Re: Exchange Servers at different sites
- From: "ckoymen" <ckoymen@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2005 16:50:38 +0100
Well, sorry not to mention couple of details;
we have approx. 100 users at each site.
Users communicate clients with emails at all time. Mostly these emails
include file attachments (approx 2mb.).
we need redundancy procedure, this is the another reason that we decided to
go for 2nd exchange server.
Your solution is so attractive and more easy to setup really, msnews, I wish
I would setup like that.
But I'm not sure if our les10 conn. will support, GC Replication, file
sharing, mail sending/receiving, digital phone conn., etc.
Redundancy, storage, fast communication are my other concerns.
Also we bought 2 exch. server (std. edition) and cals already. So I need to
use them lol!
Thank you.
"MSNEWS" <dlwest@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:eaQB5eoyFHA.1028@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>I would look at keeping it to one Exchange server and have all the clients
>use Outlook 2003 Cached Exchange mode, either over HTTP or a site-to-site
>VPN. I have well over 100 users doing this where _none_ of the clients are
>located in the same facility as the server, and it works well.
>
> The servers are located in a rack elsewhere and my office runs a DC/GC
> connected to them via a site-to-site VPN, but you may not even need to
> deploy remote domain controllers if all you care about is mail.
>
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Exchange Servers at different sites
- From: David L. West
- Re: Exchange Servers at different sites
- References:
- Exchange Servers at different sites
- From: ckoymen
- Re: Exchange Servers at different sites
- From: MSNEWS
- Exchange Servers at different sites
- Prev by Date: Re: Owned vs Hosted Exchange
- Next by Date: Re: Owned vs Hosted Exchange
- Previous by thread: Re: Exchange Servers at different sites
- Next by thread: Re: Exchange Servers at different sites
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|