Re: Clustering
From: Rui J.M. Silva (rjms(nospam4me)_at_oninet.pt)
Date: 02/01/05
- Next message: Jonathan: "Exchange support when migrating users to a new domain"
- Previous message: Manjeet Minhas: "Exchange server Database Pointing to Network attached storage NAS"
- In reply to: jfene: "Re: Clustering"
- Next in thread: jFene: "Re: Clustering"
- Reply: jFene: "Re: Clustering"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2005 18:54:16 -0000
But tell me something, will the clusters be independent, or will they
connect to the same storage?
-- Blog "subject: exchange" http://spaces.msn.com/members/ehlo "jfene" <jfene@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message news:2730B494-A7FD-477E-BABB-CD40F356DC78@microsoft.com... > 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: Jonathan: "Exchange support when migrating users to a new domain"
- Previous message: Manjeet Minhas: "Exchange server Database Pointing to Network attached storage NAS"
- In reply to: jfene: "Re: Clustering"
- Next in thread: jFene: "Re: Clustering"
- Reply: jFene: "Re: Clustering"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
