Clustering Exchange

  • From: "Callan, Chris" <CCallan@xxxxxxxx>
  • To: "'[ExchangeList]'" <exchangelist@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 10:26:44 -0500

Okay, we have been beating our heads around looking for a cluster option
that will work for us, obviously Active/Active was shot down, because of the
memory fragmentation, even though initially MS told us it could be done, for
the meantime we are looking to just go Active/Passive, I was wondering
though what the general consensus on going N+1 is.  We are going to explore
the possibility to go to this, but I wanted to get some opinions on it


Other related posts: