Interesting. Thanks Tiago. _____ From: Tiago de Aviz [mailto:Tiago@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] Sent: Tuesday, March 09, 2004 2:09 PM To: [ExchangeList] Subject: [exchangelist] RE: Exchange Server Redundancy http://www.MSExchange.org/ 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 <http://www.softsell.com.br/> 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. _____