Re: SBS2003 & Seperate Exchange

KJ, I have set this up now but the SBS does not allow me to OWA the second
exchange server, it just times out and then say page unavialbe. Any Ideas????
I can administer both exchanges from either machine and can move mailboxes
between them. I just cant get the remote access to see the second server.

Thanks,

Scott

"kj [SBS MVP]" wrote:

Deadthing wrote:
Thanks, this sounds like it could be an ideal solution for us.
KJ, on you first mail you mentioned "Move all the user mailboxes to
the second server and route incoming mail to the second server". How
do I route the mail to the second server? Is this a port forwarding
route or just a setting in SBS to tell it to use the second server.
Also are there any points I need to note or anything special that
needs doing when building a second exchange server? I am hoping it is
a straight forward process.

Thanks, Scott

All you need do ( and you don't even *have* to do this ) is port forward
your incoming SMTP (25) to the second server. Exchange knows about the
second server and how to ( & when to ) route messages to appropriate server
information store.

Forwarding incoming SMTP to the second server takes that load off the SBS
server.




"kj [SBS MVP]" wrote:

Cris Hanna [SBS-MVP] wrote:
not having done this...does the SBS simply pass OWA to the second
server?

You know Cris, I think it does. I've got a couple like this and 443
is forwarded to the SBS server. Both http/rpc and OWA seem to work
fine. I suspect they wouldn't if the SBS server or services were
down. Looks like something for me to investigate!



"kj [SBS MVP]" <KevinJ.SBS@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:uQJLKWMxHHA.736@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Deadthing wrote:
Yes we will be, We are just doing test builds at the moment to see
the best way of configuing the system. If we were running exchange
seperatly how would we pass the incoming traffic through SBS to
the seperate exchange server. Or are you recomending that both
servers are connected to the router and we route the exchange
traffic directly to it?

Scott

The easiest way is to keep Exchange on the SBS server and just
install Exchange as a second server. Move all the user mailboxes to
the second server and route incoming mail to the second server.
Exchange will route anything needed between the two Exchange
servers and the "workload" will be on the second server. This
method also allows you to leave the offline address book,
recepient update services, and a host of other light load
componets on SBS where it's expected to be found. ( It also allows
some wizard functionality to continue without 'issues' ).

"Cris Hanna [SBS-MVP]" wrote:

My personal opinion is that if you are running Premium and also
running SQL, which is can be a memory hog as well, then you
should move that to the separate server.

Exchange Server is really integrated with SBS and so basically
you will shut down the Exchange on SBS and Setup the new one and
move mail boxes
You could have had everything regarding Exchange with it on SBS
that you have with having it on a separate server.. OWA or
Outlook over HTTP
My opinion, a lot of money spent that probably wasn't necessary

Both SBS and new Exchange Server should be behind your router on
the Lan Connection side of the Router

You said you have Premium Ed. So are you running ISA as well?

--
Cris Hanna [SBS-MVP]
-------------------------------------------------
Microsoft MVPs
Independent Experts (MVPs do not work for MS)
Real World Answers
---------------------------------------------------------
Please do not contact me directly regarding issues

"Deadthing" <Deadthing@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
message
news:AF993677-8E06-40E3-A60B-2D9ADDDDD0B2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Thanks for the quick response,

Yeah we are running SBS 2003 R2 premium and have purchased a
seprate 2003 Server R2 & Exchange 2003 (both standard versions).

The reasons for hosting the exchange on a seprate host was to
reduce load on
the SBS machine and allow Exchange store to eat up as much mem
as it wants on
its own machine. We have also been running SBS 2000 upto date on
our old server and wanted to open exchange up to remote users
but are paranoid about
security and access. (We hope these are justified or else we
have wasted a bit of money LOL!!!).
Granted, the new structure and features of SBS 2003 were unkown
to us when we made the descission but now we have seperate
licenses and servers we would
like to use them if possible.
We have both systems installed and can administer exchange from
SBS, we just
dont know how to pass the external request thorugh SBS to
Exchange. That is
why we are wondering about positioning the router on the
internal lan so data
can port forward directly to it. This obviously loses some of
the security gained from SBS and ISA.

Hope this clarifies things a little more,

Scott


"Cris Hanna [SBS-MVP]" wrote:

You do realize that you have to have Exchange CALs for this
awell

If you can explain why you would do this, then we can probably
give you better advice

--
Cris Hanna [SBS-MVP]
------------------------------
Please do not contact me directly, only respond in the
Newsgroups MVPs do not work for Microsoft
------------------------------
Send via Windows Mail on Vista Ultimate connected to SBS 2003
R2 "Deadthing" <Deadthing@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
message
news:C87314BD-2B35-4A98-BFCE-DB883F2B1ED6@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
We are trying to set up SBS 2003 but with Exchange running on
a different
server (Not the one that came with sbs but a new
license!!!!!). My question
is this, Where is the best place to position our router ie.
behind the SBS
machine or on the internal network so both servers have access
to it??? If
behind the SBS machine then how do I route the relevant data
to exchange
via
the SBS? We have looked into the settings in ISA 2004 but isnt
this just
the
firewall?.... do we need to set up additional routing or can
this not be
done. It seems like putting it on the internal network is
easiest but then
it
bypasses SBS security.

Any advice would be gratefully recieved,
Many thanks,

Scott

--
/kj

--
/kj

--
/kj



.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: So why SBS?
    ... Public folders will be in the next version.. ... The sad part of most of us is that we haven't even tried or practiced a backup/restore and we freak out over a 'single" SBS box when we haven't even tried to restore it from a harddrive. ... Exchange seems to mix its words and titles, the global/generic use of POP and SMTP for just about every Exchange function is dumb, MailEnable understands post office protocol and simple mail transfer protocol in a "meaningfull" way. ... The standard profiles in Server are quite effective assuming you add new users to the correct account in the first place and your note running more than 1 file server. ...
    (microsoft.public.windows.server.sbs)
  • Re: Easy to use second 2000 Server for Exchange?
    ... Existing Exchange 2000 server - therefore have the CALs - so no new ones are ... Frank McCallister SBS MVP ...
    (microsoft.public.windows.server.sbs)
  • Re: So why SBS?
    ... Public folders will be in the next version.. ... If SBS isn't for you...that's fine. ... Mailenable is an example of a freeware or pay for extra's, mail server. ... It is infinitly simpler to configure than Exchange once installed. ...
    (microsoft.public.windows.server.sbs)
  • Re: Email for second domain
    ... The Microsoft Exchange MTA Stacks service is normally disabled on Exchange 2003 Servers on SBS 2003. ... You can safely ignore the MTA warning messages on the SBS 2003 server. ...
    (microsoft.public.windows.server.sbs)
  • RE: Configuring exchange 2003 in SBS
    ... As I know, this is not related to per user mailbox, it refer to the mailbox ... store on the whole Exchange server. ... This newsgroup only focuses on SBS technical issues. ... What minimum requirement if I want this server for a fileserver? ...
    (microsoft.public.windows.server.sbs)
Loading