Multiple servers 1

[Dee436]

What is the best way to set up multiple exchange servers in the same domain, They would both be on domain controllers, The main reason for this is fault tolerance, Clustering is not an option as I only have two standard boxes.

 

[isguyatlanta]

I have heard of people having problems with running on domain controllers. Is that all your network is?

What kind of faults are you trying to tolerate? Just having two servers isn't going to buy you much.

 

[Dee436]

Its a small network that had just one domain controller with exchange on it, I recomended adding another domain controller and the hope was that I could run exchange on this too, the Idea being that if either server went down we would still be fully operational once the client machines had been redirected to whichever exchange server was still running. the Ideal would be that the two servers would be mirrored and the exchange mailboxes would then be identical on both, I have heard that you can get software that allows you to do this.
The only way I could see that was similar would be to create a replica of the public folders on the second exchange box, set the replication up, Then if I lost the main server I would only have to get the mailboxes onto the standby server.
just thought there may be a better method that I hadn't thought of.
Also I have had no problems running exchange 2000 or 5.5 on domain controllers

 

[Xybertron]

Cluster is your only option for this.

This is the only way to have AD work right and have the same database (mail) available if one machine goes down. Dan
Microsoft Exchange Support @ Microsoft

 

[mpaters]

I would have to agree with Xybertron on clustering. The only kind fault tolerance you might be able to achieve with two separate exchange servers is evenly spread the user mailboxes between the two. In case one server goes down only half the users would be affected. The fact that a mailbox cannot live on two different information stores at the same time limits you to either clustering or balancing the users across multiple servers. (Maybe some day Microsoft will build an info store mirroring feature into exchange.)

 

[Dee436]

Thanks for that, spreading the users was the best solution I could think of as well, But I was sure I had heard of a software pakage that allowed you to mirror the information stores in EX2K, But I have also dreamed about computers with no users so maybe it was just wishfull thinking.

 

[forbsy]

Actually, there is one way. In my environment we have 2 exchange boxes and users are spread evenly between them. The only difference is we use a NetApp filer to store the databases, not local disk. I won't get into the technical aspects of this but it's basically a form a Network Attached Storage (NAS). We use an application called SnapManager for Exchange 2000 to move the databases onto the filer and manage backup\restore of our databases. It's really an awesome setup. If one of our Exchange boxes were to go down, I'd just move that user's mailbox to our other exchange server(since the database is on the filer) and voila, the user is back up within minutes.
We're also in the process of clustering our NetApp filers and exchange boxes for failover, but that's down the road.
If you want a readup of SnapManager for Exchange 5.5\2000:

http://www.netapp.com/products/filer/snapmanager.html

Obviously, the filer implementation is expensive but I thought I'd just put out an alternative

Forbsy

 

[Xybertron]

And we don't support it so I hope you don't have problems...

If you want a Storage Solution use a SAN not a NAS. Dan
Microsoft Exchange Support @ Microsoft

 

[forbsy]

Actually, We've had zero problems with it since it's been implemented. It's true that Microsoft doesn't support NAS with Exchange 2000 right now, but I'd be very surprised if Microsoft didn't wake up (like many major vendors already have) to the cost-benefits of NAS compared to the huge infrastructure costs of a full-blown fibre channel SAN. Why in this time of IS/IT cost-cutting and restructuring wouldn't a company try to implement a solution that's not only vastly superior to local disk and adds much more value than a SAN?
Microsoft lists NetApp as a partner in backup\restore\archive and managing exchange data:

http://www.microsoft.com/exchange/partners/backup.asp

NAS is becoming more popular and Snapmanager for Exchange is great beacuse it's a hybrid, it uses NAS but makes exchange thinks it's working in a SAN

http://storagemagazine.techtarget.com/strgFeature/0,291266,sid35_gci805510_idx1,00.html

I don't want to sound like a salesman, I'm just letting interested people know there are great solutions out there even if Microsoft doesn't "yet" support them. These solutions support themselves

Forbsy

 

[Xybertron]

Exchange 2000 Server and Network-Attached Storage - Q317173
Exchange Server 5.5 and Network-Attached Storage - Q317172

Your tricking ESE into allowing this with 2000. Dan
Microsoft Exchange Support @ Microsoft

 

[forbsy]

That's right. This is why SnapManager for Exchange 2000 is so good. Exchange thinks it's working with locally attached disk so it's happy and you get the benefit of using a filer for managing your databases. I agree that in the traditional definition of NAS database storage would be impossible, but the 'virtual local disk(s)' that can be created via SnapManager gets around that hinderence. When Microsoft finally figures out how to adopt NAS into Exchange, you'll already have your filer(s) in place

Forbsy