| Author |
Message |
James
Guest
|
 Posted:
Thu Mar 24, 2005 4:07 am Post subject:
Windows & Exchange 2003: Will this work..? |
|
|
Hi,
We are looking at replacing our non-Windows based mail server with
Windows 2003 Enterprise and Exchange 2003 Enterprise. I would appreciate
advice on whether my thoughts are on the right track.
Site A is a datacentre.
Site B is HQ, less than 50 users.
Site C is a smaller office.
There are a small number (<10) users who roam on their laptops.
Connectivity:
Site A: 100mbit no probs.
Site B: ADSL. Each line 2mbit down, 256k up. We can get 4x bonded.
Site C: Shared building connectivity (presume 2mbit).
Currently, Site B has the fileserver and mailserver. It locally has the
most users. Roaming (mobile) and remote (Site C and other minors) have
severe connectivity problems accessing their email from Site B.
This is obviously not scalable and liable to collapse.
I am thinking:
1. Site A gets 1x server with Windows/Exchange and is the root domain
(.root).
2. Site B gets 1x server with Windows/Exchange and is a sub-domain
(office-a.countrycode.root).
3. Servers at both A and B replicate all configuration (AD/etc), files
and email between each other.
4. Users connected locally at Site B send and receive email/files from
Site B's server.
5. All other users (mobile and other sites) send and receive their
email/files from Site A.
I hope this is clear? Think largely electronic based company who's HQ
has a stretched connection to the world.
Am I on the right track for design? I assume that replicating mail/files
from Site B to Site A will be one major pain in the rear over this
connectivity. But can it be done, and are there any ideas on
improvements out there?
Links to documentation particular to our situation would be useful too,
have been reading a wealth but most is pertinent to orgs with lots of
servers.
Thanks!
James
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Al Mulnick
Guest
|
| Posted:
Thu Mar 24, 2005 8:11 am Post subject:
Re: Windows & Exchange 2003: Will this work..? |
|
|
The approach you're taking is to basically mask the flaky connections from
the user experience. In other words, it might take longer to deliver a
message between sites, but the user will see fast response times.
That's what sites and routing groups are designed for, so you are likely
heading down the correct path.
You'll want to check out a few things:
RPC/HTTP clients.
Branch office deployment guide for ways to improve the bandwidth usage etc.
It's possible that you may want to consider an alternative path for the HQ
users to the datacenter and just centralize the servers where they can be
fed and cared for in a nice comfy datacenter. RPC/HTTP is useful there if
it's an option.
Al
"James" <james@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:OBseFS$LFHA.4080@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
| Quote: | Hi,
We are looking at replacing our non-Windows based mail server with Windows
2003 Enterprise and Exchange 2003 Enterprise. I would appreciate advice on
whether my thoughts are on the right track.
Site A is a datacentre.
Site B is HQ, less than 50 users.
Site C is a smaller office.
There are a small number (<10) users who roam on their laptops.
Connectivity:
Site A: 100mbit no probs.
Site B: ADSL. Each line 2mbit down, 256k up. We can get 4x bonded.
Site C: Shared building connectivity (presume 2mbit).
Currently, Site B has the fileserver and mailserver. It locally has the
most users. Roaming (mobile) and remote (Site C and other minors) have
severe connectivity problems accessing their email from Site B.
This is obviously not scalable and liable to collapse.
I am thinking:
1. Site A gets 1x server with Windows/Exchange and is the root domain
(.root).
2. Site B gets 1x server with Windows/Exchange and is a sub-domain
(office-a.countrycode.root).
3. Servers at both A and B replicate all configuration (AD/etc), files and
email between each other.
4. Users connected locally at Site B send and receive email/files from
Site B's server.
5. All other users (mobile and other sites) send and receive their
email/files from Site A.
I hope this is clear? Think largely electronic based company who's HQ has
a stretched connection to the world.
Am I on the right track for design? I assume that replicating mail/files
from Site B to Site A will be one major pain in the rear over this
connectivity. But can it be done, and are there any ideas on improvements
out there?
Links to documentation particular to our situation would be useful too,
have been reading a wealth but most is pertinent to orgs with lots of
servers.
Thanks!
James |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mockingbird
Guest
|
| Posted:
Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:37 pm Post subject:
Re: Windows & Exchange 2003: Will this work..? |
|
|
James,
We have a similar setup as yourself and have been studying how to best
deploy exchange enterprise 2003
A Datacenter (site-to-site vpn over ipsec w/ HQ office)
-Backup Domain Controller running win 2000 standard
-Backup Mail Server running exchange 2003 enterprise
B HQ (~30 people)
-Primary Domain Controller running win 200 standard
-Primary Mail Server running exchange 2003 enterprise
C Remote Users which include small office(~5)
We have been looking for ways to setup replication of email boxes from our
two sites (datacenter and HQ). Are you using DFS and FRS for file
replication between your sites? To my knowledge, FRS does not support
exchange mailboxes. How are you going to achieve exchange mailbox
replication?
"Al Mulnick" wrote:
| Quote: | The approach you're taking is to basically mask the flaky connections from
the user experience. In other words, it might take longer to deliver a
message between sites, but the user will see fast response times.
That's what sites and routing groups are designed for, so you are likely
heading down the correct path.
You'll want to check out a few things:
RPC/HTTP clients.
Branch office deployment guide for ways to improve the bandwidth usage etc.
It's possible that you may want to consider an alternative path for the HQ
users to the datacenter and just centralize the servers where they can be
fed and cared for in a nice comfy datacenter. RPC/HTTP is useful there if
it's an option.
Al
"James" <james@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:OBseFS$LFHA.4080@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
Hi,
We are looking at replacing our non-Windows based mail server with Windows
2003 Enterprise and Exchange 2003 Enterprise. I would appreciate advice on
whether my thoughts are on the right track.
Site A is a datacentre.
Site B is HQ, less than 50 users.
Site C is a smaller office.
There are a small number (<10) users who roam on their laptops.
Connectivity:
Site A: 100mbit no probs.
Site B: ADSL. Each line 2mbit down, 256k up. We can get 4x bonded.
Site C: Shared building connectivity (presume 2mbit).
Currently, Site B has the fileserver and mailserver. It locally has the
most users. Roaming (mobile) and remote (Site C and other minors) have
severe connectivity problems accessing their email from Site B.
This is obviously not scalable and liable to collapse.
I am thinking:
1. Site A gets 1x server with Windows/Exchange and is the root domain
(.root).
2. Site B gets 1x server with Windows/Exchange and is a sub-domain
(office-a.countrycode.root).
3. Servers at both A and B replicate all configuration (AD/etc), files and
email between each other.
4. Users connected locally at Site B send and receive email/files from
Site B's server.
5. All other users (mobile and other sites) send and receive their
email/files from Site A.
I hope this is clear? Think largely electronic based company who's HQ has
a stretched connection to the world.
Am I on the right track for design? I assume that replicating mail/files
from Site B to Site A will be one major pain in the rear over this
connectivity. But can it be done, and are there any ideas on improvements
out there?
Links to documentation particular to our situation would be useful too,
have been reading a wealth but most is pertinent to orgs with lots of
servers.
Thanks!
James
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Al Mulnick
Guest
|
| Posted:
Wed Mar 30, 2005 12:48 am Post subject:
Re: Windows & Exchange 2003: Will this work..? |
|
|
What would be the point of replicating the data (that's new to the
conversation BTW)?
There are many ways to approach this problem, but replication (depending on
your definition of replication) may or may not be one of them. Hard to tell
from your post.
"Mockingbird" <Mockingbird@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:71587CAC-1391-4F8A-B425-8C24D706ED14@microsoft.com...
| Quote: | James,
We have a similar setup as yourself and have been studying how to best
deploy exchange enterprise 2003
A Datacenter (site-to-site vpn over ipsec w/ HQ office)
-Backup Domain Controller running win 2000 standard
-Backup Mail Server running exchange 2003 enterprise
B HQ (~30 people)
-Primary Domain Controller running win 200 standard
-Primary Mail Server running exchange 2003 enterprise
C Remote Users which include small office(~5)
We have been looking for ways to setup replication of email boxes from our
two sites (datacenter and HQ). Are you using DFS and FRS for file
replication between your sites? To my knowledge, FRS does not support
exchange mailboxes. How are you going to achieve exchange mailbox
replication?
"Al Mulnick" wrote:
The approach you're taking is to basically mask the flaky connections
from
the user experience. In other words, it might take longer to deliver a
message between sites, but the user will see fast response times.
That's what sites and routing groups are designed for, so you are likely
heading down the correct path.
You'll want to check out a few things:
RPC/HTTP clients.
Branch office deployment guide for ways to improve the bandwidth usage
etc.
It's possible that you may want to consider an alternative path for the
HQ
users to the datacenter and just centralize the servers where they can be
fed and cared for in a nice comfy datacenter. RPC/HTTP is useful there if
it's an option.
Al
"James" <james@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:OBseFS$LFHA.4080@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
Hi,
We are looking at replacing our non-Windows based mail server with
Windows
2003 Enterprise and Exchange 2003 Enterprise. I would appreciate advice
on
whether my thoughts are on the right track.
Site A is a datacentre.
Site B is HQ, less than 50 users.
Site C is a smaller office.
There are a small number (<10) users who roam on their laptops.
Connectivity:
Site A: 100mbit no probs.
Site B: ADSL. Each line 2mbit down, 256k up. We can get 4x bonded.
Site C: Shared building connectivity (presume 2mbit).
Currently, Site B has the fileserver and mailserver. It locally has the
most users. Roaming (mobile) and remote (Site C and other minors) have
severe connectivity problems accessing their email from Site B.
This is obviously not scalable and liable to collapse.
I am thinking:
1. Site A gets 1x server with Windows/Exchange and is the root domain
(.root).
2. Site B gets 1x server with Windows/Exchange and is a sub-domain
(office-a.countrycode.root).
3. Servers at both A and B replicate all configuration (AD/etc), files
and
email between each other.
4. Users connected locally at Site B send and receive email/files from
Site B's server.
5. All other users (mobile and other sites) send and receive their
email/files from Site A.
I hope this is clear? Think largely electronic based company who's HQ
has
a stretched connection to the world.
Am I on the right track for design? I assume that replicating
mail/files
from Site B to Site A will be one major pain in the rear over this
connectivity. But can it be done, and are there any ideas on
improvements
out there?
Links to documentation particular to our situation would be useful too,
have been reading a wealth but most is pertinent to orgs with lots of
servers.
Thanks!
James
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in