| Author |
Message |
Clayton Sutton
Guest
|
 Posted:
Fri Dec 24, 2004 3:45 am Post subject:
Re: Need a good hardware cluster solution |
|
|
Cool Jo K,
Thanks for that info. I don't know what direction our project is going to
take just yet so I am just doing some homework to come up to speed on both
hardware AND software solutions. Our IT dept. will be meeting with
managment after the holidays to talk about an HA solution.
Clayton
"Jo K" <joknash@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1103823514.113933.94430@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
| Quote: | Clayton,
Two possibilities are NSI Doubletake (www.nsisoftweare.com) or
Neverfail group ( www.neverfailgroup.com )
NSI is more of a replication solution
Neverfail is a high availability solution and replication
Depends which one you are looking for and what you want to achieve.
Both are inexpensive, we've purchase Neverfail because we needed the
high availability it provides.
Jo K
Clayton Sutton wrote:
Hi everyone,
The company that I work for is wanting to move to a Windows 2003
Server and
Exchange 2003 clustered environment. I know that Windows 2003
(Standard)
will do a "Network Load Balancing" and the Enterprise Edition will do
both
"Network Load Balancing" and "High Availability" clustering but not
BOTH.
If you want to do BOTH "Network Load Balancing" and "High
Availability" you
need a third party solution. That's what I'm looking for, anyone
have any
ideas? Also, any white papers on Windows and Exchange clustering
would be
great too. Thanks for any input.
Clayton
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Clayton Sutton
Guest
|
| Posted:
Fri Dec 24, 2004 3:45 am Post subject:
Re: Need a good hardware cluster solution |
|
|
Thanks Bob, the links are GREAT!
Clayton
"Bob Christian" <BobChristian@removethis.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:eK3egPl5EHA.1596@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
| Quote: | Papers on clustering Exchange 2003
www.microsoft.com/exchange/library (High Availability Guide link here
plus
a myriad of other papers)
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/exchange/2003/library/highavailgde.mspx
=
As for a clustered solution, there are some "cluster in a box" products.
Compaq put one out a few years ago and it worked pretty well. HP seems to
have continued this.
http://h18004.www1.hp.com/solutions/enterprise/highavailability/microsoft/index.html
Stratus makes servers designed for high-availability. Literally, you can
yank a processor out of the box and it will keep on humming (not
recommended). http://www.stratus.com/
HA does not always mean a cluster investment...most of the time, but not
always. As for load balancing...realistically, if you cluster, you want
to
look at an active-active-passive solution...and that is some $$.
Many companies would like five 9's...but when they see the price behind
it,
it is pricey up-front. I have researched five 9's solutions for several
of
my past employers as well as the cost of downtime. Most of the smaller
firms (1000 or less employees) could tolerate some unexpected downtime.
Realistically, with the Compaq hardware I had, there were very few
hardware
problems and most of those were self-induced (letting the server room get
over 95 degress (long long story). Honestly, there were more problems
with
people sending 100MB attachments (long story, but it had to be allowed)
and
not understanding why it did not get there in 15 seconds like a small 1k
message did.
Bob
"Clayton Sutton" <none@none.com> wrote in message
news:uWg8yo54EHA.1448@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
Hi everyone,
The company that I work for is wanting to move to a Windows 2003 Server
and
Exchange 2003 clustered environment. I know that Windows 2003
(Standard)
will do a "Network Load Balancing" and the Enterprise Edition will do
both
"Network Load Balancing" and "High Availability" clustering but not
BOTH.
If you want to do BOTH "Network Load Balancing" and "High Availability"
you
need a third party solution. That's what I'm looking for, anyone have
any
ideas? Also, any white papers on Windows and Exchange clustering would
be
great too. Thanks for any input.
Clayton
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rodney R. Fournier [MVP]
Guest
|
| Posted:
Fri Dec 24, 2004 4:23 am Post subject:
Re: Need a good hardware cluster solution |
|
|
answers inline...
Cheers,
Rod
MVP - Windows Server - Clustering
http://www.nw-america.com - Clustering
http://msmvps.com/clustering - Blog
"Clayton Sutton" <none@none.com> wrote in message
news:u$Lt9dT6EHA.3376@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
| Quote: | First off, let me say that I have ENJOYED this thread! You guy's input
(your give and take back and fourth) has been VERY in-lighting AND
helpful!
ALL of you guys are the best!!!
In trying to get my arms around the subject at had, can you guys clear up
the difference between an "NLB" cluster and a "Server" cluster. I know
that
"NLB" stands for "Network Load Balancing" and I know what that is.
However,
in a "Server" cluster if one server goes down another one takes over.
Right?
|
NLB is at the network level, NLB is TCP, UDP, IGMP. NLB is sometimes called
clustering. NLB is mainly for Website or Terminal Services. Server
Clustering is for application like SQL or Exchange. Server Clustering is
called clustering.
| Quote: | Does an "NLB" cluster do the same? What if I had a four node "NLB"
cluster
and I lost a node? Would the whole cluster be down?
|
With a 4 node (you can max out at 32) NLB cluster, if you lose or gain one
the cluster will converge with the new number and life will move on. You
will have minor outages during that time, but only for the clients attached
to the dead server. The whole cluster will not go down, unless you have less
then 1 node up :)
| Quote: |
I am trying to understand the technical difference (other then "Load
Balancing") between an "NLB" cluster and a "Server" cluster.
|
NLB = IP stuff, Server = Applications. Simple way to think about it.
| Quote: | By the way, I am reading as many white papers as I can, I just haven't
gotten to that part yet. I am buried in "White Papers" right now (if you
know what I mean) :).
|
My website has a ton of them on clustering...
| Quote: |
Thanks again for all of your help.
Clayton
"Russ Kaufmann [MCT]" <russ@exchangemct.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:u7hbT$Q6EHA.2592@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
"Scott Schnoll [MSFT]" <scschnol@online.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:uTNOZ5Q6EHA.2452@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
Absolutely. The goal is to be able to provide the application despite
the
failure of a components or a complete system.
Right, so what is the application in this case? Before you answer, its
hypothetical. :-) This is the primary challenge we have with Exchange
because we really serve two distinct groups of users: (1) IT Pros, the
folks who manage servers, such as AD and Exchange; and (2) Information
workers, such as those user Outlook or ActiveSync or some other
Exchange
client. This is why each organization must determine for itself what
downtime means and how to measure and combat it.
Yep, many different definitions for different users. It really makes
uptime
reporting a nightmare.
Where I work, we have such incredible high levels of automation, a
server
cluster failover will actually generate several different tickets. A
ticket is generated for the failover of every resource, so even if you
manually move the resources to another node, management is made aware
of
the change. You can't hide downtime from the automated tools, even if
it
doesn't impact the user community.
Yes, you can. :-) Configure the tools with exclusions so that certain
failures don't trigger tickets or alerts. I have yet to see a
monitoring
solution that doesn't provide some sort of exclusion features so that
you
can "hide" downtime from the tool.
Regrettably, the monitoring tool is managed by a different team (gotta
keep
us honest) and it is a combination of a well known vendor tool and an
in-house tool. I have been trying to ply the monitoring team with lots of
beer, but it doesn't work. <G
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Clayton Sutton
Guest
|
| Posted:
Fri Dec 24, 2004 7:55 am Post subject:
Re: Need a good hardware cluster solution |
|
|
"Scott Schnoll [MSFT]" <scschnol@online.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:uajB2xG6EHA.2788@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
| Quote: | Comments inline...
--
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.
but I do get concerned when I see a customer being confused by misleading
terms and
incomplete information.
|
"Misleading" is RIGHT! That's kinda what started this whole thing. Too
many people throwing around terms and using them interchangeably. But
because of EVERYONE here in this thread I now have a MUCH better
understanding of HA, CA, and FT. If you don't know the lingo, you can read
all the "White Papers" you want and you will still come away with a faulty
understanding of the subject!
Let me say that neather of you guys (Russ or Scott) have been misleading to
me. Russ's examples have REALLY helped me (a lay person) start to get my
arms around the subject. Then you Scott have come in behind Russ and REALLY
help me to nail it down!
This has been a VERY COOL exchange of thoughts!
Thank you very much guys.
Calyton |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Russ Kaufmann [MCT]
Guest
|
| Posted:
Wed Dec 29, 2004 11:08 pm Post subject:
Re: Need a good hardware cluster solution |
|
|
"Clayton Sutton" <none@none.com> wrote in message
news:u$Lt9dT6EHA.3376@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
| Quote: | First off, let me say that I have ENJOYED this thread! You guy's input
(your give and take back and fourth) has been VERY in-lighting AND
helpful!
ALL of you guys are the best!!!
|
I think we all enjoyed it. <G>
| Quote: | In trying to get my arms around the subject at had, can you guys clear up
the difference between an "NLB" cluster and a "Server" cluster. I know
that
"NLB" stands for "Network Load Balancing" and I know what that is.
However,
in a "Server" cluster if one server goes down another one takes over.
Right?
|
This link has great info on NLB features that should help you better
understand what NLB can do for you. Rod mentions Web and Terminal Services
as two apps that normally use NLB clustering instead of server clustering.
There are others.
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=http://support.microsoft.com:80/support/kb/articles/q232/1/90.asp&NoWebContent=1
This link will point you to an NLB FAQ. One of the questions in the FAQ is
just what you are asking.
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/windowsserver2003/technologies/clustering/nlbfaq.mspx#XSLTfaqSection126124121120120 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in