Re: Implementation & Design Questions.
From: NIppur (fish_at_libero.it)
Date: 03/31/04
- Next message: NIppur: "Re: Error in Mounting Mail Storage Box and Public FOlder"
- Previous message: Dave Howe [MSFT]: "Re: New Exchange 2000 server won't join existing Ex 5.5 Organization"
- In reply to: Nick Porter: "Implementation & Design Questions."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2004 20:28:14 +0200
Wow! It resembles a question from the Design Messaging Infrastructure
Certification Exam :)
So let's try to give some hints:
> Would it be better to deploy 1 server at a central location or 2 or
> 3. The US site only has 3 users.
Windows 2003 and Exchange 2003 are born to consolidate architecture. I think
one central server is cool.
Keep in mind that consolidating help you to focus resources over a single
server obtaining a better environment.
> Which is more appropriate, ENT or STD?
By now you could choose STD. If you think to grow you could choose the ENT
edition both for HA features and Storage Options. (especially if you have in
mind to set up multiple storage Groups).
> Is the data held on all the users on 1 server and replicated to the
> others or does each server only handle the mailbox for it's local
> users?
Exchange has two kind of stores: Public & Private. The Private (mailboxes)
are held on a single server. The public are replicated among different
servers (as you choose).
> I'm guessing it's the latter but the AD setup is a mess so this may
> cause problems. Currently the 2 UK sites are each on their own private
> domain/forrest (?) and both domains trust each other. The US site is
> on a workgroup and the user VPN in.
Consolidate it. You have the choice to start the consolidation in your site,
and let remote user access the mailboxes on your server with a specific
account you define, but this is not easy to manage (a nice thing is single
instance logon).
> I'm thinking 1 ENT on a new DC at a central location using separate
> storage containers (?) for each site. The DC would be configured for
> our public domain name with an eventual view to change the old DCs to
> 3rd (?) level domains - thus creating a tree. (?)
Sorry I could not get the point :)
Remember that with Exchange 2003 you have a bunch of ways to let user access
mailboxes:
Outlook 2003 (with cached mode and RPC over HTTPS is easy to set-up
connection even on distant, unreliable connections).
OWA (Outlook Web Access) Soooo nice in the new version.
OMA (Even with Phone, Smartphone ecc.)
IMAP4 / POP3 .... (of course).
And you could also leverage over the "mobile" features of the product to let
your user access over an OTA (Over the Air) connection....
Hope it helps.
-- Andrea Pescino MCP MCDBA MCSE-M MCT "Nick Porter" <spam@kvisr.demon.co.uk> ha scritto nel messaggio news:59tl60lfi7ctfc6bbtgbfrannucihg5cq6@4ax.com... >
- Next message: NIppur: "Re: Error in Mounting Mail Storage Box and Public FOlder"
- Previous message: Dave Howe [MSFT]: "Re: New Exchange 2000 server won't join existing Ex 5.5 Organization"
- In reply to: Nick Porter: "Implementation & Design Questions."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
