Active/Active Or Active/Passive Cluster Help!

[bbuilder]

Help Needed!

I know there is lots of threads about cluster types but still non the wiser on what way to go!

Currently running Exchange 2003 with two storage groups with about 800 mailboxes. I would like to take anvantage of setting up a clustered environment and not sure what way to go.

Most people i have spoke to say go Active/Passive for the scalability and ease of setup. Active/Active sounds good for sharing the mailbox load across two servers but not good for scaling up.

Confused!!!

Please help

BBuilder

 

[mrdenny]

Clustering isn't for scalling up, it's for providing redundancy.

However you can setup a three node cluster active/active/passive.

The trick when having an active/active cluster is to ensure that either machine can run the full load of both machines (which kind of defeats the point of having seperate servers in the first place).

Denny
MCSA (2003) / MCDBA (SQL 2000) / MCTS (SQL 2005)

--Anything is possible. All it takes is a little research. (Me)

http://www.mrdenny.com

 

[mytelecoms]

Microsoft recommends against using Active/Active clustering for Exchange. In fact, Exchange Server 2000 Standard does not even support it. Only 2000 Enterprise and 2003 will allow it.

As stated by mrdenny, you could run an Active/Active cluster with a hot spare.

Your other option would be to have more than one Active/Passive cluster. You could then spread the mailboxes out that way. You'll always guarantee performance (because you won't ever failover to an active node) and you're sharing the load between several virtual servers. You're also ensuring redundancy is in place. The only downside is the need to buy more hardware!

 

[WhoKilledKenny]

Active/Passive - Active/Active both ok. With regards to clustering Exchange, the most important thing is that Exchange 2003 is limited to four storage groups per server. So if you have an Active/Active (or even Active/Passive) remember 4 storage groups. If a server fails that has two storage groups and trys to move the EVS to a node that already has 3 storage groups... not going to happen. You can have 2 SGs on one and 2SGs on the other -or- 1 and 3 -or- 3 and 1. We did a 4 node cluster Active/Active/Active/Passive. 4 SGs on each of the active nodes and 0 SGs on the passive. So if one node fails it moves all 4 SGs to the passive node. Now, you ask what if another node fails? We are TSOL but the probability of that happening is slim.