[THIN] Re: OT: Exchange upgrade
- From: "Evan Mann" <emann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 10 Jul 2005 15:07:45 -0400
I'll just throw my vote in for front-end/back-end topology. You can run
OWA, RPC over HTTP, SMTP, POP3, and IMAP4 on that server (and a few
other things) and have that machine in your DMZ, with no mailboxes on
it. It handles all the CPU related to that, where you back-end needs to
do nothing but host mailboxes and get mail delivered to/from the
front-end.
If you have most of your people internal using mail on MAPI connections,
you can reboot the front end without them having any clue. If you have
an SMTP transport issue on a single box and need to reboot, it causes
Outlook to lock up for all your MAPI connected users, which generates
help desk calls.
Lastly, many of the security fixes I've seen relate to items you could
isolate to a front end, which means you can more freely apply and reboot
that box then you would with one running mailbox stores.
-----Original Message-----
From: thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Henry Sieff
Sent: Saturday, July 09, 2005 11:13 AM
To: thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [THIN] Re: OT: Exchange upgrade
1) IMF consists of two filters - one runs on the smtp virtual
server and screens mail as it comes in. The actions for this filter are
delete, archive, allow. The second one acts on the mailbox itself; its
actions are to move email into a junk mal folder. If you cluster the
mailbox server, you could do a front-end server as part of your site and
run the smtp component on that, to get some of the benefit of imf.
Clustering exchange has pro's and con's; with todays redundant
hot swappable everything servers, though, clustering really only
protects you against a catastrophic mobo or physical problem which takes
down the whole chassis. I don't remember the last time something like
that actually happened to one of my servers - its always power supplies,
nic's, ram, hdd - things which can now be made redundant and hot
swappable. So, the tradeoff may not be as worth it in the exchange
arena.
You will need enterprise 2k3 for clustering support. That and
the ablity to have multiple storage groups and databases is worth the
extra costs imo.
2) This would work, and yes, standard edition supports multiple
servers with one as bridgehead. You can also do front-end/back-end using
one front-end server that acts as proxy for say two backend mailbox
servers.
3) this would work also
We moved from 5.5 straight to e2k3. My recommendation is to go
front-end/back-end, using enterprise, highly redundant hardware on the
back-end and screw the clustering. The front-end/back-end allows you to
offload alot of the owa work off the mailbox, plus you get smoother
deployment of rpc-http if you are interested in that. Alternatively, do
the fron-end back-end but with clustering (you can use standard for the
front-end, since it doesn't host mailboxes) on the back-end, to give you
some imf capabilities.
So, whether you do clustering or not depends on whether the risk
of failure on the sort of hardware you can deploy and he downtime which
would result while you restored to a standby is tolerable or not. FWIW,
some very sharp exchange guru's (Crowley, e.g.) have decided its not
worth the features you lose in exchange. YMMV.
Henry
________________________________
From: thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx on behalf of Matthew Shrewsbury
Sent: Fri 7/8/2005 3:24 PM
To: thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [THIN] OT: Exchange upgrade
I'm considering my exchange upgrade options. I currently running
Exchange 2000 (I own Exchange 2003 Standard). I am expecting to hit my
16GB limit in 1st quarter next year so I am trying to plan an upgrade to
deal with that. The current server is a little old and needs upgrading
ideally too. My users are currently less then 90 but expect to double by
next year.
Options:
1) Exchange cluster
Ideally I'd like a lot more redundancy in Exchange
as it is so mission critical. So a cluster might be justifiable.
I can only cluster Exchange 2003 Enterprise?
IMF won't work on a cluster so that is a
disadvantage
2) Add a second Exchange server and move some mail boxes to the
new server (keep each database below 16GB)
Can you add a second Exchange 2003 Standard edition
in the same site and use one as a bridgehead for all incoming emails?
3) Upgrade to a single server with Exchange 2003 Enterprise
Any suggestions or answers to my Exchange questions would be
most helpful. Thanks!!
Matthew Shrewsbury, MCSE+Internet MCSE 2000 CCA Server+
Senior Network Administrator
Other related posts:
