Microsoft exchange CCR clustering versus neverfail

[jjfragenstein]

Hi everyone,

I was wondering if anyone could explain why one would use either Exchange on Neverfail or Exchange server over CCR or vice versa. I have been told they serve two different purposes but, from a DR view, it appears to me that CCR is trying to do what Neverfail does and that Neverfail does not have any significant disadvantages.

It appears that Neverfail is overall, less expensive from a initial capital expense as well as ongoing maintenace since only 2 servers using Exchange STD are possible, as opposed to 4 servers on Exchange ENT for CCR. I have been unable to find any 3rd party comparisons, only Neverfails own marketing material.

THanks

 

[58sniper]

Who are you going to call for support? With CCR, it's all Microsoft, which makes troubleshooting easier, and there isn't any finger pointing.

Exchange 2007 wouldn't require 4 servers for CCR. It requires two for the CCR cluster, and one for HT/CAS. If you wanted to load balance the HT/CAS roles, then you could use an additional server.

Management with CCRs is all done via the same management tools (EMC and EMS) as all other Exchange related tools. So things are a little simpler.

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/

 

[kmcferrin]

You might want to ask this in one of the Exchange forums.

I'm not familiar with Neverfail, but I know that Microsoft recommends that you use Exchange's built-in replication/clustering technologies rather than any other HA config, including virtualization via VMware or Hyper-V. Using CCR ensures transaction log integrity, where other solutions may fall short in that area.

________________________________________
CompTIA A+, Network+, Server+, Security+
MCTS:Hyper-V
MCTS:System Center Virtual Machine Manager
MCSE:Security 2003
MCITP:Enterprise Administrator