Re: 2003 store requirements on specialized servers
- From: Ex Gomer <gomer@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 17 May 2005 09:38:09 -0500
OMG thank you so very much for this information! Much appreciated...
On Sat, 14 May 2005 13:20:12 -0400, "Rich Matheisen [MVP]"
<richnews@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>Ex Gomer <gomer@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>>I have seen bits and pieces of best practices as it relates to the
>>usage of mailbox and public folder stores but wanted to ask here to
>>get more advice.
>>
>>I have a server that will hold only public folders, a server that will
>>act as a bridgehead and internet connector, and a number of mailbox
>>only servers.
>>
>>My questions are:
>>
>>1. Should I delete the publc folder stores from all but the primary
>>and secondary specialized servers? What is the impact to free/busy
>>etc. As long as the public folder server is specified for each
>>mailbox store is there any reason to hold local copies of the public
>>folder store?
>
>I wouldn't recommend that unless you understand the way Exchange
>routes mail for PF's and provides clients with the PF hierarchy.
>
>By removing the public folder store from a mailbox server you have no
>other source of the public folder hierarchy than the server you
>nominated on each mailbox database. With only one public folder server
>that may not have much of an effect if you nominated the PF server as
>the hierarchy server for all the mailbox stores, but that means that
>all the client will refer to this one server for the hierachy and that
>may cause problems if the clients are "remote" to the PF server. OTOH,
>if you had two PF servers, and you nominated one of them as the
>hierarchy server, then taking that server offline would mean that
>nobody could accees PF's even though you have replicas on another
>server.
>
>Removing the PF store from you "internet connector" can produce some
>very odd message routing situations if you have PF's that receive mail
>from the Internet and you DON'T remove the PF stores from the other
>mailbox servers. Without a local PF store the connector server will
>send the message to the PF store at the top of the
>msExchOwningPFTreeBL property of the "Public Folders" object in the
>configuration container. That server is usually the last server you
>installed. So, for example, if your public folder server's in London,
>and you leave a PF store on a server in Sao Paulo, Brazil, and your
>connector server is in Sydney, then messages may be sent from
>Australia to Brazil and then to London. While the locations are
>exagerations, it's easier to comprehend than "network distance", which
>is really the issue).
>
>>2. On the bridgehead and public folder servers, should I delete the
>>mailbox stores? (same general idea)
>
>No. Without a mailbox store you won't be able to generate NDRs. And PF
>replication uses mail to move the data between servers.
>
>>I want to eliminate unnecessary stores for many reasons, some being
>>efficiency, general "best practices", keep users from creating users
>>or folders on the wrong servers etc.
>
>Users don't control where public folders are created -- you, as the
>admin, get to do that. The folder will be created on a local PF store
>and then replicated to the servers in the replicas list. When that's
>done, the "local" replica will be deleted. If you on't want local
>folders then don't put replicas on the non-PF servers.
>
>The only thing you'll be saving by removing the local PF stores is the
>hierarchy replication traffic. That, most likely, will be so small as
>to be unnoticable when compared to the other message traffic. You can
>even reduce the number of messages by increasing the size of the
>replication messages to 1MB (or more).
.
- References:
- 2003 store requirements on specialized servers
- From: Ex Gomer
- Re: 2003 store requirements on specialized servers
- From: Rich Matheisen [MVP]
- 2003 store requirements on specialized servers
- Prev by Date: Re: Virtual Memory Fragmentation
- Next by Date: Re: Exchange Rules Question
- Previous by thread: Re: 2003 store requirements on specialized servers
- Next by thread: Where to place multiple stores
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
