Exchange 2007 to 2010 High Availability considerations
We are looking to upgrade to exchange 2010 sometime in the near future. We are currently running exchange 2007 in a CCR configuration as detailed below.
Approximately 1600 mailboxes
2 - HUB/CAS servers NLB
2 - Mailbox servers CCR
I have just started reading about all of the HA options available in exchange 2010 and have a few questions. We are looking to size this exchange installation for about 2500 users. So far the possible configurations I have thought about are either
3 server DAG each server having the following roles MBX+CAS+HUB. This configuration would require a hardware load balancer (prob 2 for some HA/failover).
or
3 server DAG mailbox role and 3 other servers running HUB/CAS array. This configuration could use MS NLB for the CAS array but most likely would also use 2 hardware load balancers.
Now I am quite new to exchange 2010 so I am looking for any possible flaws in my logic with these designs. Im not sure whether we would go completely virtual using VMware, purely physical, or some combination of virtual/physical.
The first solution with 3 servers and all roles seems like it would require less hardware and effort to setup since the builds would be identical but are there any issues that i am not aware of.
Thanks
Approximately 1600 mailboxes
2 - HUB/CAS servers NLB
2 - Mailbox servers CCR
I have just started reading about all of the HA options available in exchange 2010 and have a few questions. We are looking to size this exchange installation for about 2500 users. So far the possible configurations I have thought about are either
3 server DAG each server having the following roles MBX+CAS+HUB. This configuration would require a hardware load balancer (prob 2 for some HA/failover).
or
3 server DAG mailbox role and 3 other servers running HUB/CAS array. This configuration could use MS NLB for the CAS array but most likely would also use 2 hardware load balancers.
Now I am quite new to exchange 2010 so I am looking for any possible flaws in my logic with these designs. Im not sure whether we would go completely virtual using VMware, purely physical, or some combination of virtual/physical.
The first solution with 3 servers and all roles seems like it would require less hardware and effort to setup since the builds would be identical but are there any issues that i am not aware of.
Thanks
SOLUTION
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
ASKER
Also as far as the exchange calculator I downloaded that earlier today and tried running through it but some of the fields were pretty confusing and the numbers I got were extremely large.
Yes you could do 2x mailbox and 3x CAS.
It's certainly advisable to use hardware load balancers if that is an option for you.
It's certainly advisable to use hardware load balancers if that is an option for you.
SOLUTION
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
ASKER
Looking at the exchange calculator it mentions that if you have 3 or more DAG groups the amount of backups you need to perform is minimized?
If a DAG group is just multiple copies of your data in different locations how does that minimize how much you have to back up?
If a DAG group is just multiple copies of your data in different locations how does that minimize how much you have to back up?
ASKER
Am I also right that having a DAG group spread across 3 servers will allow me to spread the active databases across the 3 servers for better performance? Currently in our exchange 2007 setup the DBS are all active on the same server. With the DAG a copy of the DBs can be set active on any of the 3 servers.
So for example a 3 server DAG with 3DBs I could have each DB active on a seperate server to maximize performance?
So for example a 3 server DAG with 3DBs I could have each DB active on a seperate server to maximize performance?
With 3 copies Microsoft does say that the need for backups is minimized. With the 24/7 online error correction and defrag the chances of database corruption in Exchange 2010 is much lower than in previous versions and having multiple copies allows you some extra protection of your data. I personally still favor having backups, though.
Yes, you can have the 3 databases running active on different servers. The DAG has a database priority order, so you just set the database priority to 1 for DB1 on server 1, 1 for DB2 on server 2, 1 to DB3 on server 3, and then set your backup copies as priority 2 and 3.
Yes, you can have the 3 databases running active on different servers. The DAG has a database priority order, so you just set the database priority to 1 for DB1 on server 1, 1 for DB2 on server 2, 1 to DB3 on server 3, and then set your backup copies as priority 2 and 3.
If all three of the servers are in the same physical location then it isn't a problem to spread the active databases across multiple servers. However if you are splitting them up different physical locations i wouldn't want to run A/A/A, simply becasue that caue unpredicible results in the event of a loss of the connections between the servers.
Simon.
Simon.
ASKER
All 3 servers would be located in our main corporate office so I think an all active setup should work properly.
What have you guys seen in terms of physical vs virtual. We have a VMware 5 environment that I am sure we would want to leverage for this but im not sure if wed want to put our mailbox servers on physical servers.
What have you guys seen in terms of physical vs virtual. We have a VMware 5 environment that I am sure we would want to leverage for this but im not sure if wed want to put our mailbox servers on physical servers.
ASKER CERTIFIED SOLUTION
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
ASKER
Well I think this thread has given me a decent amount to think about. Thanks for all the help.
ASKER
With that in mind the only other real difference that I am seeing is that the first implementation with all 3 roles per server would require less servers (3) but more resources CPU and MEM.
The second option would require more servers (6) but would give us the leverage to tailor the hardware specifically toward each role.
Would it be possible to configure a 2x Mailbox DAG and a 3x CAS array? Right now it seems like our 2x CAS array struggles when hit with a lot of mail at once.