can continue to run without a complete loss of service.
I have read some of the earlier threads that say there are problems with memory fragmentation in Exchange clusters?
Another thing I need to know is what is the maximum capacity of users one server can handle if the spec was approx 1Ghz dual processor and approx 1Gb memory.
Thanks
You'll still get that scenario if you go for Active Passive.
Memory fragmentation was fixed in SP3, I believe. Can't remember whether WIndows SP3 or Exchange SP3. Go with both, I think.
Don't think you'll get a definite answer, even though you give the spec of your cluster server. A lot depends on the size of user mailbox as well as SMTP traffic, no of attachments etc, no of present users..
Your best bet is perhaps to go with your own experience of your users on your present server.
On what you've given us so far, I can only say that the 1Ghz processors should be OK, but 1Gb of RAM doesn't seem enough. Tell us how many users you presently have...
RobbyB
Memory fragmentation was fixed in SP3, I believe. Can't remember whether WIndows SP3 or Exchange SP3. Go with both, I think.
Don't think you'll get a definite answer, even though you give the spec of your cluster server. A lot depends on the size of user mailbox as well as SMTP traffic, no of attachments etc, no of present users..
Your best bet is perhaps to go with your own experience of your users on your present server.
On what you've given us so far, I can only say that the 1Ghz processors should be OK, but 1Gb of RAM doesn't seem enough. Tell us how many users you presently have...
RobbyB
- Thread starter
- #6
How many clustered servers were you thinking of?
My feeling is that you might go for something like 500-700 users per server. Bump the servers up to 4Gb RAM, and that should be sufficient - but as you know, the more the merrier.
If you went Active Active on a two node cluster, then that's around 1400 users over two nodes. But if one of your nodes had a problem, then you'd have 1400 users on one node, and that might be a struggle.
We presently use dual 800Mhz processors with 1Gb RAM with some 600 users on this server and performance is good. We use Active Passive. Our node 2 lies idle. But if we need to failover, we know that node 2 is ready and able...
My feeling is that you might go for something like 500-700 users per server. Bump the servers up to 4Gb RAM, and that should be sufficient - but as you know, the more the merrier.
If you went Active Active on a two node cluster, then that's around 1400 users over two nodes. But if one of your nodes had a problem, then you'd have 1400 users on one node, and that might be a struggle.
We presently use dual 800Mhz processors with 1Gb RAM with some 600 users on this server and performance is good. We use Active Passive. Our node 2 lies idle. But if we need to failover, we know that node 2 is ready and able...
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Helpful tip
- Locked
- Question
