RE: Exchange Server Redundancy

  • From: "Mulnick, Al" <Al.Mulnick@xxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: "'[ExchangeList]'" <exchangelist@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Tue, 9 Mar 2004 14:33:09 -0500

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

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


(41) 340-2363



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

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.



Other related posts: