| Author |
Message |
John D. Gwinner
Guest
|
 Posted:
Tue Nov 02, 2004 11:23 pm Post subject:
Simple cluster for 100 users |
|
|
Folks:
I have been working through the whitepapers and trying a test install.
I am trying to setup a failover environment for about 120 users, 100G or so of mail. I'm using 2 servers but do not (yet) have a SAN or shared SCSI hard drives.
We run a consulting business with about 120 users, all but 5 of whom are at client sites, and I am frequently at client sites and cannot dial in if there is an issue. I really wanted to use clustering for high availability, in an Active/Passive configuration.
I thought I could 'fake' doing a cluster by using a shared network disk. I created a "File Share" resource, but I get an error when attempting to create the system attendant. (which I expected, but it was worth a shot).
Is there any way to use a file share as the disk?
If not (as I expect) my only option would be to follow best practices and setup a shared SCSI bus or a fiber attached SAN, is that correct? Anyone have a recommendation for a reasonably priced array for about 200G of storage?
Failing that, is it possible to have Exchange installed in 'non cluster mode' on a machine that is part of a cluster? This would allow me to cluster our web site at least.
Thank you,
== John ==
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Rodney R. Fournier [MVP]
Guest
|
| Posted:
Tue Nov 02, 2004 11:42 pm Post subject:
Re: Simple cluster for 100 users |
|
|
You need to either use VMware or VS 2005, until you get a SAN or SCSI shared bus.
Cheers,
Rod
MVP - Windows Server - Clustering
http://www.nw-america.com - Clustering
http://msmvps.com/clustering - Blog
"John D. Gwinner" <remove_jgwinner@dazsi.com> wrote in message news:%23N4vkFQwEHA.2600@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
Folks:
I have been working through the whitepapers and trying a test install.
I am trying to setup a failover environment for about 120 users, 100G or so of mail. I'm using 2 servers but do not (yet) have a SAN or shared SCSI hard drives.
We run a consulting business with about 120 users, all but 5 of whom are at client sites, and I am frequently at client sites and cannot dial in if there is an issue. I really wanted to use clustering for high availability, in an Active/Passive configuration.
I thought I could 'fake' doing a cluster by using a shared network disk. I created a "File Share" resource, but I get an error when attempting to create the system attendant. (which I expected, but it was worth a shot).
Is there any way to use a file share as the disk?
If not (as I expect) my only option would be to follow best practices and setup a shared SCSI bus or a fiber attached SAN, is that correct? Anyone have a recommendation for a reasonably priced array for about 200G of storage?
Failing that, is it possible to have Exchange installed in 'non cluster mode' on a machine that is part of a cluster? This would allow me to cluster our web site at least.
Thank you,
== John == |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Russ Kaufmann [MCT]
Guest
|
| Posted:
Wed Nov 03, 2004 12:45 am Post subject:
Re: Simple cluster for 100 users |
|
|
"John D. Gwinner" <remove_jgwinner@dazsi.com> wrote in message
news:%23N4vkFQwEHA.2600@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
| Quote: | We run a consulting business with about 120 users, all but 5 of whom
are at client sites, and I am frequently at client sites and cannot dial
in
if there is an issue. I really wanted to use clustering for high
availability,
in an Active/Passive configuration.
|
Are you having problems with Exchange going down as a single node? If you
have single node configuration problems, clustering is not going to help.
| Quote: | I thought I could 'fake' doing a cluster by using a shared network disk.
I created a "File Share" resource, but I get an error when attempting to
create the system attendant. (which I expected, but it was worth a shot).
Is there any way to use a file share as the disk?
|
No.
| Quote: | If not (as I expect) my only option would be to follow best practices
and setup a shared SCSI bus or a fiber attached SAN, is that correct?
|
No, you can also use iSCSI.
| Quote: | Anyone have a recommendation for a reasonably priced array for about 200G
of storage?
Failing that, is it possible to have Exchange installed in 'non cluster
mode'
on a machine that is part of a cluster?
|
Why would you want to do that? You would be violating several KISS
principles if you do that, which would explain why you might be having
Exchange server problems.
| Quote: | This would allow me to cluster our web site at least.
|
Use NLB for your web site. It is a better way to handle web content in most
cases.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John D. Gwinner
Guest
|
| Posted:
Wed Nov 03, 2004 5:46 am Post subject:
Re: Simple cluster for 100 users |
|
|
| Quote: | Is there any way to use a file share as the disk?
No.
|
That's what I thought, but thanks for the confirmation.
| Quote: | Failing that, is it possible to have Exchange installed in 'non cluster
mode'
on a machine that is part of a cluster?
Why would you want to do that? You would be violating several KISS
principles if you do that, which would explain why you might be having
Exchange server problems.
|
First, I'm not having any exchange problems. Everything works fine.
Second, I might want to do that for failover for services other than
Exchange that don't require SAN storage. For example, a file store for
Visual Studio maybe.
It looks like as long as I do the Exchange setup first, THEN create the
cluster, it would work, but I'd have to test this.
== John == |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John D. Gwinner
Guest
|
| Posted:
Wed Nov 03, 2004 5:48 am Post subject:
Re: Simple cluster for 100 users |
|
|
Thanks,
== John = "Rodney R. Fournier [MVP]" <rod@die.spam.die.nw-america.com> wrote in message news:elvLINQwEHA.1988@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
You need to either use VMware or VS 2005, until you get a SAN or SCSI shared bus.
Cheers,
Rod
MVP - Windows Server - Clustering
http://www.nw-america.com - Clustering
http://msmvps.com/clustering - Blog
I am trying to setup a failover environment for about 120 users, 100G or so of mail. I'm using 2 servers but do not (yet) have a SAN or shared SCSI hard drives. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bob Christian
Guest
|
| Posted:
Fri Nov 05, 2004 3:50 am Post subject:
Re: Simple cluster for 100 users |
|
|
| Quote: | It looks like as long as I do the Exchange setup first, THEN create the
cluster, it would work, but I'd have to test this.
|
In the Microsoft world you have to cluster first and setup Exchange second
If you use a third-party cluster product, such as Legato AAM or Veritas,
then you can setup the Exchange server and configure another Exchange server
down the road. AAM will allow you to do this with either a shared disk or
by using a local disk and a copy/mirror operation. This will take a little
learning and a little understanding of the AAM product....but I have done it
this way before.
Bob |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Russ Kaufmann [MCT]
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Nov 06, 2004 12:13 am Post subject:
Re: Simple cluster for 100 users |
|
|
"John D. Gwinner" <remove_jgwinner@dazsi.com> wrote in message
news:%23zXy7bTwEHA.2568@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
| Quote: | Is there any way to use a file share as the disk?
No.
That's what I thought, but thanks for the confirmation.
Failing that, is it possible to have Exchange installed in 'non cluster
mode'
on a machine that is part of a cluster?
Why would you want to do that? You would be violating several KISS
principles if you do that, which would explain why you might be having
Exchange server problems.
First, I'm not having any exchange problems. Everything works fine.
Second, I might want to do that for failover for services other than
Exchange that don't require SAN storage. For example, a file store for
Visual Studio maybe.
It looks like as long as I do the Exchange setup first, THEN create the
cluster, it would work, but I'd have to test this.
|
I just do not understand why you would do that. A cluster is used to help
achieve/sustain high availability. You are putting an application on a node
that should be on its own server and complicating your environment. You
can't achieve your goal by making your environment complex for no reason. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John D. Gwinner
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Nov 13, 2004 2:12 am Post subject:
Re: Simple cluster for 100 users |
|
|
"Bob Christian" <BobChristian@removethis.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:OFs2VhrwEHA.1564@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
| Quote: | It looks like as long as I do the Exchange setup first, THEN create the
cluster, it would work, but I'd have to test this.
In the Microsoft world you have to cluster first and setup Exchange second
|
I think you missed my point - the desire here was to cluster some other
services, say file sharing, NOT cluster exchange.
But back to my original question, about Exchange clustering without a shared
disk, the AAM product sounds good, I'll have to check it out. Sunbelt also
has a product that looks like it would do this, although it really just
replaces the physical disk, so you would have to create the cluster then
install exchange.
== JOhn == |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John D. Gwinner
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Nov 13, 2004 2:32 am Post subject:
Re: Simple cluster for 100 users |
|
|
"Russ Kaufmann [MCT]" <russ@exchangemct.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:u7Bh0L2wEHA.3024@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
| Quote: | I just do not understand why you would do that. A cluster is used to help
achieve/sustain high availability. You are putting an application on a
node
that should be on its own server and complicating your environment. You
can't achieve your goal by making your environment complex for no reason.
|
I don't think you are really paying attention to my requirements, that's why
you don't understand. I said:
| Quote: | for services other than Exchange that don't require SAN storage. For
example, a file store for Visual Studio |
Of course, you could always buy another 2-3 servers and install these other
services on them with a cluster. Would this be less complex? Possible. It
would be significantly more expensive.
== John == |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Scott Schnoll [MSFT]
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Nov 13, 2004 12:38 pm Post subject:
Re: Simple cluster for 100 users |
|
|
Hi John,
One of the requirements for Exchange clustering is one or more physical disk
resources in the cluster (translation: shared storage). If there's no
physical disk resource, you cannot create a System Attendant resource.
Also, we do not support Exchange running as a non-clustered application in a
Windows Server Cluster. Basically, if you want to install Exchange on a
computer that will also be a physical node in a Windows Server Cluster, then
you must install the Cluster Service first, and then you install Exchange.
Also, we do not support running any version of Exchange on a virtual machine
or on an emulator including, Microsoft Virtual Server 2005, Microsoft
Virtual PC 2004, or any third-party virtual machine program.
You said you really want to use clustering for high availability. What
historically has been your Exchange downtime (causes, amounts, etc.).
--
Scott Schnoll
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
rights. Please do not send email directly to this alias. This alias is for
newsgroup
purposes only.
"John D. Gwinner" <remove_jgwinner@dazsi.com> wrote in message
news:%23N4vkFQwEHA.2600@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
Folks:
I have been working through the whitepapers and trying a test install.
I am trying to setup a failover environment for about 120 users, 100G or so
of mail. I'm using 2 servers but do not (yet) have a SAN or shared SCSI
hard drives.
We run a consulting business with about 120 users, all but 5 of whom are at
client sites, and I am frequently at client sites and cannot dial in if
there is an issue. I really wanted to use clustering for high availability,
in an Active/Passive configuration.
I thought I could 'fake' doing a cluster by using a shared network disk. I
created a "File Share" resource, but I get an error when attempting to
create the system attendant. (which I expected, but it was worth a shot).
Is there any way to use a file share as the disk?
If not (as I expect) my only option would be to follow best practices and
setup a shared SCSI bus or a fiber attached SAN, is that correct? Anyone
have a recommendation for a reasonably priced array for about 200G of
storage?
Failing that, is it possible to have Exchange installed in 'non cluster
mode' on a machine that is part of a cluster? This would allow me to
cluster our web site at least.
Thank you,
== John == |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Russ Kaufmann [MCT]
Guest
|
| Posted:
Tue Nov 16, 2004 2:11 am Post subject:
Re: Simple cluster for 100 users |
|
|
"John D. Gwinner" <remove_jgwinner@dazsi.com> wrote in message
news:%236e%23NcPyEHA.1396@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
| Quote: |
"Russ Kaufmann [MCT]" <russ@exchangemct.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:u7Bh0L2wEHA.3024@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
I just do not understand why you would do that. A cluster is used to help
achieve/sustain high availability. You are putting an application on a
node
that should be on its own server and complicating your environment. You
can't achieve your goal by making your environment complex for no reason.
I don't think you are really paying attention to my requirements, that's
why
you don't understand. I said:
for services other than Exchange that don't require SAN storage. For
example, a file store for Visual Studio
Of course, you could always buy another 2-3 servers and install these
other
services on them with a cluster. Would this be less complex? Possible.
It
would be significantly more expensive.
|
Maybe I didn't understand. What I understood is that you were going to
cluster some apps AND put your Exchange server on one of the nodes (not
cluster Exchange). Maybe I thought that because you asked, "Failing that, is
it possible to have Exchange installed in 'non cluster mode' on a machine
that is part of a cluster?" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in