|
|
|
date: Fri, 4 Jan 2008 20:07:57 +0100,
group: microsoft.public.exchange.clustering
back
Re: Exchange 2007 High Availability (25000 Mailboxes)
Thanks Bharat,
We are considering NetApp solutions for Storage Redundancy but I am
evaluating CCR too, and my question is how many CCR clusters you think we
would need to support 25000 of Mailboxes. Do you think 4 clusters, with 2
nodes each, would work if Memory and Processor are big enough? And as far as
I remember CCR Mailbox DBs can be bigger around 500 GBs.
What about if you setup 4 CCRs clusters and want to deploy standby
continuous replication, should you deploy 4 servers (1 per source cluster)
to support the datacenter failover? in the case of SCC, 1 destination
cluster would be enough, so this impact in the number of servers ...
Thanks
"Bharat Suneja [MVP]" wrote in message
news:OlEOauyTIHA.5980@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>- Are you using some third-party solution for storage redundancy? If not,
>with SCC the shared storage is single point of failure, and the reason why
>CCR warrants a consideration.
> - I would bump up the RAM to 22/24Gigs (3.5Mb/mailbox + 2 Gigs)
> - Need 2 x Quad proc using the rule of of thumb calculation of 1 core/1000
> users of average profile.
> - Make sure you have a backup/recovery mechanism that allows you to
> restore a server within the time specified in SLAs or what you're
> comfortable with. The down side of server consolidation - any extended
> outages can be quiet damaging to the organization and your SLAs.
>
> --
> Bharat Suneja
> MVP - Exchange
> www.zenprise.com
> NEW blog location:
> exchangepedia.com/blog
> ----------------------------------------------
>
>
> "Jesus Martin" wrote in message
> news:eHqHkUwTIHA.5360@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>> Hi All,
>>
>> we are in the process of migrating a disperse Exchange 2003 organization
>> to a consolidated Exchange 2007 platform. The organization has more than
>> 20000 mailboxes and would like to know your recommendations in terms of
>> setting up a high available environment.
>>
>> So far, we have been thinking to deploy a 6 nodes SCC cluster
>> (A/A/A/A/P/P) with 6000 mailboxes per server and a 2/4 nodes NLB with CAS
>> and HT. then 2 nodes SCR in a second datacenter
>>
>> My question is sizing the servers to support 6000 mailboxes and the
>> maximum number of mailboxes recommendation.
>>
>> We want to implement 4XCores processors and 16GBs of RAM per node, would
>> this be enough? our users do have an average profile (10 mails sent / 40
>> received)
>>
>> any suggestions or experiences?
>>
>> thanks
>>
>
>
date: Sat, 5 Jan 2008 15:12:14 +0100
author: Jesus Martin
Re: Exchange 2007 High Availability (25000 Mailboxes)
- Since SCR supports many (sources) to one (target), there's no particular
reason to have multiple clusters (SCC/CCR - without CMS of course.. ) on the
target cluster, unless you anticipate multiple source servers/clusters
failing.
- If you've already planned for Storage redundancy, and have existing
investments in storage, SCC may be the better option. Starting afresh, I
would consider CCR, but overall CCR does increase the number of servers when
scaling up because of the 1:1 ration of active/passive (or in other words, a
passive node being dedicated to each active node to replicate/perform
consistency checks on logs/DB, etc.. ).
--
Bharat Suneja
MVP - Exchange
www.zenprise.com
NEW blog location:
exchangepedia.com/blog
----------------------------
"Jesus Martin" wrote in message
news:eXhz7T6TIHA.4196@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> Thanks Bharat,
>
> We are considering NetApp solutions for Storage Redundancy but I am
> evaluating CCR too, and my question is how many CCR clusters you think we
> would need to support 25000 of Mailboxes. Do you think 4 clusters, with 2
> nodes each, would work if Memory and Processor are big enough? And as far
> as I remember CCR Mailbox DBs can be bigger around 500 GBs.
>
> What about if you setup 4 CCRs clusters and want to deploy standby
> continuous replication, should you deploy 4 servers (1 per source cluster)
> to support the datacenter failover? in the case of SCC, 1 destination
> cluster would be enough, so this impact in the number of servers ...
>
> Thanks
>
> "Bharat Suneja [MVP]" wrote in message
> news:OlEOauyTIHA.5980@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>>- Are you using some third-party solution for storage redundancy? If not,
>>with SCC the shared storage is single point of failure, and the reason why
>>CCR warrants a consideration.
>> - I would bump up the RAM to 22/24Gigs (3.5Mb/mailbox + 2 Gigs)
>> - Need 2 x Quad proc using the rule of of thumb calculation of 1
>> core/1000 users of average profile.
>> - Make sure you have a backup/recovery mechanism that allows you to
>> restore a server within the time specified in SLAs or what you're
>> comfortable with. The down side of server consolidation - any extended
>> outages can be quiet damaging to the organization and your SLAs.
>>
>> --
>> Bharat Suneja
>> MVP - Exchange
>> www.zenprise.com
>> NEW blog location:
>> exchangepedia.com/blog
>> ----------------------------------------------
>>
>>
>> "Jesus Martin" wrote in message
>> news:eHqHkUwTIHA.5360@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>>> Hi All,
>>>
>>> we are in the process of migrating a disperse Exchange 2003 organization
>>> to a consolidated Exchange 2007 platform. The organization has more than
>>> 20000 mailboxes and would like to know your recommendations in terms of
>>> setting up a high available environment.
>>>
>>> So far, we have been thinking to deploy a 6 nodes SCC cluster
>>> (A/A/A/A/P/P) with 6000 mailboxes per server and a 2/4 nodes NLB with
>>> CAS and HT. then 2 nodes SCR in a second datacenter
>>>
>>> My question is sizing the servers to support 6000 mailboxes and the
>>> maximum number of mailboxes recommendation.
>>>
>>> We want to implement 4XCores processors and 16GBs of RAM per node, would
>>> this be enough? our users do have an average profile (10 mails sent / 40
>>> received)
>>>
>>> any suggestions or experiences?
>>>
>>> thanks
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
date: Mon, 7 Jan 2008 10:04:33 -0800
author: Bharat Suneja [MVP]
|
|
