shiversaint
asked on
Removing first Exchange 2010 Server from a Domain Controller/Linking profiles with new secondary Exchange server
We have a single, multihomed Domain Controller that is running Exchange 2010 with about 25 users/mailboxes.
Before anyone goes on about this, yes I know what an awful setup this is. (it is a very powerful box so I thought it might handle it)
Due to the terrible performance we were getting (surprise surprise), I've commisioned a new server to move Exchange 2010 to (we'll address the multihome issue later, performance is more important).
That's all installed, which went fine and it recognises the first server properly. I've moved a handful of the mailboxes over via a local move request which as gone smoothly.
Now my understanding is those users that have been moved to server 2 should automatically start requesting information from server 2 and not server 1, however when I go into Outlook and click change on the Microsoft Exchange account settings, the server is still listed as server1. Naturally the performance is even worse for these users now. If I make a new profile in Outlook and go through the process of adding their user accounts again, it correctly links up with Server 2.
How long will it take for server 2 to be loading automatically into Outlook user profile account settings, or will I have to make these changes manually?
I am still getting some serious latency on these properly moved profiles, and still popup bubbles with "Microsoft exchange is try to get information from server2" etc etc, you all know the one I mean.
Is this because server1 is still overly occupied with exchange, delaying the Global Catalog requests? Will I have to remove exchange entirely to see benefits here? I was hoping to make the move slowly for a gradual increase in performance, and then eventually uninstall Exchange from server 1.
I have more questions about OWA and what I have to do to maintain access but I think I'll post that in another question.
Thanks in advance.
Before anyone goes on about this, yes I know what an awful setup this is. (it is a very powerful box so I thought it might handle it)
Due to the terrible performance we were getting (surprise surprise), I've commisioned a new server to move Exchange 2010 to (we'll address the multihome issue later, performance is more important).
That's all installed, which went fine and it recognises the first server properly. I've moved a handful of the mailboxes over via a local move request which as gone smoothly.
Now my understanding is those users that have been moved to server 2 should automatically start requesting information from server 2 and not server 1, however when I go into Outlook and click change on the Microsoft Exchange account settings, the server is still listed as server1. Naturally the performance is even worse for these users now. If I make a new profile in Outlook and go through the process of adding their user accounts again, it correctly links up with Server 2.
How long will it take for server 2 to be loading automatically into Outlook user profile account settings, or will I have to make these changes manually?
I am still getting some serious latency on these properly moved profiles, and still popup bubbles with "Microsoft exchange is try to get information from server2" etc etc, you all know the one I mean.
Is this because server1 is still overly occupied with exchange, delaying the Global Catalog requests? Will I have to remove exchange entirely to see benefits here? I was hoping to make the move slowly for a gradual increase in performance, and then eventually uninstall Exchange from server 1.
I have more questions about OWA and what I have to do to maintain access but I think I'll post that in another question.
Thanks in advance.
ASKER
Thanks.
Is there any way to force the client outlook profiles to switch over then?
Is there any way to force the client outlook profiles to switch over then?
ASKER CERTIFIED SOLUTION
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
ASKER
Okay thankyou, I will do that.
Could a plausible reason for the slow performance on Server 1 be that we only have one hard drive in that server running the OS, Exchange, Kerio Control (software firewall and router), File & Printer Sharing and is a DC? Again with 25 users, but very big mailboxes in general.
Could a plausible reason for the slow performance on Server 1 be that we only have one hard drive in that server running the OS, Exchange, Kerio Control (software firewall and router), File & Printer Sharing and is a DC? Again with 25 users, but very big mailboxes in general.
Honestly I have to check the server to give you the cause but 25 users are peanuts, so unless you have 4gb of RAM, i can't speculate
One hard drive, even a high speed SAS drive, will get overloaded with IO if it's hosting all those services. You could do all this one server fine if you appropriated your resources correctly....but you need to make sure you have enough ram and multiple hard drives/channels to distribute the IO between services. And better yet those drives should all be, at least, RAID 1 mirrored.
ASKER
What is RAID 1 going to provide in the form of speed? Surely RAID 1 is only relevant to redundancy?
Server2 has 2 10k SAS drives in RAID 0. We are seeing a huge increase in perfomances now that all the mailboxes are moved to server2. Seems it just took a day or two to settle down.
Thanks to all.
Server2 has 2 10k SAS drives in RAID 0. We are seeing a huge increase in perfomances now that all the mailboxes are moved to server2. Seems it just took a day or two to settle down.
Thanks to all.
RAID 0 is surely faster than RAID 1 and your server should be able to handle it
anyway I am glad it worked and sure hope I was of help
anyway I am glad it worked and sure hope I was of help
Correct, Raid 1 is for redundancy - good server 101. But Raid 1 also does have some read speed advantages to a single drive...but that's not the point. RAID 0 is too high risk for your one email server. What happens if one of the drive dies or the array pops?
Disk IO is your issues. If you added a couple of drives to that one server and distributed your services IO across those drives, you would be OK, even with all theses services on the one server. I admin lots of loaded SBS servers. Lots of ram and lots of hard drives to distribute the IO. Modern CPU's can easily handle the load, its' the slow hard drives that get overloaded with IO requests usually.
Disk IO is your issues. If you added a couple of drives to that one server and distributed your services IO across those drives, you would be OK, even with all theses services on the one server. I admin lots of loaded SBS servers. Lots of ram and lots of hard drives to distribute the IO. Modern CPU's can easily handle the load, its' the slow hard drives that get overloaded with IO requests usually.
RAID 10 or 1+0 is what you want for PERF on a Server. RAID 0 is way to risky.
There is no reason at all why a powerful server not to be able to handle 25 users DC+Exchange but anyway this is not the issue at hand
I am afraid you will need to change them manually, the issue is that both the old and new servers are CAS so your outlook have no need to switch since they are already connected to a CAS