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. > > I recommend using Windows 2003 vs. Windows 2000. You get improvements in > memory handling and clustering that are well worth it. > > 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. > > 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. > > 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. > > 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. > > > > Al > -----Original Message----- > From: Zoran [mailto:zmarjanovic@xxxxxxxx] > Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2004 3:09 AM > To: [ExchangeList] > Subject: [exchangelist] RE: Exchange replication > > > http://www.MSExchange.org/ > > Thanks Al, > > 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. > > Zoran > > > 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 > > application. This often results in a more stable implementation in my > > experience. It also tends to have a different cost associated. > > > > 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. > > > > 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. > > > > > > Al > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Zoran [mailto:zmarjanovic@xxxxxxxx] > > Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2004 11:13 AM > > To: [ExchangeList] > > Subject: [exchangelist] RE: Exchange replication > > > > http://www.MSExchange.org/ > > > > 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 > > state. In case of software clustering or simple volume replication, I > > would have a fresh copy of my exchange at any moment. > > > > > What is the end goal that you are trying to achieve? I've seen > > > 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 > > > solution which to me discounts it before even opening the box. For > > > my money, I'd prefer a more hardware based solution wherever > > > possible such as a SAN. > > > > > > > > > Interested to hear what you are trying to accomplish with the > > > solution. > > > > > > al > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Zoran [mailto:zmarjanovic@xxxxxxxx] > > > Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2004 7:51 AM > > > To: [ExchangeList] > > > Subject: [exchangelist] Exchange replication > > > > > > http://www.MSExchange.org/ > > > > > > Hi people, > > > > > > 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 > > > this kind of software recognise a logical error on source server and > > > stop replication instead of copying the error to the target server? > > > > > > Thanks > > > > > > Zoran > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------ > > > 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 > > > ------------------------------------------------------ > > > > ------------------------------------------------------ > > 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 > > ------------------------------------------------------ > > ------------------------------------------------------ > 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 > ------------------------------------------------------