| Author |
Message |
Marlon Brown
Guest
|
 Posted:
Fri Sep 17, 2004 9:17 am Post subject:
OWA 2003:Setup NLB or DNS round robin ? |
|
|
Imagine I have two servers, identical hardware. Primary goal is setup a
redundant solution for OWA 2003.
Any significant advantage of using NLB over DNS RR ? DNS RR is pretty
straighrfoward to configure, and that's why I would like to check and see if
NLB can bring me additional benefits for OWA configuration.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Al Mulnick
Guest
|
| Posted:
Fri Sep 17, 2004 6:00 pm Post subject:
Re: OWA 2003:Setup NLB or DNS round robin ? |
|
|
Depends on what the rest of your goals are.
DNS RR is a rough filter with little control of loading etc. For
availability, it's helpful, but not perfect as a user can still get a DNS
record that points to a down host.
NLB is smarter than that and can tell when a host is not responding, can
more evenly load it, and generally has finer control of traffic vs. DNS
round-robin tactics.
Redundancy means something different still. Redundancy indicates seamless
failovers that clients don't notice. That may require a different solution
set.
-ajm
"Marlon Brown" <marlon_brownj@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:%23s3Om0GnEHA.3396@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
| Quote: | Imagine I have two servers, identical hardware. Primary goal is setup a
redundant solution for OWA 2003.
Any significant advantage of using NLB over DNS RR ? DNS RR is pretty
straighrfoward to configure, and that's why I would like to check and see
if
NLB can bring me additional benefits for OWA configuration.
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Marlon Brown
Guest
|
| Posted:
Fri Sep 17, 2004 8:26 pm Post subject:
Re: OWA 2003:Setup NLB or DNS round robin ? |
|
|
Ok, so in my case if I setup NLB for these OWA 2003 and one the of the boxes
goes down, what is the expected time users should experience e-mail service
disruption ? For my environmnent high availability should suffice.
As I commented before, I have BigIpSwitch in my environment. This would be
the setup:
Internet->Dmz(bigIpSwitch)-ISA2004-Front-end servers-Mailbox servers
In case you can give a hint about a cleaver way to setup this and let me
take advantage of the BigIpSwitch for both redundancy and load balance for
the OWA's, please let me know. What is not very clear to me is that the
network people told me to setup my two ISA severs (two for redundancy) on
the bigIPswtich, so I am wondering how the OWA's will interact from there...
"Al Mulnick" <amulnick_No_SPAM@ncDOTrr.com> wrote in message
news:uJOFdZLnEHA.608@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
| Quote: | Depends on what the rest of your goals are.
DNS RR is a rough filter with little control of loading etc. For
availability, it's helpful, but not perfect as a user can still get a DNS
record that points to a down host.
NLB is smarter than that and can tell when a host is not responding, can
more evenly load it, and generally has finer control of traffic vs. DNS
round-robin tactics.
Redundancy means something different still. Redundancy indicates seamless
failovers that clients don't notice. That may require a different
solution
set.
-ajm
"Marlon Brown" <marlon_brownj@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:%23s3Om0GnEHA.3396@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
Imagine I have two servers, identical hardware. Primary goal is setup a
redundant solution for OWA 2003.
Any significant advantage of using NLB over DNS RR ? DNS RR is pretty
straighrfoward to configure, and that's why I would like to check and
see
if
NLB can bring me additional benefits for OWA configuration.
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Al Mulnick
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Sep 18, 2004 4:53 am Post subject:
Re: OWA 2003:Setup NLB or DNS round robin ? |
|
|
Maybe we should back up here. OWA and mail service are not necessarily the
same thing. OWA is a FrontEnd service for Exchange. If you lose OWA, the
client is expected to initiate a reconnect to get a session.
Mail flow is different.
Which one are you concerned with? And NLB and BigIP are likely not needed
in the same environment. BigIP would be the choice in that situation IIRC.
"Marlon Brown" <marlon_brown@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:OmrFgqMnEHA.3076@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
| Quote: | Ok, so in my case if I setup NLB for these OWA 2003 and one the of the
boxes
goes down, what is the expected time users should experience e-mail
service
disruption ? For my environmnent high availability should suffice.
As I commented before, I have BigIpSwitch in my environment. This would
be
the setup:
Internet->Dmz(bigIpSwitch)-ISA2004-Front-end servers-Mailbox servers
In case you can give a hint about a cleaver way to setup this and let me
take advantage of the BigIpSwitch for both redundancy and load balance for
the OWA's, please let me know. What is not very clear to me is that the
network people told me to setup my two ISA severs (two for redundancy) on
the bigIPswtich, so I am wondering how the OWA's will interact from
there...
"Al Mulnick" <amulnick_No_SPAM@ncDOTrr.com> wrote in message
news:uJOFdZLnEHA.608@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
Depends on what the rest of your goals are.
DNS RR is a rough filter with little control of loading etc. For
availability, it's helpful, but not perfect as a user can still get a DNS
record that points to a down host.
NLB is smarter than that and can tell when a host is not responding, can
more evenly load it, and generally has finer control of traffic vs. DNS
round-robin tactics.
Redundancy means something different still. Redundancy indicates
seamless
failovers that clients don't notice. That may require a different
solution
set.
-ajm
"Marlon Brown" <marlon_brownj@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:%23s3Om0GnEHA.3396@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
Imagine I have two servers, identical hardware. Primary goal is setup a
redundant solution for OWA 2003.
Any significant advantage of using NLB over DNS RR ? DNS RR is pretty
straighrfoward to configure, and that's why I would like to check and
see
if
NLB can bring me additional benefits for OWA configuration.
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in