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,
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,
ASKER
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
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
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.
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.
ASKER
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).
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).
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.
Simon.
ASKER
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?
In your experience have you ever seen the confi guration via the SMTP Connector Smarthost
[IP1],fqdn = HA
working for redundancy with Exchange?
ASKER CERTIFIED SOLUTION
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
Simon.