Exchange Basics and Advice

[Countymnca]

Hello,
Tek-tips has come through before (other forums) so I figured I would give this a shot while searching for more information.

I have been tasked with looking at migrating our existing 36 site/server Groupwise network to Exchange 2007. Most sites have only T1 connection and we are moving toward a regional datacenter model (4 of them, 2 already operational) with VM's.

Since my shop is obviously Novell biased, I am getting stuff thrown at me saying it is impossible or will be very expensive. The Microsoft side is saying it will be easy and not require much hardware at all. I really dont believe either of them and think it is somewhere in the middle.

Putting aside the email account migration, what I need is a overview of what type servers I will need (name or duty they perform not specs). In looking at other plans I have found, it doesnt seem like I will need an email server at each site as I have now which is what my Novell SA's are telling me.

Total email accounts is about 4000. Most sites have less than 200 with a few big ones having 500 or less.

Would having 6-8 sites share an Exchange server on a VM work if they are connecting to it via a T1? Due to geographic and network speed problems across long distances, I would like to stay regional instead of centralized. We already have enough problems with the centralized apps we currently use so I dont want to add email to the list of user complaints.

My staff are saying we will need:
3 AD servers
36 Exchange servers
48 Domain Controllers

Thanks in advance for any replies

 

[58sniper]

Microsoft is closer to the truth.

But the problem is that we can't possibly say how many servers you'll need, or where to put them. An in-depth analysis of your current environment would need to take place, as well as detailed discussions on what features you plan on using, how much mail you have, what your SLAs are/will be, backup and hygiene strategies, mobile and remote access needs, etc. Then you can factor in high availability, disaster recovery, and other concerns. TECHNICALLY, you could put 4,000 users on a single server. I've seen it done.

But most importantly, is there a real reason why you're looking at a 3 year old product and not looking at Exchange 2010?

Pat Richard MVP
Plan for performance, and capacity takes care of itself. Plan for capacity, and suffer poor performance.

http://www.ucblogs.net/blogs/exchange/

 

[Countymnca]

The reason I am looking at 2007 is because all the other departments have 2007. I am willing to consider 2010, but I really doubt this will happen. I have seen migration models that others have done with a 1 for 1 server change out that will be in the 4-5 million range. Even if I could go with one server (which I wont even want to try) I doubt there is funding for that. This is busy work exercise for the new guy I am realizing with little chance of being anything other than reading material.

Thanks for the feedback. I know an indepth review by an independent expert is needed and I am not one.....

 

[58sniper]

2010 gives you MUCH better performance (higher ROI/lower TCO) on storage, and a MUCH richer feature set. It's certainly something that I would push strongly for, especially since you're already 3 years into the product lifecycle for 2007. Also, 2007 isn't supported on 2008 R2. It just makes sense to go with what's current.

I would highly recommend bringing in a consultant to do an in-depth analysis of the environment and design an Exchange solution. It will be worth it.




Pat Richard MVP
Plan for performance, and capacity takes care of itself. Plan for capacity, and suffer poor performance.

http://www.ucblogs.net/blogs/exchange/