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 > ------------------------------------------------------