Exchange Server

David Fowler · Guest

We recently installed a 2 node active/active exchange cluster. The install
was done according to MS documentation, and SP1 was immediately applied.
However, we were having some issues with Public Folders that were supposed to
have been corrected by SP1. (namely, only being allowed 1 public folder for
the entire cluster). With investigation, it appears that the Virtual Servers
are not at SP1, and there is not the option in Cluster Admin to upgrade the
virutal server. Any suggestions? I attempted to uninstall the Virtual
Servers but keep getting an error message stating there is still a mailbox in
use on that server, even though none show up in Exchange Admin. I have
re-installed exchange (over the top) and re-applied the SP, but still do not
get the option to upgrade the EVS.

I am open for suggestions as to either totally uninstall Exchange and start
over, or how to correct the SP problem.

Thanks!
--
David Fowler
Technical Director
Office of Technology Services
University of Evansville

Rodney R. Fournier [MVP] · Guest

You can tell if you really have SP1 or not by using the Exchange System
Manager and highlighting Servers in the left pane, in the right pane the
version will say SP1 or not.

As far as Public Folders, we don't use them, but I believe you can only have
1 per cluster, though I could be misremembering.

Cheers,

Rod

MVP - Windows Server - Clustering
http://www.nw-america.com - Clustering
http://msmvps.com/clustering - Blog

"David Fowler" <DavidFowler@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:7A3EF078-F532-494C-95F7-9BBAA24CF4F2@microsoft.com...

Scott Schnoll [MSFT] · Guest

Hi David,

The change you describe regarding the number of instances of public folder
stores for a cluster applies only to clusters with 3 or more nodes. In
Service Pack 1, if you have clusters that have more than two nodes, you can
create additional MAPI public folder stores per cluster, one per Exchange
virtual server. As you have a 2-node cluster, you are still limited to a one
instance of a public folder store that is associated with the MAPI folder
tree in your cluster.

Knowing this, do you still want to remove the Exchange Virtual Servers you
created?

As an aside, since your cluster is relatively new, you might consider moving
to the Active/Passive model. We strongly recommend that mode over
Active/Active for a number of reasons, and generally discourage folks from
deploying Active/Active clusters.
--
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.

"David Fowler" <DavidFowler@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:7A3EF078-F532-494C-95F7-9BBAA24CF4F2@microsoft.com...

David Fowler · Guest

The ESM shows them as being build 7226.6 Service Pack 1. The following is
what is troubling us with respect to Public Folders:

MAPI Public Stores
Prior to Service Pack 1, Exchange 2003 clusters can only accommodate one
public MAPI information store, also referred to as a public folder database,
per cluster. This design prevents problems if the cluster fails over to
another server in an active/active cluster. Because Exchange 2003 must run in
an active/passive configuration whenever there are more than two nodes
present in the cluster, you cannot encounter a scenario in which a single
Store.exe process must cope with multiple public MAPI information stores from
the same TLH. Therefore, with Exchange 2003 Service Pack 1, the existing
public MAPI information store limitation in the cluster is removed.
Installations running SP1 or later are restricted to one public MAPI
information store per Exchange Virtual Server (the same restriction that is
imposed on stand-alone Exchange 2003 servers).

When we attempt to add a public folder to the second node, we get the error
that "all public folder trees already have an associated store on this
server. You will need to create a new public folder tree before creating
this new public store." However this server does not have a public folder
presently.

"Rodney R. Fournier [MVP]" wrote:

Scott Schnoll [MSFT] · Guest

Hi David,

You need to have at least 3 nodes for the new feature to work. As you only
have two nodes, you won't be able to create more than the one instance.
--
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.

"David Fowler" <DavidFowler@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:763BA54A-4B27-4BDA-8B3E-A9F7FCE2876B@microsoft.com...

David Fowler · Guest

Scott, thanks for the clarification. Now I just need to get my second node
back to normal! :-) I appreciate the comments on active/active vs.
active/passive, but at present really want the active/active senario.

Your information concerning the public folders leads me to a new question...
when users were moved from an existing e2k3 server in the administrative
group (non-clustered) to the second node of the cluster (the one not
containing a public folder) they were unable to "see" the public folders that
exist in the organization. Any suggestions? (this is what started the whole
public folder quandry in the first place!)

"Scott Schnoll [MSFT]" wrote:

Scott Schnoll [MSFT] · Guest

You're welcome!

Out of curiosity, why do you want A/A instead of A/P? It is limited in
scalability, supports fewer users, requires more administrator attention,
and is more prone to VM fragmentation.

As for the PF issue, what happens exactly on the client side? Are they
getting an error message? If so, what is it? Have you created replicas of
the PFs from the other server on the PF store inside the cluster?
--
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.

"David Fowler" <DavidFowler@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:110D4FE8-1CDE-4114-BFBF-F82559BF129E@microsoft.com...

David Fowler · Guest

I have started to replicate the folders from the existing servers, I'll see
if that makes a difference. The clients would not see any of the existing
folders when they opened the public folder, only an Internet Newsgroup folder.

As for the a/a-a/p question, perhaps I will have to start rethinking it.
Originally it was preferred from a performance standpoint. With the number
of users, we wanted to segretate student, alumni, staff and faculty mailboxes
into seperate stores (presently Students and alumni are on one non-clustered
server and staff and faculty are on another non-clustered server). While we
knew we would take a performance hit with both EVS on a single server, this
would typically only be for maintenance and would be a short lived event. I
guess I could finish moving mailboxes, then fail one node and observe the
performance on the single active node to see if issues arise. If not, I
could move the storage group and delete the second EVS, leaving an a/p
cluster. The nodes are both IBM netservers, dual 2.8GHZ procs, 4gb ram,
hardware raid 1 system and binary drives, and an IBM FastT SAN for the shared
storage. Our current config is about 5000 mailboxes. Thoughts?

"Scott Schnoll [MSFT]" wrote:

Scott Schnoll [MSFT] · Guest

Thanks very much for the information. I can tell that A/A offers no
benefits whatsoever with respect to performance. You would get much better
performance with a different design. Specifically, if you were to use the
A/P model, you could optimize performance by creating multiple storage
groups and multiple mailbox stores, and then putting the SGs, stores, and
most importantly, the transaction logs onto separate, fast, RAID 1+0
spindles.

The other thing to consider is that an A/A cluster cannot support 5000
users. In order to use A/A, you must limit the number of concurrent users
per EVS to 1900. And you may need to reduce this number if they are heavy
mail users. This means at best, an A/A cluster can support 3,800 concurrent
users. In contrast, the A/P model has no such limit, and sizing it is the
same as sizing a standalone (non-clustered) Exchange server. While you
might be a little light in terms of CPUs to support 5000 users, depending on
how much and how frequently folks use email, you may or may not have a CPU
bottleneck.

I would strongly recommend using the A/P model here. Make that very
strongly. :-)

Once you get the cluster built up, run the Exchange Server Best Practices
Analyzer (ExBPA) against it, and it will let you know if it is tuned
correctly according to Microsoft best practices. That should save you some
time in terms of configuring the server.

Post back here if you need anything else. Hope this helps.
--
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.

"David Fowler" <DavidFowler@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:63AD8B74-095B-408A-98C2-94357C593C5A@microsoft.com...

David Fowler · Guest

After some discussion, we are taking your advice and moving to an A/P
solution. Now I need some assistance with an earlier mentioned issue. I
want to remove the two EVS I have created and create a single new virtual
server. When I attempt to remove the second virtual server (can't remove the
first until I remove the second due to mta issue) it tells me that mailboxes
are still associated with this store, although none show up. I am attempting
to do the removal by right clicking on the EVS system attendant service and
choosing "remove virtual server".

Suggestions?

Thanks for all your assistance!

"Scott Schnoll [MSFT]" wrote:

Scott Schnoll [MSFT] · Guest

That's great! You'll definitely be much better off in the long run.

As for this issue, what happens if you dismount the store and/or take the
Information Store resource offline, and then try to remove the EVS? Does
that resolve the issue for you?

What is the exact text of the error message you are getting? TIP: When the
error message is displayed on your screen, you can press CTRL+C to copy the
text of the dialog to the Windows clipboard, and then paste it into a reply,
or into Notepad for later pasting into a reply.
--
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.

"David Fowler" <DavidFowler@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:1E3834E6-71D3-4C24-827C-458A61D1626E@microsoft.com...

David Fowler · Guest

Regardless if I have dismounted the store, or taken the IS offline, I get the
following error.

---------------------------
Microsoft Exchange Cluster Administrator Extension
---------------------------
The server "FACULTYMAIL" cannot be removed because:

- One or more users currently use a mailbox store on this server. These
users must be moved to a mailbox store on a different server or be mail
disabled before uninstalling this server.

Facility: Microsoft Exchange Cluster Administrator Extension

ID no: c103f492

Microsoft Exchange Cluster Administrator Extension

---------------------------
OK
---------------------------

There are only 3 objects visible when viewing the mailboxes on this server.
They are:
SMTP, System Attendant, and SystemMailbox.

Thanks again.

"Scott Schnoll [MSFT]" wrote:

Scott Schnoll [MSFT] · Guest

Hi David,

See if the procedure at http://support.microsoft.com/?id=279202 helps to
resolve this. If not, please post back here with the results.
--
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.

"David Fowler" <DavidFowler@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:D43A811F-2AE7-4F75-881E-4BE733E54ED8@microsoft.com...

	Exchange Server Forum Index -> Connectivity	All times are GMT
Page 1 of 1