FW: RE: Mutliple Recipient Update Services.

  • From: "Mulnick, Al" <Al.Mulnick@xxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: "'[ExchangeList]'" <exchangelist@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Wed, 14 Jul 2004 11:42:09 -0400

Apparently we've broken some rule sending to the list, so here was my reply
cc'd to you.


From: Mulnick, Al 
Sent: Wednesday, July 14, 2004 10:00 AM
To: '[ExchangeList]'
Subject: RE: [exchangelist] RE: Mutliple Recipient Update Services.

I get it.  
One GC per site?  I think Microsoft should re-write all of their deployment
documentation to reiterate such a point; since it's not in there, and I've
seen many installations with multiple GC's in a site, I'd be curious to hear
a Microsoft recommendation on GC placement that corroborates what that
"chap" told you.  I think he's wrong.  I've seen instances where he's wrong
many times.
As for why Exchange fails or if DCPROMO is going to not work.  Hmmm...
Here's a thread that may be of interest http://tinyurl.com/6skll
It's not uncommon to have a single Exchange server with two or more DC/GC's.
In fact, having two DC's is a great idea for high availability.  It's also
recommended.  Having all DC's be GC's is a contested recommendation, but
it's a good idea IMHO. Installing Exchange on a member server is also a good
idea so it can take advantage of multiple GC's.  In instances where Exchange
is installed on a GC, it will only use that GC.  There will be no failover
or load balancing etc.  
That said, I think you need to check with Microsoft again and get the real
information about how to remove the DC from your Exchange server.  Keep in
mind that when a GC first starts, it does need time to replicate
information.  If you didn't wait for replication to complete, you may have
issues starting Exchange as it can't find itself and it's information in the
GC and gets upset about that.


From: paul_lemonidis@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:paul_lemonidis@xxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Tuesday, July 13, 2004 6:30 PM
To: [ExchangeList]
Subject: [exchangelist] RE: Mutliple Recipient Update Services.


Hi Al
At present the setup is all up and working fine. I just wanted an extra RUS
to try and remove slow updates at times. This has always been a minor niggle
right from the outset of building the Domain and installing Exchange 2003. I
apologise in advance if this all seems very complicated.
I will try and clarify the situation. Originally I simply did not have the
option of installing AD anywhere else other than the Exchange 2003 machine
due to hardware constraints. Later I had the option to install a second DC
and did so. However, upon doing so the Exchange services would no longer
start up when the original Exchange|AD server was rebooted. However, if I
then demoted the second DC Exchange would work correctly once more. I would
get a timeout on the IS and MTA services and errors in the event logs about
no GC's being online otherwise. I turned up logging to prove this. Once
having logged on after about 60 seconds you could then start the services
manually and all would fine from then on. Being unhappy with this I called
Microsoft PSS and raised an incident. I was told that it was almost
certainly due to FSMO role placement and to move the Infrastructure master
to the other DC which I duly did. This made no difference. I could not call
back unfortunately for reasons that would take too long to explain here.
Thus I then tried various Domain (note not Forest) FSMO role combinations
and the result was always the same. The only thing that genuinely seemed to
fix it was stopping the Exchange box being a GC.
One other thing I was warned about by the chap at PSS was even if I moved
everything was not to demote the Exchange server as DCPROMO would most
probably error and fail. I have also heard that this is a new constraint of
Exchange 2003?
Recently I managed to obtain a second new additional machine I could use as
a third DC and thus installed it as a 2003 GC and moved all the roles to
this and the other DC and stopped the 2003 server from being a GC after
following the Microsoft instructions on how to do this by moving to one of
the other DC's. This fixed my start-up issue and the server and general
network performance are both noticeably improved and so far all is well.
I have no issue with a second GC and would be only too happy to have a
second one. However, Microsoft do not recommend more than one GC per-site in
2003 apparently? I did originally have two before I even installed Exchange
and when the Domain was built from scratch and new but experienced problems
with screwy DNS which going to one GC did seem to cure. This may have just
been teething problems and just coincidence of course. I honestly cannot
say. I would add that I ran Exchange 2000 and Windows with 2 GC's across 3
DC's without the screwy DNS problems but the same Exchange service start-up
So my question is that if only one GC per site is recommended (I am not
overly happy with that either) then does the same apply to the RUS?
I hope this makes things clearer? Please accept my apologies if not and let
me know if I can help further. From what you say putting a second RUS to the
GC would seem a good idea?
Many thanks in advance.
Paul Lemonidis.

Other related posts:

  • » FW: RE: Mutliple Recipient Update Services.