My current situation is, i've got a mixed Exchange 2007 and 2010 enivonrment. Many users relying on their Exchange 2007 mailbox server, and 2010 users, theirs.
There is no DAG. There's no redundancy. If Exchange 2007 goes down, 2010 is still up at least for those users, and the 2007 users are goign to be waiting on Veeam to restore their livelihood.
Challenge I have is, upper management wants to get everyone migrated to Exchange 2010 because 2007 is "old" and needs to go away.
Well, my contention against that is that, if we move everyone from 2007 to our 2010 single server, then we have no DAG, so now we’ve got a single point of failure.
This has already been demonstrated when at one point in time, databases in 2007 went down a while due to an Admin accidentally removing said databases, and so those users were without a mailbox until their restore. Nobody in 2010 was affected by that, obviously, because their databases were on a different server.
So I think that supports my argument against putting all of our eggs in one basket.
We also have plans to have O365 hybrid, and our current 2010 server is having performance issues that I’m getting tired of supporting.
So this all which leads me to my ultimate question: So where should I go from here?
I could make a case to keep 2010 and try to setup some redundancy/dag, which we’d obviously need MORE SPACE for, and I think faster disks are needed (This is a virtual machine shop in VMWare).
Or, should I make the case to get 2013 or 2016 Exchange setup, and migrate to that, and then go the O365 hybrid route?
If 2013 or 2016 is the best option, then do I need 2 of those servers to have redundancy and eliminate the single point of failure? We have about 2,000 mailboxes.