We are planning on deploying exchange 2007 in my company we have 13 sites and approx 115 users. Some sites have as few as 5 users and some as many as 30. All sites are connected together with a minimum 1.5 mb connection to the data center. (larger sites 3 mb) Data center has plenty of capacity. The question becomes since we will be deploying a single exchange server (we may separate the edge transport server those 2 servers will be at data center. Would the suggestion to use regular connectivity or Outlook anywhere (RPC over http)? We want little latency as possible my guess would be outlook anywhere so this way we don't have to worry too much about the bandwidth? Do we gain or lose anything with this option meaning that if we have the bandwidth should we not use rpc over http?
Using Outlook Anywhere versus TCP/IP won't really save you any bandwidth. It's pretty much the same traffic; the only difference is with Outlook Anywhere, the traffic is encapsulated in HTTPS packets. Outlook Anywhere is really designed to eliminate the need to use a VPN for external access; and it's not really intended to be a substitute for TCP/IP on a LAN/WAN. As an aside, are you aware that the Edge Transport server role cannot be installed on the same server as any other Exchange server roles? "Tom B" wrote in message news:CC5F8817-04E3-46ED-8B41-C1E805F1C5DC@microsoft.com... > We are planning on deploying exchange 2007 in my company we have 13 sites > and > approx 115 users. Some sites have as few as 5 users and some as many as > 30. > All sites are connected together with a minimum 1.5 mb connection to the > data center. (larger sites 3 mb) Data center has plenty of capacity. > > The question becomes since we will be deploying a single exchange server > (we > may separate the edge transport server those 2 servers will be at data > center. Would the suggestion to use regular connectivity or Outlook > anywhere > (RPC over http)? > > We want little latency as possible my guess would be outlook anywhere so > this way we don't have to worry too much about the bandwidth? > > Do we gain or lose anything with this option meaning that if we have the > bandwidth should we not use rpc over http? >
as far as edge transport i am aware i mistyped that i shoudl fo said we are separting that. You think 1.5 mb connections will be ok with the bandwidth? "Scott Schnoll [MSFT]" wrote: > Using Outlook Anywhere versus TCP/IP won't really save you any bandwidth. > It's pretty much the same traffic; the only difference is with Outlook > Anywhere, the traffic is encapsulated in HTTPS packets. Outlook Anywhere is > really designed to eliminate the need to use a VPN for external access; and > it's not really intended to be a substitute for TCP/IP on a LAN/WAN. > > As an aside, are you aware that the Edge Transport server role cannot be > installed on the same server as any other Exchange server roles? > > > "Tom B" wrote in message > news:CC5F8817-04E3-46ED-8B41-C1E805F1C5DC@microsoft.com... > > We are planning on deploying exchange 2007 in my company we have 13 sites > > and > > approx 115 users. Some sites have as few as 5 users and some as many as > > 30. > > All sites are connected together with a minimum 1.5 mb connection to the > > data center. (larger sites 3 mb) Data center has plenty of capacity. > > > > The question becomes since we will be deploying a single exchange server > > (we > > may separate the edge transport server those 2 servers will be at data > > center. Would the suggestion to use regular connectivity or Outlook > > anywhere > > (RPC over http)? > > > > We want little latency as possible my guess would be outlook anywhere so > > this way we don't have to worry too much about the bandwidth? > > > > Do we gain or lose anything with this option meaning that if we have the > > bandwidth should we not use rpc over http? > > > >
Impossible to say, as I know absolutely nothing about your environment. :-) But we do have A LOT of guidance on sizing and planning (see, e.g., http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb125244.aspx). Not too much yet related specifically to bandwidth needs, but that's in large part because the bandwidth needs are really dictated by user activity and other factors. "Tom B" wrote in message news:47D8060F-4714-4997-8AB1-C58FF18FF549@microsoft.com... > as far as edge transport i am aware i mistyped that i shoudl fo said we > are > separting that. You think 1.5 mb connections will be ok with the > bandwidth? > > "Scott Schnoll [MSFT]" wrote: > >> Using Outlook Anywhere versus TCP/IP won't really save you any bandwidth. >> It's pretty much the same traffic; the only difference is with Outlook >> Anywhere, the traffic is encapsulated in HTTPS packets. Outlook Anywhere >> is >> really designed to eliminate the need to use a VPN for external access; >> and >> it's not really intended to be a substitute for TCP/IP on a LAN/WAN. >> >> As an aside, are you aware that the Edge Transport server role cannot be >> installed on the same server as any other Exchange server roles? >> >> >> "Tom B" wrote in message >> news:CC5F8817-04E3-46ED-8B41-C1E805F1C5DC@microsoft.com... >> > We are planning on deploying exchange 2007 in my company we have 13 >> > sites >> > and >> > approx 115 users. Some sites have as few as 5 users and some as many as >> > 30. >> > All sites are connected together with a minimum 1.5 mb connection to >> > the >> > data center. (larger sites 3 mb) Data center has plenty of capacity. >> > >> > The question becomes since we will be deploying a single exchange >> > server >> > (we >> > may separate the edge transport server those 2 servers will be at data >> > center. Would the suggestion to use regular connectivity or Outlook >> > anywhere >> > (RPC over http)? >> > >> > We want little latency as possible my guess would be outlook anywhere >> > so >> > this way we don't have to worry too much about the bandwidth? >> > >> > Do we gain or lose anything with this option meaning that if we have >> > the >> > bandwidth should we not use rpc over http? >> > >> >>
