I want my data available and cause minimal interruption to users in case of
network, hardware failure or even db goesd down.
The problem here is that I have Win2K AD and Exch 2000 Server.
VSS and RSG are Exchange 2003 services. That means it would be worthed
upgrade to Win2003/Exchange 2003 then ?
> Clustering is a possibility for a solution but does not solve everything.
> For example, clustering won't help you restore service if the db goes
> corrupt on you. What then?
> Highly available requires some definition to be properly achieved. When
> say 'Highly Available' are you referring to everyone? Data? Service?
> If you only want to keep service highly available, then RSG's are the way
> go along with a properly crafted expectation of availability. If you need
> the data, then VSS and possibly some geo-clustering may be the way to go
> your situation. For many, 1 mile wouldn't be worth doing in case of
> disaster recovery planning since things can happen in a 1 mile radius more
> readily than, say if a continent were between them.
> > I read
> > and I have some questions on how setup high available mailbox servers in
> > environment.
> > On MyMain building I have 1 Exchange 2000 connector and my (2) Exchange
> > mailbox servers.
> > A mile away on another building (Building 2, connected via fiber) I have
> > standby server that I could use to restore one of the mailbox in case of
> > failure. However restoring Exchange would take several hours. The idea
> > that this Building2 has independent network connectivity and power from
> > MyMainBuilding and I would like to take advantage of that and setup
> > 'hot' mailbox servers there.
> > What would be the best way to implement a highly available mailbox
> > in Building 2 ? Would clustering work well in my situation since
> > will be far apart from each other ?