Improve company productivity with a Business Account.Sign Up

x
  • Status: Solved
  • Priority: Medium
  • Security: Public
  • Views: 827
  • Last Modified:

Exchange 2003 Failover based on multiple Smarthosts.

Hi guys,

We are planning to use multiple smarthosts for failover purpose, so if one is unavailable Exchange route the messages to other one.
Following is details our of messaging infrastructure:
a) Only one Exchange 2003 server, single bridgehead and routing group.
b) Smarthost - 1
c) Single SMTP connector on Exchange with 'cost' value 1.

What would be the best possible solution, so Exchange do  the automatic failover to smarthost?

If we use single SMTP connector with 2 smarthosts entries seperated by semicolon (;) would it do failover or load balancing?

Is there any difference in using Semicolon (;) or Comma (,) to seperate multiple smarthost on single SMTP connector?

Thanks in advance,





 

0
fsaiexpert
Asked:
fsaiexpert
  • 4
  • 3
1 Solution
 
MesthaCommented:
Exchange doesn't do failover on smart hosts. The most that you can is load balancing, where all servers are listed in the SMTP connector and Exchange will use them all. Obviously if one isn't available then it will use another one.

Simon.
0
 
fsaiexpertFSAI ExpertAuthor Commented:
What options are open to us then to do failover with Exchange?
We currently have a smarthost configured on the Internet Mail Connector.
We thought we could add in another smarthost with a semi-colon identifying failover:
example:
[192.11.1.1];[192.11.1.2]

should 1 not be available it will route to 2 exclusively.
your advice would be appreciated
0
 
MesthaCommented:
That is the only option available to you, but it will be load balancing, not failover. Exchange will attempt to use both servers.
If the first server is not available then it should use the second, but that will not stop it from trying to use the first.

Simon.
0
Simplify Active Directory Administration

Administration of Active Directory does not have to be hard.  Too often what should be a simple task is made more difficult than it needs to be.The solution?  Hyena from SystemTools Software.  With ease-of-use as well as powerful importing and bulk updating capabilities.

 
fsaiexpertFSAI ExpertAuthor Commented:
Would I be correct in suggesting that this may alternatively work and provide redundancy:

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/257426

Therefore:
[IP1],[IP2] = load balancing
[IP1],fqdn = HA

1 IP 1 fqdn in the connector [ip1],fqdn this will go to IP1 until there is a failure with it, then it will continue to send there until IP1 becomes available (and for a little while afterwards).
0
 
MesthaCommented:
The article that you have posted isn't clear whether it will provide HA or not, it just states that it doesn't load balance. It may well be that Exchange will just ignore the second FQDN host when the first is referenced by IP address.

Simon.
0
 
fsaiexpertFSAI ExpertAuthor Commented:
Thanks Simon,

In your experience have you ever seen the confi guration via the SMTP Connector Smarthost

[IP1],fqdn = HA

working for redundancy with Exchange?
0
 
MesthaCommented:
I haven't done that myself.
I have done two hosts before for load balancing, but that is all.

Something else that I have done before is where the load balancing isn't done by Exchange, but by something else and Exchange is just pointed at a single location.
Another option is round robin DNS, but again that isn't HA, but load balancing.

Simon.
0
Question has a verified solution.

Are you are experiencing a similar issue? Get a personalized answer when you ask a related question.

Have a better answer? Share it in a comment.

Join & Write a Comment

Featured Post

Get your problem seen by more experts

Be seen. Boost your question’s priority for more expert views and faster solutions

  • 4
  • 3
Tackle projects and never again get stuck behind a technical roadblock.
Join Now