Outlook 2003 vs Outlook 2003 RPC/HTTP   

Hi all,

would like to confirm what the best option is, company has 2 sites, all the 
Exchange servers are in Site 1 and 500 users from site 2 will connect to 
those servers, communication between sites is ok (around) 8 Mbps, my 
question is, would make sense to deploy a front end in site 2 and make the 
users RPC/HTTP enabled? or MAPI with cache opcion enabled?

mailbox server is 2 CPUs and 4 Gbs of memory serving 1500 users.

i am a little concern in the way that the exchange servers at site 1 will 
support all the MAPI connections thats why we are thinking that adding a FE 
in the second site may reduce the overload in the exchange central servers

regards

date: Mon, 12 Mar 2007 12:48:06 +0100   author:   Jesus Martin

Re: Outlook 2003 vs Outlook 2003 RPC/HTTP   

Two very different problems and very different proposed solutions that can 
sometimes work together.
rpc/http is the transport.  That was designed to allow you to punch a hole 
in your firewall and allow rpc to be carried over a well known port through 
your firewall to access email.  Has the side benefit of working pretty well 
with unreliable network connections.

Caching gives the users the appearance of having a good connection because 
instead of going to the server for mail functions, the client caches the 
mail locally and the user works off of the local copy.

Putting the two together can offer the user a much better "experience" in 
terms of what they see regardless of the state of the server or the network 
between.

Does that help?


"Jesus Martin"  wrote in message 
news:eNufBwJZHHA.4520@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> Hi all,
>
> would like to confirm what the best option is, company has 2 sites, all 
> the Exchange servers are in Site 1 and 500 users from site 2 will connect 
> to those servers, communication between sites is ok (around) 8 Mbps, my 
> question is, would make sense to deploy a front end in site 2 and make the 
> users RPC/HTTP enabled? or MAPI with cache opcion enabled?
>
> mailbox server is 2 CPUs and 4 Gbs of memory serving 1500 users.
>
> i am a little concern in the way that the exchange servers at site 1 will 
> support all the MAPI connections thats why we are thinking that adding a 
> FE in the second site may reduce the overload in the exchange central 
> servers
>
> regards
>

date: Mon, 12 Mar 2007 13:42:43 -0400   author:   Al Mulnick

Re: Outlook 2003 vs Outlook 2003 RPC/HTTP   

This is a really good article google "Client Network Traffic with
Microsoft
Exchange Server 2003" Take a look at this whitepaper as it goes over
performance analyses using RPC over HTTP, MAPI, OWA etc.


James Chong (MVP)

On Mar 12, 7:48 am, "Jesus Martin" 
wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> would like to confirm what the best option is, company has 2 sites, all the
> Exchange servers are in Site 1 and 500 users from site 2 will connect to
> those servers, communication between sites is ok (around) 8 Mbps, my
> question is, would make sense to deploy a front end in site 2 and make the
> users RPC/HTTP enabled? or MAPI with cache opcion enabled?
>
> mailbox server is 2 CPUs and 4 Gbs of memory serving 1500 users.
>
> i am a little concern in the way that the exchange servers at site 1 will
> support all the MAPI connections thats why we are thinking that adding a FE
> in the second site may reduce the overload in the exchange central servers
>
> regards

date: 13 Mar 2007 18:26:38 -0700   author:   Jamestechman