Recently, our 14 GB IS was corrupted, resulting in two substantial periods
of downtime (over one day each time). Restoring that size of a database
took about 5 hours, and repairing the database took about 7 hours. So ....
we are very quickly investigating what options are available to improve
If you had to plan for an Exchange environment for, say, 650 users .... and
had decided that a 50 MB limit was sufficient ..... what sort of environment
would you setup?
1. A clustered solution ..... meaning two effectively identical servers
housing all users.
2. Two servers .... each housing 325 users.
Clustering sounds like the better solution to me to minimize downtime, and
to avoid the increased administration of maintaining users on two separate
servers. However, I have had no experience with clustering .... so I assume
the big disadvantage would be cost?
However, it doesn't sound like Microsoft Cluster Server would "save us" in
the event of database corruption .... from what I understand, the two
servers would share the same disk. Would something like Octopus save us in
the event of a database corruption?
Just looking for a few opinions here .... and I realize a lot depends on how
much we're willing to spend. If you had to make a recommendation to your
boss on how it should be setup .... and assume he/she said that cost was not
as much an issue as reliability .... what sort of setup would you
Thanks in advance.
Sr. Systems Analyst, CNE, MCP