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')