RE: Exchange replication
- From: "Tiago de Aviz" <Tiago@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "[ExchangeList]" <exchangelist@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2004 12:01:05 -0200
Great! If you need any tips, just ask ;)
Tiago de Aviz
-----Original Message-----
From: Zoran [mailto:zmarjanovic@xxxxxxxx]
Sent: sexta-feira, 23 de janeiro de 2004 12:13
To: [ExchangeList]
Subject: [exchangelist] RE: Exchange replication
http://www.MSExchange.org/
Thanks Tiago,
I downloaded it and will try it now.
> Another really great solution is CA's Brightstor High Availability
> Manager. I used it in several customers to replicate Exchange, Oracle
> and SQL Server databases with minimal downtime when the primary server
> fails. It's cheap, but you have the trade-off of having a machine only
> sitting, waiting for the primary to fail. But's in one hella good
> product if you can't afford a cluster.
>
> Tiago de Aviz
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Zoran [mailto:zmarjanovic@xxxxxxxx]=20
> Sent: quinta-feira, 22 de janeiro de 2004 14:30
> To: [ExchangeList]
> Subject: [exchangelist] RE: Exchange replication
>
> http://www.MSExchange.org/
>
> Thank you a lot Al,
>
> I have w2k3 advanced but I don't have e2k3, and e2k is not compat with
> w2k3. Anyway I will probably find a hardware solution and use MSCS.
Also
> I
> hope I'll get trial version of Stanby-server from Legato and test it
> thorougly. And let you all know is it realy something or rather
nothing.
> Also when I set my cluster I'll let you know how did I do that and
> present
> you with my impressions (undocumented problems, strange behaviors,
> fluctuations ...).
>
> Cheers
>
> Zoran
>
>
> > I'd use the Microsoft clustering for that. It's not fault tolerant;
> it's
> > highly available, but it sounds like that is what you are pretty
much
> after
> > based on the solutions you're looking at. MCS is really good at
> hardware
> > abstraction such that if you lose a piece of hardware on one node,
you
> get
> > the benefit of a failover. =20
> >=20
> > I recommend using Windows 2003 vs. Windows 2000. You get
improvements
> in
> > memory handling and clustering that are well worth it.=20
> >=20
> > As for the hardware you have, you have to figure out if it's on the
> cluster
> > HCL as a solution. Be careful not to just look at parts, but rather
> look at
> > the whole solution for recommended/tested configurations.
> >=20
> > MCS was designed for the situation you mentioned. It comes with the
> OS and
> > will work well in that situation. From what I can tell, you have an
> expense
> > regardless of the solution: software replication or MCS, as well as
a
> > learning curve either way. For the requirements you've shared, I
> think that
> > MCS would be a better long term bet. Especially on Windows 2003
> server.
> >=20
> > Another poster had mentioned using a NAS, SAN, or other shared disk.
> You
> > cannot use a NAS device that I'm aware of. There was some promise
of
> the
> > iSCSI NAS being tested, but otherwise Microsoft hasn't supported NAS
> devices
> > in the past for very good reasons (IMHO). There are many cluster in
a
> box
> > solutions out there from major vendors as well as small SAN products
> that
> > can do what you're after if you're looking to do this on the cheap.
> EMC
> > partners with Dell for example to sell a low end SAN/Clustering
> solution.
> > HP has similar. Etc.
> >=20
> > Keep in mind that clustering (third party or MCS) is not a fault
> tolerant
> > solution. It is a highly available solution that allows you to
> quickly
> > recover from a hardware failure. It does not protect you against
> corruption
> > etc. It basically acts like a stand-alone server and then fails
over
> when
> > told or an event causes it to. That's another advantage: you can
> perform
> > hardware maintenance or software upgrades (hotfixes, service packs)
> with a
> > lot less downtime because you can fail over the node and perform the
> > maintenance to the passive node while clients continue to operate.
> The
> > trade-off? It's a little more expensive and takes a bit more effort
> to
> > understand and read the docs prior to deployment of initial software
> load
> > and upgrades. Otherwise, it works well from what I've seen.
> >=20
> >=20
> >=20
> > Al
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Zoran [mailto:zmarjanovic@xxxxxxxx]=20
> > Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2004 3:09 AM
> > To: [ExchangeList]
> > Subject: [exchangelist] RE: Exchange replication
> >=20
> >=20
> > http://www.MSExchange.org/
> >=20
> > Thanks Al,
> >=20
> > There is no distance. I want to do it in the same room, to have
foult
> > tolerance for my main location. As I don't have experience with
> clustering
> > and we have limited budget for it, I believed that soft solution
would
> be
> > cheaper. But non of these solutions I found is well documented and
> local
> > resellers told me it looks too good on paper to be true. I read at
> > marathontecnologies site that they have a patented solution for data
> > protection as well, so I thought it could be a standard option. Can
> you
> > recommend me a good and not too expensive hardware solution? I will
> use 2
> > ASUS 2400 servers with w2k advanced servers.
> >=20
> > Zoran
> >=20
> > > Interesting. In case of hardware based solution, you would have
the
>
> > > same requirement and be able to meet it. The difference is where
> the
> > > replication code runs and what you get when done. If the code
runs
> on
> > > the hardware, then it's abstracted from the operating system
and=20
> > > application. This often results in a more stable implementation
in
> my
> > > experience. It also tends to have a different cost associated.
> > >=20
> > > In either case, if there is corruption, then that will very likely
> be
> > > replicated as well. I mean, that's the point, isn't it? To have
an
>
> > > exact replica of the original? Bifurcating the writes is a great
> way
> > > to do this. Setting up a geo cluster may also be an option if
> distance
> > > is a concern.
> > >=20
> > > I'd say if disk is the only concern, then use RAID sets and a
> cluster
> > > (MCS
> > > cluster) to mitigate the risk. The software replication products
> are
> > really
> > > for geographically separate systems in case of datacenter disaster
> vs.
> > > hardware failure.
> > > MCS would be a lot easier and it's built into the OS already.=20
> > >=20
> > >=20
> > > Al
> > >=20
> > > =20
> > >=20
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Zoran [mailto:zmarjanovic@xxxxxxxx]
> > > Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2004 11:13 AM
> > > To: [ExchangeList]
> > > Subject: [exchangelist] RE: Exchange replication
> > >=20
> > > http://www.MSExchange.org/
> > >=20
> > > In case of hardware clustering, I would have shared hard disk(s).
If
> a
> > > disk(s) goes down I would need time to put it back in
operational=20
> > > state. In case of software clustering or simple volume
replication,
> I
> > > would have a fresh copy of my exchange at any moment.
> > >=20
> > > > What is the end goal that you are trying to achieve? I've
seen=20
> > > > these in action in a previous job, but I'm not overly impressed
> with
> > > > the technical abilities of the solution. It's a software
level=20
> > > > solution which to me discounts it before even opening the box.
> For
> > > > my money, I'd prefer a more hardware based solution wherever=20
> > > > possible such as a SAN.
> > > >=20
> > > >=20
> > > > Interested to hear what you are trying to accomplish with the=20
> > > > solution.
> > > >=20
> > > > al
> > > >=20
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Zoran [mailto:zmarjanovic@xxxxxxxx]
> > > > Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2004 7:51 AM
> > > > To: [ExchangeList]
> > > > Subject: [exchangelist] Exchange replication
> > > >=20
> > > > http://www.MSExchange.org/
> > > >=20
> > > > Hi people,
> > > >=20
> > > > Does anyone have experience with a software that could be used
for
> > > > real time replication of exchange stores. I found: Double Take
and
> Geo
> > > > Cluster (too expensive for me), Veritas-volume replicator,
> Marathon
> > > > Technologies-FT Server, Legato-Co-Standby Server. Only Legato
> offers
> > > > tryal version, but I would be happy to get a piece of advice
from
> smb
> > who
> > > used one of these.
> > > > And one more question. What do you think is there any chance
that=20
> > > > this kind of software recognise a logical error on source server
> and
> > > > stop replication instead of copying the error to the target
> server?
> > > >=20
> > > > Thanks
> > > >=20
> > > > Zoran
> > > >=20
> > > > ------------------------------------------------------
> > > > List Archives:
> > > > http://www.webelists.com/cgi/lyris.pl?enter=3Dexchangelist
> > > > Exchange Newsletters:
> http://www.msexchange.org/pages/newsletter.asp
> > > > Exchange FAQ:
> http://www.msexchange.org/pages/larticle.asp?type=3DFAQ
> > > > ------------------------------------------------------
> > > > Other Internet Software Marketing Sites:
> > > > Leading Network Software Directory: http://www.serverfiles.com
> > > > No.1 ISA Server Resource Site: http://www.isaserver.org
Windows=20
> > > > Security Resource Site: http://www.windowsecurity.com/ Network
> Security
> > > Library:
> > > > http://www.secinf.net/ Windows 2000/NT Fax Solutions:=20
> > > > http://www.ntfaxfaq.com
> > > > ------------------------------------------------------
> > >=20
> > > ------------------------------------------------------
> > > List Archives:=20
> > > http://www.webelists.com/cgi/lyris.pl?enter=3Dexchangelist
> > > Exchange Newsletters:
http://www.msexchange.org/pages/newsletter.asp
> > > Exchange FAQ: =
> http://www.msexchange.org/pages/larticle.asp?type=3DFAQ
> > > ------------------------------------------------------
> > > 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
> > > ------------------------------------------------------
> >=20
> > ------------------------------------------------------
> > List Archives:
> http://www.webelists.com/cgi/lyris.pl?enter=3Dexchangelist
> > Exchange Newsletters: http://www.msexchange.org/pages/newsletter.asp
> > Exchange FAQ:
http://www.msexchange.org/pages/larticle.asp?type=3DFAQ
> > ------------------------------------------------------
> > 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
> > ------------------------------------------------------
>
> ------------------------------------------------------
> List Archives: =
> http://www.webelists.com/cgi/lyris.pl?enter=3Dexchangelist
> Exchange Newsletters: http://www.msexchange.org/pages/newsletter.asp
> Exchange FAQ: http://www.msexchange.org/pages/larticle.asp?type=3DFAQ
> ------------------------------------------------------
> 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
> ------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------
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:
