RE: Clustering Exchange
- From: "Periyasamy, Raj" <Raj.Periyasamy@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "[ExchangeList]" <exchangelist@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 10:37:06 -0500
Chris,
We are running Exch 2000 Active/Active cluster with no problems. What
kind of problems did MS refer to with Active/active cluster ?
Regards,
Raj
-----Original Message-----
From: Callan, Chris [mailto:CCallan@xxxxxxxx]
Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2002 10:27 AM
To: [ExchangeList]
Subject: [exchangelist] Clustering Exchange
http://www.MSExchange.org/
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 first.
Chris
------------------------------------------------------
List Archives: http://www.webelists.com/cgi/lyris.pl?enter=exchangelist
Exchange Newsletters: http://www.msexchange.org/pages/newsletter.asp
Exchange FAQ: http://www.msexchange.org/pages/larticle.asp?type=FAQ
------------------------------------------------------
ISA Server Resource Site: http://www.isaserver.org
Windows Security Resource Site: http://www.windowsecurity.com/ Windows
2000/NT Fax Solutions: http://www.ntfaxfaq.com
------------------------------------------------------
You are currently subscribed to this MSExchange.org Discussion List as:
psraj@xxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send a blank email to
$subst('Email.Unsub')
Other related posts:
