Re: Exchange Replication and Failover

Tech-Archive recommends: Repair Windows Errors & Optimize Windows Performance

From: Al Mulnick (amulnick_No_SPAM_at_ncDOTrr.com)
Date: 07/17/04 

Date: Fri, 16 Jul 2004 21:54:57 -0400

I just noticed that I emphasized the wrong word and possibly created some
confusion. I should have emphasized "add" in the phrase "add" complexity.
Truth is, it doesn't add to the complexity of a solution if it is the only
solution. I'm splitting hairs.

I agree it's expensive. But like the complexity addition, it's not "too"
expensive if that's what's needed.

When you define your requirements completely, you can decide what is the
best out of possible solutions. For example, based on your discussion
below, you only didn't like the doubletake product because of failback. But
I noticed that you had to replicate the data, then perform a manual DR
process to get the databases back and then reverse site and perform the same
process when the disaster was resolved.

Remembering that this is about business continuity, what is the parameters
of your requirement and what is the cost of not succeeding?

What you may want to consider is what SAN vendors can do for you in this
scenario. They can accomplish things you are saying are not possible, such
as geo-clustering (OK, they're but one of the cogs in the wheel, but an
important part). There are other solutions that would be WAY easier in your
case if your requirements allow it. Things that can be done to put your
service back about as fast as dial-tone can be restored if not faster. BTDT
but it all starts with properly defining the requirements in a reality based
conversation that doesn't include throwing a product at a problem you think
you have. Define it and solve. Define it and solve it. Define it and....
you get the idea.

I can honestly admit I'm not a big fan of software such as doubletake. I
haven't been for a long time and view them as a low-end solution for small
shops that can't bring in the expertise to do it any differently or can't
justify the expense of a geo-clustering solution. For those latter, I'd
suggest hosting or one of these companies that do Exchange DR like
www.messageone.com
That's me though. :)

Al

"kudu" <anonymous@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:2e99201c46b1c$476404d0$a301280a@phx.gbl...
Joe,

I am in more or less the same position as you are. We
tried double take for the replication to our BCM (business
continuety management server - in a different geografical
location)and in a failover would do a
exchange/disasterrecovery installation on the other box
and switch over with renaming the server name etc.etc.etc.
This method however with AD 2003 is very messy when
failing back to the original configuration. I am now
trying to find a way to have the standby server up and
running live, with the exact databases and log files as
the live server, which is where the problem comes in.
eseutil does not convert the checkpoint file to a
different server name, at least not that i am aware of. We
are therefor (for now i hope) forced to have a standby
server standing there doing NOTHING until the sh.. hits
the fan with our live server. A new install of exchange
has then to be installed and live database imported.

Clusters are not very complex, but as you rightly said are
not cheep and should your second box not be in the same
building a cluster is not an option at all anyway !

So should you find a solution to your problem PLEASE come
back to me with it.

Cheers

Kudu
>-----Original Message-----
>What you just described is EXACTLY what a cluster can do
for you if
>configured correctly. It doesn't add "complexity" either;
it solves a
>problem and is therefore the tool for the job IMHO.
>
>Al
>
>
>
>"Joe" <joedboswell at hotmail dot com> wrote in message
>news:uIOUnfeSEHA.2128@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
>> I would but, adding a cluster in our environment would
increase the
>> complexity also having to afford another server isnt
something I can
>justify
>> for a little redundancy... A simple solution like
installing to servers
>and
>> haveing a front end server say "oh, server A is down,
lets use server B"
>> would be quite convenient. Also it would allow me to
have a server thats
>> primary use is something else, like LCS or SQL server,
the load being
>pretty
>> much nil until it has to temporarily maintain the
clients for a limited
>> amount of time would be perfect!
>>
>> Joe
>>
>>
>>
>> "Al Mulnick" <amulnick_No_SPAM@ncDOTrr.com> wrote in
message
>> news:OoCDqXcSEHA.1168@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
>> > Sounds like you want an active/passive cluster then.
>> > Have you seen the data on those? It doesn't
replicate data it uses
>> > shared-disk clustering technology instead but it will
do what you want
>> > pretty easily.
>> >
>> > Al
>> >
>> > "Joe" <joedboswell at hotmail dot com> wrote in
message
>> > news:%23JAkeTbSEHA.2716@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
>> > > Well, the goal of this is having 2 backend servers
that in essence
>have
>> > the
>> > > same information and using a front end server to
load balance between
>> the
>> > > two. But really I would only be using this for
availability purposes,
>> Ie.
>> > > when I restart 1 server everybody jumps to the
other and mail is still
>> > > received and processed, so that, if I need to work
on the other server
>> for
>> > > an extended period of time.
>> > >
>> > > Joe
>> > >
>> > > "Al Mulnick" <amulnick_No_SPAM@ncDOTrr.com> wrote
in message
>> > > news:%23lkgVzQSEHA.1764@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
>> > > > When you say replicating, what exactly is your
expectation?
>> > > > There's high-availability solutions. There's
also dial-tone
>> > availability
>> > > > via some manual processes and scripts with RSG
technology.
>> > > >
>> > > > FYI: public folder access is required for MAPI
clients. You can
>> always
>> > > > create a new one, but then it's not the same is
it? :)
>> > > >
>> > > > "Joe" <joedboswell at hotmail dot com> wrote in
message
>> > > > news:%230vOr3OSEHA.3012@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
>> > > > > Basically, they will be replicating mailboxes
and address book.
>> > Nothing
>> > > > > much else. No public folder stuff or anything.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Joe
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > > "Tobias Östensson"
<excludethis.toost@wmdata.whatever.com> wrote
>in
>> > > > message
>> > > > > news:%23IPnSROSEHA.620@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
>> > > > > > What data will thay replicate?
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > "Joe" <joedboswell at hotmail dot com> skrev
i meddelandet
>> > > > > > news:%
23M9hxKNSEHA.3432@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
>> > > > > > > Looking to setup a single front end server
and 2 backend
>servers
>> > > that
>> > > > > will
>> > > > > > > replicate the data between each other.
Exchange 2003 machines
>> on
>> > a
>> > > > > Win2k3
>> > > > > > > AD.
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > Anyone have any specific links or where to
go to find out how
>to
>> > set
>> > > > > this
>> > > > > > > up?
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > Joe
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>
>
>.
>

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Exchange Replication and Failover
    ... adding a cluster in our environment would increase the ... > complexity also having to afford another server isnt something I can ... Also it would allow me to have a server thats ... It doesn't replicate data it uses ...
    (microsoft.public.exchange.design)
  • Re: control local password like IIS does?
    ... This will return data about the local machine and what its password policies ... Then you need to make your program adhere to them. ... programmatically determine is password complexity as it can be extended by ... Joe Richards Microsoft MVP Windows Server Directory Services ...
    (microsoft.public.platformsdk.security)
  • Re: Ive thought better of Linux
    ... what huge amounts of work does a mail server do? ... would fail in odd ways in this sceario and would bounce deliverable ... UH> immense inherent complexity of the application domain? ...
    (comp.lang.lisp)
  • Re: ASP.NET: Fundementally Flawed Architecture
    ... Writing an Http Server from scratch? ... Nope, not kidding. ... There are plenty of 3rd party tcp-ip delphi socket servers in the community, so there is no need for you to roll you own from scratch. ... I could of course use most other DB products as db back-end with no real impact in the size of complexity of code in the webserver. ...
    (borland.public.delphi.non-technical)
  • Re: Problem after setting password policy
    ... "Bob" wrote in message ... I recently changed the password policy on our server by going to ... I have now enabled "password must meet complexity requirements". ... No matter how complex the password is, the server always complains that the password does not meet the requirements. ...
    (microsoft.public.inetserver.iis.security)