Re: Clustering
From: jfene (jfene_at_discussions.microsoft.com)
Date: 01/31/05
- Next message: David Horn: "Need my Ignorance cured"
- Previous message: Richard: "Migrating Exchange 2k3 to new organisation"
- In reply to: Rui J.M. Silva: "Re: Clustering"
- Next in thread: Rui J.M. Silva: "Re: Clustering"
- Reply: Rui J.M. Silva: "Re: Clustering"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2005 06:47:01 -0800
Hi,
Thanks for the prompt reply. Is there any whitepaper which explains how this
is achieved. The Active-Active scenario we're thinking about is not
definitive.
As for your concerns;
1) We will have adequate hardware so that if one node fails the second will
comfortably handle the load of the first.
2) Virtual memory fragmentation is something I still have to read about.
3) Have to test it but most probably you're right.
4) We will have eight servers with 2750 mailboxes. Max. utilisation is of
30% yielding 825 concurrent users or 1650 users on a single node should a
failure occur.
5) We will have 2 storage groups on each server, i.e a max. of 4 at any one
time.
So it's only 2 & 3 we have to worry about.
Our reasoning behind this is that we would like to achieve network load
balancing between the two sites. Is this still possible using an
Active-Passive cluster. Remember we will have the cluster(s) spread over two
sites and would like to balance network traffic as equally as possible.
reg ... Jason
"Rui J.M. Silva" wrote:
> That's perfectly possible. You can have as much cluster as you like.
> But please, PLEASE, don't use A/A configuration.
> Reasons (from a previous post of mine):
>
> #1- Stop a minute to think: why are you using cluster? Because you want
> fault-tolerance, right? Well, in case of a node fail, you'll have 2 Exchange
> instances on one node. If you don't have the propper hardware, your servers
> will not respond well to client requests. Unless of course, if you bought
> twice the power you really need, but then, why don't you just buy cheapper
> servers and make a 3 node cluster?
> #2 - Virtual memory fragmentation: In highly-scaled clusters, the virtual
> memory requirements of bringing a second EVS online on a node which has
> already been up and running can lead to larger than normal amounts of
> virtual memory fragmentation.
> #3 - Fastest failover time: Because the passive node in the cluster sits
> idle until the active node fails or needs maintenance, this configuration
> has the fastest failover time.
> #4 - Maximum number of simultaneous conections: no more than 1900 clients
> can access the virtual server at the same time.
> #5 - Exchange 2003 is limited to four storage groups per server. This
> limitation is a physical one and applies to each node of a cluster as well.
> This limitation may create problems with active/active configurations but
> does not affect active/passive configurations.
>
>
> --
> Blog "subject: exchange"
> http://spaces.msn.com/members/ehlo/
>
>
> "Jason" <Jason @discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:7276DCD0-3E4E-4E94-A55A-BD21DDB47100@microsoft.com...
> > Hi,
> >
> > I would like to know if it is possible to set up a single Exchange 2003
> > organisation on multiple clusters using Windows 2003 Enterprise server. In
> > particular we are thinking of using 4 clusters in a 2 node Active-Active
> > configuration (ok I know this is not recommended) with storage residing on
> > an
> > HP FC-SAN. Moreover one node will reside in the main data centre while the
> > second node will reside at the disaster recovery site.
> >
> > All the MS documentation I read so far fails to mention whether this is
> > possible or not. A single cluster is always mentioned, making me think
> > that
> > the above is unattainable.
> >
> > So has anyone had any experience installing MS Exchange on multiple
> > clusters?
> >
> > Any help is much appreciated.
> >
> > Thanks ... Jason
>
>
>
- Next message: David Horn: "Need my Ignorance cured"
- Previous message: Richard: "Migrating Exchange 2k3 to new organisation"
- In reply to: Rui J.M. Silva: "Re: Clustering"
- Next in thread: Rui J.M. Silva: "Re: Clustering"
- Reply: Rui J.M. Silva: "Re: Clustering"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
