Exchange 2013 Server in Outlook

Hi guys, we currently have a 2007 Exchange environment and are beginning to implement a 2013 environment in the same organization so we can move mailboxes across. The issues i'm having are:

CAS-01 and CAS-02 are the new CAS servers
MBX-01 and MBX-02 are the new Mailbox Servers

When creating a new mailbox on the new 2013 Server the server name has the new Exchange guid in Outlook which is fine and understand that is meant to be.

If I move a mailbox from 2007 to 2013 it just shows MBX-01 as the server name and doesn't connect to Exchange.

Any ideas why this is?

Thanks
TerellionAsked:
Who is Participating?
I wear a lot of hats...

"The solutions and answers provided on Experts Exchange have been extremely helpful to me over the last few years. I wear a lot of hats - Developer, Database Administrator, Help Desk, etc., so I know a lot of things but not a lot about one thing. Experts Exchange gives me answers from people who do know a lot about one thing, in a easy to use platform." -Todd S.

Peter HausslSoftware DeveloperCommented:
Hi,

I did lately migration from 2003 to 2007 using a procdure i found here.

Similar procedure i got for 2007 - 2013
http://www.experts-exchange.com/Software/Server_Software/Email_Servers/Exchange/Q_28287155.html
http://www.experts-exchange.com/Software/Server_Software/Email_Servers/Exchange/Q_28229949.html    -> [added]
During Mailbox migration you are assigning server where mailbox is located phyiscal (primary) and within mailbox (not sure remembering correctly) you can define syncronisation host for redundancy - just used when primary mailbox is not reachable. So in active directory there should be visible address of primary one.

Have you found this one already?

br
Peter
0
TerellionAuthor Commented:
I think i've narrowed this down to the 2 CAS servers having NLB set up but the servers are in different sites. The minute I shut 1 CAS server down it works fine!
0
TerellionAuthor Commented:
Thanks for those guides I've followed them already yep :) just the NLB because the MAC address will change to the interface it is going out on when sending across links. Need to try figure this out...
0
Ultimate Tool Kit for Technology Solution Provider

Broken down into practical pointers and step-by-step instructions, the IT Service Excellence Tool Kit delivers expert advice for technology solution providers. Get your free copy now.

Simon Butler (Sembee)ConsultantCommented:
WNLB across AD sites isn't really a good idea. I actually don't think it will work.

Although it could be argued that WNLB in general isn't a good idea (the Exchange product team doesn't recommend it). You would have been better off putting all roles on the same servers and instead of having separate CAS spending the money on a separate load balancer.

Simon.
0
TerellionAuthor Commented:
I've had a look on the VMWare website and they recommend using Multicast NLB even though I cannot get this working for some reason.
0
Simon Butler (Sembee)ConsultantCommented:
I can't help with software based NLB as I don't use it any of the implementations that I do. The fact that the Exchange product team don't recommend it is enough for most clients to say to me to use something else - which means a hardware load balancer.

Simon.
0
TerellionAuthor Commented:
Can you use a Hardware load balancer even though the machines are virtual?
0
Peter HausslSoftware DeveloperCommented:
Yes this is possible... You just need to have sufficiant hardware interfaces.

F5 is having another option they have software based on vmware so you can have load balancer virtulized.
They have (if remembering correctly) LB also for test purposes in 30 days trial based on licensing code.

please check out http://www.f5.com/

Product is briliant and you can do a lot of cool stuff with. (no this shouldn't be advertisement but just a fact)

br
Peter
0
Simon Butler (Sembee)ConsultantCommented:
The fact that the servers are virtual doesn't mean a thing to a load balancer. The entire thing can be virtual - Exchange, the load balancers, even the firewalls.
Most of the load balancing vendors have virtual appliance versions of their product.

The F5s are very nice, but very expensive for what they do. The usual choice within the Exchange community is either Kemp or Jetnexus. I can have both running in less than 30 minutes (maybe a bit longer if your internet is slow).

(Disclaimer, both Kemp and Jetnexus have given me NFR copies of their products to use).

Simon.
0

Experts Exchange Solution brought to you by

Your issues matter to us.

Facing a tech roadblock? Get the help and guidance you need from experienced professionals who care. Ask your question anytime, anywhere, with no hassle.

Start your 7-day free trial
TerellionAuthor Commented:
Thanks for your help guys, we have been told we have to abandon the 2013 project for the time being as other things are taking priority.
0
It's more than this solution.Get answers and train to solve all your tech problems - anytime, anywhere.Try it for free Edge Out The Competitionfor your dream job with proven skills and certifications.Get started today Stand Outas the employee with proven skills.Start learning today for free Move Your Career Forwardwith certification training in the latest technologies.Start your trial today
Exchange

From novice to tech pro — start learning today.

Question has a verified solution.

Are you are experiencing a similar issue? Get a personalized answer when you ask a related question.

Have a better answer? Share it in a comment.