Exchange Site resilency
Dear experts,
in exchange 2010 you have DAG HA (=automatic failover) and Site resilency (=manual failover & equal to disaster recovery mode). If there are 2 datacenters with 1 AD site (stretched) HA automatic failover is supported. If there are 2 AD sites across 2 datacenters, the recommended solution should be "site resilence" mode. => Is this correct? Because following MS engineer this is supported, but I'm doubting. (I read a lot articles and forums, but is not very clear)
If in DAG there are 3 members, 2 in DC1 site & 1 in DC2, [formular =>(N/2)+1= ?)], do I need a FSW? (Normally not). And also in "majoirty node" in this scenario can I still create a FSW in DC1 and an alternate FSW in DC2 and enable DAC for 1 AD site with HA without "site resilence" in case the 2 servers in DC1 goes down or network connection between the 2 Datacenters are broken?
Or ideal solution would be in DC1 2 mbx servers and in DC2 1 mbx server in same DAG; the 2 servers in DC1 in HA and server in DC2 using as DR (=site resilence); 1 FSW in DC1 and in DC2 an "Alternate FSW" and also DAC enabled. Is this correct?
More clear information needed please?
K rgs
in exchange 2010 you have DAG HA (=automatic failover) and Site resilency (=manual failover & equal to disaster recovery mode). If there are 2 datacenters with 1 AD site (stretched) HA automatic failover is supported. If there are 2 AD sites across 2 datacenters, the recommended solution should be "site resilence" mode. => Is this correct? Because following MS engineer this is supported, but I'm doubting. (I read a lot articles and forums, but is not very clear)
If in DAG there are 3 members, 2 in DC1 site & 1 in DC2, [formular =>(N/2)+1= ?)], do I need a FSW? (Normally not). And also in "majoirty node" in this scenario can I still create a FSW in DC1 and an alternate FSW in DC2 and enable DAC for 1 AD site with HA without "site resilence" in case the 2 servers in DC1 goes down or network connection between the 2 Datacenters are broken?
Or ideal solution would be in DC1 2 mbx servers and in DC2 1 mbx server in same DAG; the 2 servers in DC1 in HA and server in DC2 using as DR (=site resilence); 1 FSW in DC1 and in DC2 an "Alternate FSW" and also DAC enabled. Is this correct?
More clear information needed please?
K rgs
Busbar
you will need the FSW anyway because in failure you will move from odd to even no. of nodes, and they are all supported it depends on what are you looking for, the stretched AD site gives you automatic failover but it might has its drawbacks.
ASKER
Hi busbar,
so it means that in stretched AD site across 2 datacenters the HA is supported and there is no need for "site resilence/Disaster Rec site".
And your recommendation is to create FSW anyway in DC1. Am I right? And what about:
"Or ideal solution would be in DC1 2 mbx servers and in DC2 1 mbx server in same DAG; the 2 servers in DC1 in HA and server in DC2 using as DR (=site resilence); 1 FSW in DC1 and in DC2 an "Alternate FSW" and also DAC enabled. Is this correct?"
K Rgs
so it means that in stretched AD site across 2 datacenters the HA is supported and there is no need for "site resilence/Disaster Rec site".
And your recommendation is to create FSW anyway in DC1. Am I right? And what about:
"Or ideal solution would be in DC1 2 mbx servers and in DC2 1 mbx server in same DAG; the 2 servers in DC1 in HA and server in DC2 using as DR (=site resilence); 1 FSW in DC1 and in DC2 an "Alternate FSW" and also DAC enabled. Is this correct?"
K Rgs
ASKER CERTIFIED SOLUTION
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
I agree with acbrown2010, site recovery is a site recovery, the definite solution for the FSW is to place it in a 3rd site.
also the recommendation is valid, but I will go with 2 nodes in HQ to prevent mailbox database activation on the DR site just because a disk failure, I will fight to keep it as much as I can at HQ
also the recommendation is valid, but I will go with 2 nodes in HQ to prevent mailbox database activation on the DR site just because a disk failure, I will fight to keep it as much as I can at HQ
ASKER
Thanks a lot guys for feed back,but still one of my questions were if in stretched AD a DAG HA (automatic failover) is supported or not (some MVPS says it is)? Is this true or not?
And for second question you already answered.
Can you give me more info regarding the first question please?
K rgs
And for second question you already answered.
Can you give me more info regarding the first question please?
K rgs
ASKER
To place FSW in 3 rd site is a big misconception. See Microsoft Exchange 2010 misconceptions and not really logical.
the miss-conception talks about WAN connectivity only, not a full site failure. however it is still valid configuration
ASKER
Hi busbar,
when you said "however it is still valid configuration". Did you mean for "stretched AD a DAG HA (automatic failover)"?
K rgs
when you said "however it is still valid configuration". Did you mean for "stretched AD a DAG HA (automatic failover)"?
K rgs
ASKER
Can someone answer question nr 1 please?
ASKER
..