none
cas in different site then mailbox database

    Pertanyaan

  • I am working on doing and Exchange 2010 migration and so here is my setup, Main site and DR Site are different Active Directory sites.

    Main Site:

    Hardware load balancer that load balancers cas connections for server1 and server2

    Server1: Multi-role Server (mailbx, as, hub)

    Server2: cas\Hub transport server

    DR Site:

    DRServer: one multi-role server (mailbox, cas, hub)

    A Dag is setup between server1 and DRServer

    My boss now wants me to setup the databases in an active\active state, that is half the users in Database1 active in Main site and half on Database2 active on DR site. All users are phycially located in Main Site. my question is, is it ok to point the DRsites cas array to the cas servers physically and logically located in the main site. I dont want to point it to the DR cas server because there is only one and if it does down users will not be able to function. My goal would be to have all users connect to the load balanced IP, which would connect to the cas servers at the main site and then it will pull from the correct database. Do you users have to connect to a cas in the same AD site as there database? Are there any hub transport or other considerations i'm not thinking of here.  

    22 Juni 2012 15:08

Jawaban

  • You can actually do that yes. Outlook can leverage that. ( Why would have want active databases in a "DR Site" though?)

    Some of that logic can be manipulated in 2010 SP2 RU3;.

    See:

    RPC Client Access Cross-Site Connectivity Changes

    22 Juni 2012 15:17
  • Unless you plan the same type of failover for the rest of your services (CAS, HUB, DNS, etc) then I would recommend against this. You can always place temp mailbox stores on those servers to do any testing as your manager is asking for.

    If you want the databases to failover automatically you just need to be sure that the mailbox servers are left in their default state of the "DatabaseCopyAutoActivationPolicy" setting which is "Unrestricted". This will allow the DAG to fail-over to the secondary site automatically as needed.


    Chris Morgan

    22 Juni 2012 19:35
  • I would highly recommend against this. there are things you need to take into account with a 2 node DAG (or at least that is what it looks like you have) And one of the servers running active on the other side. There will be a lot of traffic as well as you need to think through failover scenarios. Plus scoping users to connect to the correct CAS and several other things will complicate this. I personally think you will have some unexpected behaviour that may not work out well. matter of fact I know you will.


    Mitch Roberson MCM Exchange 2010|MCITP:Enterprise Server Admin, Messaging 2007, 2010 |MCTS:OCS with Voice Achievement |MCT |MCSE 2000\2003 |MCSE Messaging 2000\2003

    22 Juni 2012 22:15

Semua Balasan

  • You can actually do that yes. Outlook can leverage that. ( Why would have want active databases in a "DR Site" though?)

    Some of that logic can be manipulated in 2010 SP2 RU3;.

    See:

    RPC Client Access Cross-Site Connectivity Changes

    22 Juni 2012 15:17
  • Personally i dont think the DR server should be used unless there is an issue with the main server. but my manager feels that it will be a good way to consistenly test the DR server, and also to spread the load and actually use the DR hardware. We have a very fast link between the main site and DR. If the DR link or server goes down the dag should move the users on the DR site over to the main site and since they are already connected to cas server at the main site they shouldn't notice much at least that is the hope.
    22 Juni 2012 15:25
  • Personally i dont think the DR server should be used unless there is an issue with the main server. but my manager feels that it will be a good way to consistenly test the DR server, and also to spread the load and actually use the DR hardware. We have a very fast link between the main site and DR. If the DR link or server goes down the dag should move the users on the DR site over to the main site and since they are already connected to cas server at the main site they shouldn't notice much at least that is the hope.

    In that case, I would not call it a DR site :) and consider it a HA peer and put another CAS/HUB in that site to match the other.

    22 Juni 2012 17:07
  • Unless you plan the same type of failover for the rest of your services (CAS, HUB, DNS, etc) then I would recommend against this. You can always place temp mailbox stores on those servers to do any testing as your manager is asking for.

    If you want the databases to failover automatically you just need to be sure that the mailbox servers are left in their default state of the "DatabaseCopyAutoActivationPolicy" setting which is "Unrestricted". This will allow the DAG to fail-over to the secondary site automatically as needed.


    Chris Morgan

    22 Juni 2012 19:35
  • I would highly recommend against this. there are things you need to take into account with a 2 node DAG (or at least that is what it looks like you have) And one of the servers running active on the other side. There will be a lot of traffic as well as you need to think through failover scenarios. Plus scoping users to connect to the correct CAS and several other things will complicate this. I personally think you will have some unexpected behaviour that may not work out well. matter of fact I know you will.


    Mitch Roberson MCM Exchange 2010|MCITP:Enterprise Server Admin, Messaging 2007, 2010 |MCTS:OCS with Voice Achievement |MCT |MCSE 2000\2003 |MCSE Messaging 2000\2003

    22 Juni 2012 22:15