RE: Exchange Server Redundancy
- From: "Tiago de Aviz" <Tiago@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "[ExchangeList]" <exchangelist@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 9 Mar 2004 16:09:13 -0300
Al, it's not fair comparing a software solution with clusters or replicated
writes ;)
What I'm talking about is keeping the costs low. Why in the world would the guy
put a cluster for 30 users? He can't justify the cost. It really DOES work. It
can put your dead exchange online in six seconds, and it's not the fact that is
from another vendor that makes it worse than MS's solution. If we were talking
about some little softwarehouse, I'd agree, but it's backed by CA.
Here in Brazil you need to see the price of a shared disk or a RAID array. This
software is quite handy if you don't have the budget.
It does, however, has many more point of failure than a cluster. Ca's
Brightstor is not intended to give you the same availability as a cluster, but
at least you have an on-line replication and failover solution, for the cost of
another machine and CA's software.
Tiago de Aviz
SoftSell
(41) 340-2363
www.softsell.com.br <http://www.softsell.com.br/>
Esta mensagem, incluindo seus anexos, tem caráter confidencial e seu conteúdo é
restrito ao destinatário da mensagem. Caso você tenha recebido esta mensagem
por engano, queira por favor retorná-la ao destinatário e apagá-la de seus
arquivos. Qualquer uso não autorizado, replicação ou disseminação desta
mensagem ou parte dela é expressamente proibido. A SoftSell não é responsável
pelo conteúdo ou a veracidade desta informação.
_____
From: Mulnick, Al [mailto:Al.Mulnick@xxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: terça-feira, 9 de março de 2004 13:36
To: [ExchangeList]
Subject: [exchangelist] RE: Exchange Server Redundancy
http://www.MSExchange.org/
In a roundabout way, that's what I'm trying to get to. I realize there are
hardware solutions that do the same; they replicate writes (really they
bifurcate the write to disk) so you can have geoclustering solutions. But I'm
trying to figure out how these bright programmers figured out a way to protect
the application data and provide a six second failover. I'm concerned that
such a solution would be a "poor man's" cluster at best, and a data integrity
nightmare at worst. I don't see how the fast failover claim can work with the
application nor how it is better than the MCS solution offered by the vendor of
the application (concern for the third-party support comes into play here), but
I have an open mind and if progress has been made, I'd like to educate myself
on it.
So far I don't see how the solution could be better, but I'm certainly
interested to hear.
_____
From: paul_lemonidis@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:paul_lemonidis@xxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Tuesday, March 09, 2004 11:21 AM
To: [ExchangeList]
Subject: [exchangelist] RE: Exchange Server Redundancy
http://www.MSExchange.org/
Hi all
Sorry if I am missing something here but since when is a pure software solution
that replicates an entire drive going to offer perforamnce anywhere near that
of a cluster using shared drives. This seems nothing more than a co-standby
server solution like say Vinca? Rather than a single shared drive it runs huge
amounts of replciation between dupliacte drives on duplicate servers. I can
actually see you paying more for an inferior solution from what I have seen so
far.
Hardware clustering is far more resilient if done correctly but it does come at
a price, of course. At the end of the day you get what you pay for.
Regards,
Paul Lemonidis.
----- Original Message -----
From: Mulnick, Al <mailto:Al.Mulnick@xxxxxxxxxx>
To: [ExchangeList] <mailto:exchangelist@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, March 09, 2004 3:23 PM
Subject: [exchangelist] RE: Exchange Server Redundancy
http://www.MSExchange.org/
I never considered MCS to be more difficult than adding a third-party
app. Is that all it does? How does it make the recovery so fast? How does it
check for db consistency?
_____
From: Tiago de Aviz [mailto:Tiago@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Tuesday, March 09, 2004 9:17 AM
To: [ExchangeList]
Subject: [exchangelist] RE: Exchange Server Redundancy
http://www.MSExchange.org/
It is much simpler because it can be implemented on a single day, it
replicates data on the bit level, it's a cheap software, and if you want, you
can user a slower machine or any other machine for redundancy.
No, while Brightstor is replicating, it doesn't know if the file is a
database or a Star Wars movie. It's all the same for him.
Tiago de Aviz
SoftSell
(41) 340-2363
www.softsell.com.br <http://www.softsell.com.br/>
Esta mensagem, incluindo seus anexos, tem caráter confidencial e seu
conteúdo é restrito ao destinatário da mensagem. Caso você tenha recebido esta
mensagem por engano, queira por favor retorná-la ao destinatário e apagá-la de
seus arquivos. Qualquer uso não autorizado, replicação ou disseminação desta
mensagem ou parte dela é expressamente proibido. A SoftSell não é responsável
pelo conteúdo ou a veracidade desta informação.
_____
------------------------------------------------------
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
------------------------------------------------------
Other Internet Software Marketing Sites:
Leading Network Software Directory: http://www.serverfiles.com
No.1 ISA Server Resource Site: http://www.isaserver.org
Windows Security Resource Site: http://www.windowsecurity.com/
Network Security Library: http://www.secinf.net/
Windows 2000/NT Fax Solutions: http://www.ntfaxfaq.com
------------------------------------------------------
Other related posts:
