• Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
  • Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!

Exchange BC alternatives

Collapse
X
  •  
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #11
    If you run Exchange 2007 there are some very cool inbuilt cluster functions. You can run a cluster across 2 hosts without shared storage using the new Witness fileshare cluster available in Windows 2003 SP2 or Windows 2008. You can also run a time-delayed cluster. I forget the exact cluter terms, but lookup Exchange 2007 SCR, CCR clustering.

    Or, look into virtualising the Exchange server. If running on VMware you can use a 3rd party product, vReplicator from vizioncore which will replicate the virtual machine to a DR virtual infrastructure every 1 - 2 hours to replicate your entire server.

    PM me if you need more details or help with this

    Comment


      #12
      Thanks for all the help guys.
      To reply to some of your suggestions/questions. they are AD/2003 excange using a 2 node cluster off a SAN.They use Veritas(i think) to back up, but don;t do brick level, just the whole info store. They are also using cached mode.
      I am also trying to implement double take which they purchased, used for a bit and then stopped when they hit issues.
      When double take is up, it shouldn't be much of a problem as replication is offsite in a dc.

      As for 2007, I don't think they will want to splash the cash, and as they already use exchange they'll want to stick with it.

      As for their users issues, this was the first thing I spotted and pointed out. After the fiasco last week, I think they took note and are thinking of setting mailbox limits(they had none). I think I might just see how double take goes, let them sit on it and then see if they still want to spend more money

      Comment


        #13
        It's worth getting the server hardware right (correct disk partitions etc..).

        This is especially true with 2003 clustering, as this only provides resiliance for the hosts. They both still use the same copy of the databases. Meaning that if there is corruption it does not matter which node you are using.

        As previosuly mentioned reduce the users rights and ensure that backups are running properly, otherwise the transaction logs will not get flushed.

        Comment

        Working...
        X