Exchange 2003 design for 2 sites

Exchange 2003 design for 2 sites

Can someone please give an advice about the designâ¦
We are a small organization with:
â¢	One main office with 50 users and
â¢	One branch office with 5 users.
We have established site-to-site VPN between the two offices.
Currently we have one Exchange 2003 server located at our main office. From 
time to time the Internet connection at our main office is down and our 
requirement is colleagues from the branch office to work continuously with 
the Public Folders.  A decision was made to put another server (both Domain 
Controller and Exchange server) at the branch office on which we will have 
Public Folder replica. Also the mailboxes of the users that work in the 
branch office will be moved on the Exchange server located at their site. 
From the Active Directory perspective, we consider to have one Domain with 
two sites.
Both Exchange servers will be in the same Exchange organization. 
What about routing groups? Should I put the servers in the same or in a 
different routing group? When the Internet connection at our main office is 
down, is there a way that the colleagues at the branch office continue to 
both receive and send e-mail?
Thanks in advance,
Stefan

date: Fri, 7 Mar 2008 02:16:03 -0800 author: Stefan

Re: Exchange 2003 design for 2 sites

On Fri, 7 Mar 2008 02:16:03 -0800, Stefan
 wrote:

>Can someone please give an advice about the design
>We are a small organization with:
>	One main office with 50 users and
>	One branch office with 5 users.
>We have established site-to-site VPN between the two offices.
>Currently we have one Exchange 2003 server located at our main office. From 
>time to time the Internet connection at our main office is down and our 
>requirement is colleagues from the branch office to work continuously with 
>the Public Folders.  A decision was made to put another server (both Domain 
>Controller and Exchange server) at the branch office on which we will have 
>Public Folder replica. Also the mailboxes of the users that work in the 
>branch office will be moved on the Exchange server located at their site. 
>From the Active Directory perspective, we consider to have one Domain with 
>two sites.
>Both Exchange servers will be in the same Exchange organization. 
>What about routing groups? Should I put the servers in the same or in a 
>different routing group? When the Internet connection at our main office is 
>down, is there a way that the colleagues at the branch office continue to 
>both receive and send e-mail?
>Thanks in advance,
>Stefan

Sounds like an expensive way to handle a failure that has nothing to
do with Exchange. Like buying a new car because you didn't like the
wheels on the old one.

One routing group. The branch server will still send to the Internet
when the main office is unreachable. Talk to your ISP about having the
branch office set up as a secondary MX record so that if your main is
offline mail will come into the branch office and be either delivered
to those users in the branch or queued up for those users who have
mailboxes in the temporarily unreachable head office.

date: Fri, 07 Mar 2008 08:27:52 -0500 author: Mark Arnold [MVP]

Re: Exchange 2003 design for 2 sites

I'd have to agree, that's a for 5 users.  You might be better off clustering 
, or hot standby/disasterrevoery install/dialtone & restore from backup, in 
the main office and looking at redundat ISP connections.

If you're going down the route you detailed, then one routing group.  Do 
have your ISP set up redundant MX record for the second server (inbound). 
Do use an SMTP connector with both servers as bridgeheads (outbound).

.

"Mark Arnold [MVP]"  wrote in message 
news:0jg2t35ue7gmqbov9hf8r72ujp02qhn4fa@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 7 Mar 2008 02:16:03 -0800, Stefan
>  wrote:
>
>>Can someone please give an advice about the design.
>>We are a small organization with:
>>. One main office with 50 users and
>>. One branch office with 5 users.
>>We have established site-to-site VPN between the two offices.
>>Currently we have one Exchange 2003 server located at our main office. 
>>From
>>time to time the Internet connection at our main office is down and our
>>requirement is colleagues from the branch office to work continuously with
>>the Public Folders.  A decision was made to put another server (both 
>>Domain
>>Controller and Exchange server) at the branch office on which we will have
>>Public Folder replica. Also the mailboxes of the users that work in the
>>branch office will be moved on the Exchange server located at their site.
>>From the Active Directory perspective, we consider to have one Domain with
>>two sites.
>>Both Exchange servers will be in the same Exchange organization.
>>What about routing groups? Should I put the servers in the same or in a
>>different routing group? When the Internet connection at our main office 
>>is
>>down, is there a way that the colleagues at the branch office continue to
>>both receive and send e-mail?
>>Thanks in advance,
>>Stefan
>
> Sounds like an expensive way to handle a failure that has nothing to
> do with Exchange. Like buying a new car because you didn't like the
> wheels on the old one.
>
> One routing group. The branch server will still send to the Internet
> when the main office is unreachable. Talk to your ISP about having the
> branch office set up as a secondary MX record so that if your main is
> offline mail will come into the branch office and be either delivered
> to those users in the branch or queued up for those users who have
> mailboxes in the temporarily unreachable head office.

date: Sat, 8 Mar 2008 14:21:14 -0800 author: John Fullbright fjohn@donotspamnetappdotcom

Re: Exchange 2003 design for 2 sites

Mark and John,

You both were very helpful. Thanks a lot.

Best regards,
Stefan

"John Fullbright" wrote:

> I'd have to agree, that's a for 5 users.  You might be better off clustering 
> , or hot standby/disasterrevoery install/dialtone & restore from backup, in 
> the main office and looking at redundat ISP connections.
> 
> If you're going down the route you detailed, then one routing group.  Do 
> have your ISP set up redundant MX record for the second server (inbound). 
> Do use an SMTP connector with both servers as bridgeheads (outbound).
> 
> ..
> 
> "Mark Arnold [MVP]"  wrote in message 
> news:0jg2t35ue7gmqbov9hf8r72ujp02qhn4fa@4ax.com...
> > On Fri, 7 Mar 2008 02:16:03 -0800, Stefan
> >  wrote:
> >
> >>Can someone please give an advice about the design.
> >>We are a small organization with:
> >>. One main office with 50 users and
> >>. One branch office with 5 users.
> >>We have established site-to-site VPN between the two offices.
> >>Currently we have one Exchange 2003 server located at our main office. 
> >>From
> >>time to time the Internet connection at our main office is down and our
> >>requirement is colleagues from the branch office to work continuously with
> >>the Public Folders.  A decision was made to put another server (both 
> >>Domain
> >>Controller and Exchange server) at the branch office on which we will have
> >>Public Folder replica. Also the mailboxes of the users that work in the
> >>branch office will be moved on the Exchange server located at their site.
> >>From the Active Directory perspective, we consider to have one Domain with
> >>two sites.
> >>Both Exchange servers will be in the same Exchange organization.
> >>What about routing groups? Should I put the servers in the same or in a
> >>different routing group? When the Internet connection at our main office 
> >>is
> >>down, is there a way that the colleagues at the branch office continue to
> >>both receive and send e-mail?
> >>Thanks in advance,
> >>Stefan
> >
> > Sounds like an expensive way to handle a failure that has nothing to
> > do with Exchange. Like buying a new car because you didn't like the
> > wheels on the old one.
> >
> > One routing group. The branch server will still send to the Internet
> > when the main office is unreachable. Talk to your ISP about having the
> > branch office set up as a secondary MX record so that if your main is
> > offline mail will come into the branch office and be either delivered
> > to those users in the branch or queued up for those users who have
> > mailboxes in the temporarily unreachable head office. 
> 
> 
>

date: Sun, 9 Mar 2008 04:07:00 -0700 author: Stefan

Re: Exchange 2003 design for 2 sites

Is it possible to have redundant links. If one link goes down the other 
provides connecivity. This common where users are centralised in one location.


"Stefan" wrote:

> Mark and John,
> 
> You both were very helpful. Thanks a lot.
> 
> Best regards,
> Stefan
> 
> "John Fullbright" wrote:
> 
> > I'd have to agree, that's a for 5 users.  You might be better off clustering 
> > , or hot standby/disasterrevoery install/dialtone & restore from backup, in 
> > the main office and looking at redundat ISP connections.
> > 
> > If you're going down the route you detailed, then one routing group.  Do 
> > have your ISP set up redundant MX record for the second server (inbound). 
> > Do use an SMTP connector with both servers as bridgeheads (outbound).
> > 
> > ..
> > 
> > "Mark Arnold [MVP]"  wrote in message 
> > news:0jg2t35ue7gmqbov9hf8r72ujp02qhn4fa@4ax.com...
> > > On Fri, 7 Mar 2008 02:16:03 -0800, Stefan
> > >  wrote:
> > >
> > >>Can someone please give an advice about the design.
> > >>We are a small organization with:
> > >>. One main office with 50 users and
> > >>. One branch office with 5 users.
> > >>We have established site-to-site VPN between the two offices.
> > >>Currently we have one Exchange 2003 server located at our main office. 
> > >>From
> > >>time to time the Internet connection at our main office is down and our
> > >>requirement is colleagues from the branch office to work continuously with
> > >>the Public Folders.  A decision was made to put another server (both 
> > >>Domain
> > >>Controller and Exchange server) at the branch office on which we will have
> > >>Public Folder replica. Also the mailboxes of the users that work in the
> > >>branch office will be moved on the Exchange server located at their site.
> > >>From the Active Directory perspective, we consider to have one Domain with
> > >>two sites.
> > >>Both Exchange servers will be in the same Exchange organization.
> > >>What about routing groups? Should I put the servers in the same or in a
> > >>different routing group? When the Internet connection at our main office 
> > >>is
> > >>down, is there a way that the colleagues at the branch office continue to
> > >>both receive and send e-mail?
> > >>Thanks in advance,
> > >>Stefan
> > >
> > > Sounds like an expensive way to handle a failure that has nothing to
> > > do with Exchange. Like buying a new car because you didn't like the
> > > wheels on the old one.
> > >
> > > One routing group. The branch server will still send to the Internet
> > > when the main office is unreachable. Talk to your ISP about having the
> > > branch office set up as a secondary MX record so that if your main is
> > > offline mail will come into the branch office and be either delivered
> > > to those users in the branch or queued up for those users who have
> > > mailboxes in the temporarily unreachable head office. 
> > 
> > 
> >

date: Wed, 19 Mar 2008 04:36:01 -0700 author: Andrew Sword [MVP]

Re: Exchange 2003 design for 2 sites

Redundant links are great, right up until you find that the telco has
done the job on the cheap and you're piped into the same exchange. Or
you go with a second telco who, because of the area, just contract all
their work to the first telco who do the job and pipe it all into the
same exchange again.
I saw a bank do this in a call centre a while back. Three links, each
leaving trhough a separate duct on separate sides of the building.
Follow the ducts and they all ended up at the same BT junction box.
Not clever and a staggering waste of money.

date: Wed, 19 Mar 2008 08:14:48 -0400 author: Mark Arnold [MVP]

Re: Exchange 2003 design for 2 sites

Or the telcos merge ..  It just takes some care selecting telcos for 
redundant links.


"Mark Arnold [MVP]"  wrote in message 
news:ao02u3djlt448hqg6a30sl5cft5o26j305@4ax.com...
> Redundant links are great, right up until you find that the telco has
> done the job on the cheap and you're piped into the same exchange. Or
> you go with a second telco who, because of the area, just contract all
> their work to the first telco who do the job and pipe it all into the
> same exchange again.
> I saw a bank do this in a call centre a while back. Three links, each
> leaving trhough a separate duct on separate sides of the building.
> Follow the ducts and they all ended up at the same BT junction box.
> Not clever and a staggering waste of money.
>

date: Wed, 19 Mar 2008 10:08:37 -0700 author: John Fullbright fjohn@donotspamnetappdotcom