Exchange 2010 Virtual or Hardware?
we are migrating from exchange 2003 to 2010 SP1.
I am wondering what is the "better" idea: to virtualize all roles or to mix it up,expecially the mailbox server role. We have about 100 users.
My idea is to have the CAS/HT virtualized and the MB server (which will be a 2 Server DAG)
Any suggestion,thoughts and best practices? Useful info is appreciated
I am wondering what is the "better" idea: to virtualize all roles or to mix it up,expecially the mailbox server role. We have about 100 users.
My idea is to have the CAS/HT virtualized and the MB server (which will be a 2 Server DAG)
Any suggestion,thoughts and best practices? Useful info is appreciated
ASKER
we are slowly expanding,which means we will have maybe 20-30 more users by the end of next year.
i prefer to have CAS/HT virtualized.
can you provide me with more info regarding the NLB?
i prefer to have CAS/HT virtualized.
can you provide me with more info regarding the NLB?
even if you got to 1000, you can still have it virtual I have customers who virtualized their Exchange with even 10000 users.
for the HW load balancer you can go with Kemp it is the best HW for Exchange with the best price
for the HW load balancer you can go with Kemp it is the best HW for Exchange with the best price
As mentioned previously, having all three roles in two servers (virtual or physical) with a kemp load balancer will be ideal for the user base you have.
I have virtualized Exchange since we went to Exchange 2003 running on Microsoft Virtual Server 2005 many years ago. Over 600 users, and over 300 BlackBerry users now. I would certainly recommend virtualizing. Kemp also has a software appliance version of their load balancer, for those of us who hate to rack and power another piece of equipment.
ASKER
thanks for the interesting inputs.
wouldnt the windows server 2088 R2 load balancer be enough? does VM support this?
wouldnt the windows server 2088 R2 load balancer be enough? does VM support this?
ASKER CERTIFIED SOLUTION
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
regardless that the recommendations is big implementation, for only 2 nodes you cannot use WNLB because you cannot install it on the clustering services.
ASKER
so,whats the quintessence of all this then?
I understand that for 50 users +/- all server roles can be placed within one server or is a 2 server DAG a better solution?
Our exchange will be accessed from "outside" a lot by our sales and tech people,so it must be available at any time.
I understand that for 50 users +/- all server roles can be placed within one server or is a 2 server DAG a better solution?
Our exchange will be accessed from "outside" a lot by our sales and tech people,so it must be available at any time.
ASKER
so, all in one server or a 2 server DAG?
2 servers are needed for DAG and will provide HA, 1 server is fine but the HA part is yours and it is up to you to figure out if HA is needed or not
ASKER
im very much interested in Kemp software appliance version of their load balancer.
could someone place some URL here pls?
could someone place some URL here pls?
SOLUTION
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
HLB are cheap, check Kemp Technologies LoadMaster. They are like £1000.