RE: Clustering Exchange

  • From: "Shevill, Mark M SITI-ITDSEC44" <Mark.Shevill@xxxxxxxxx>
  • To: "'[ExchangeList]'" <exchangelist@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 16:40:03 +0100

Is the memory fragmentation due to Virtual Memory fragmentation? If so how
much memory do you have in your server? If the memory amount is greater than
1Gb then you need a /3Gb switch in the boot.ini file. Plus you also need a
reg switch set to 262144.

See;en-us;315407 for more

This switch is primarily set for a clustered environment.

Mark Shevill
IMG Messaging Technical Lead
Shell Information Technology International Limited
Rowlandsway, Wythenshawe, Manchester M22 5SB, United Kingdom

Tel: +44 161 935 7152
Email: Mark.M.Shevill@xxxxxxxxx

-----Original Message-----
From: Callan, Chris [mailto:CCallan@xxxxxxxx]
Sent: 21 November 2002 15:27
To: [ExchangeList]
Subject: [exchangelist] Clustering Exchange

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


List Archives:
Exchange Newsletters:
Exchange FAQ:
ISA Server Resource Site:
Windows Security Resource Site:
Windows 2000/NT Fax Solutions:
You are currently subscribed to this Discussion List as:
To unsubscribe send a blank email to

Other related posts: