Exchange Server - From LAN to WAN.....

Exchange Server - From LAN to WAN.....

Post by Gavin Fau » Fri, 01 Dec 2000 04:00:00



We are currently planning to install Exchange Server, moving from a LAN to a
WAN. Currently we use Exchange 5.5 SP3 with around 60 mailbox's. When we
move to the WAN, there will be 6 branches with between 20-40 new mailboxes
at each branch. Our WAN is based on frame relay, with pipes around 64K.
Would we be better off creating Exchange Servers at each branch that join
the site at our headoffice, with local users mailboxes on the appropriate
server, or run all the mailboxes from headoffice over the WAN. How much
bandwidth does an open Exchange mailbox take over a WAN/LAN? Any pointers as
to which is the best route to take and why. Currently we feel the server per
branch all connecting to head office would be better, but are being told by
our parent company that we should just use one Exchange Server (so that they
can also use it, adding more mailboxes over the WAN, probably in the
hundreds)...

Any advice appreciated. We are also deploying a CRM solution that will
integrate heavily with Exchange (either Siebel or Pivatol). Also, would it
be better to deploy Exchange 2000 now, or deploy 5.5 for the WAN and upgrade
later next year......

Thank you...

 
 
 

Exchange Server - From LAN to WAN.....

Post by Jack Packe » Fri, 01 Dec 2000 04:00:00


Siebel sux.
64K between sites on your wan really sux.


Quote:> We are currently planning to install Exchange Server, moving from a LAN to
a
> WAN. Currently we use Exchange 5.5 SP3 with around 60 mailbox's. When we
> move to the WAN, there will be 6 branches with between 20-40 new mailboxes
> at each branch. Our WAN is based on frame relay, with pipes around 64K.
> Would we be better off creating Exchange Servers at each branch that join
> the site at our headoffice, with local users mailboxes on the appropriate
> server, or run all the mailboxes from headoffice over the WAN. How much
> bandwidth does an open Exchange mailbox take over a WAN/LAN? Any pointers
as
> to which is the best route to take and why. Currently we feel the server
per
> branch all connecting to head office would be better, but are being told
by
> our parent company that we should just use one Exchange Server (so that
they
> can also use it, adding more mailboxes over the WAN, probably in the
> hundreds)...

> Any advice appreciated. We are also deploying a CRM solution that will
> integrate heavily with Exchange (either Siebel or Pivatol). Also, would it
> be better to deploy Exchange 2000 now, or deploy 5.5 for the WAN and
upgrade
> later next year......

> Thank you...


 
 
 

Exchange Server - From LAN to WAN.....

Post by Gavin Fau » Sat, 02 Dec 2000 04:00:00


I agree on both counts. We have two 2meg connections from our head office to
our frame relay provider, but the links between the frame relay provider and
our branches our presently only 32K commited and 64K burst....

Any one else care to input?


> Siebel sux.
> 64K between sites on your wan really sux.



> > We are currently planning to install Exchange Server, moving from a LAN
to
> a
> > WAN. Currently we use Exchange 5.5 SP3 with around 60 mailbox's. When we
> > move to the WAN, there will be 6 branches with between 20-40 new
mailboxes
> > at each branch. Our WAN is based on frame relay, with pipes around 64K.
> > Would we be better off creating Exchange Servers at each branch that
join
> > the site at our headoffice, with local users mailboxes on the
appropriate
> > server, or run all the mailboxes from headoffice over the WAN. How much
> > bandwidth does an open Exchange mailbox take over a WAN/LAN? Any
pointers
> as
> > to which is the best route to take and why. Currently we feel the server
> per
> > branch all connecting to head office would be better, but are being told
> by
> > our parent company that we should just use one Exchange Server (so that
> they
> > can also use it, adding more mailboxes over the WAN, probably in the
> > hundreds)...

> > Any advice appreciated. We are also deploying a CRM solution that will
> > integrate heavily with Exchange (either Siebel or Pivatol). Also, would
it
> > be better to deploy Exchange 2000 now, or deploy 5.5 for the WAN and
> upgrade
> > later next year......

> > Thank you...

 
 
 

Exchange Server - From LAN to WAN.....

Post by Ray Schlosbo » Sat, 02 Dec 2000 04:00:00


32k committed w/ 64k burst really sucks.  You could try to implement it and
then let the results speak for themselves.  Make sure you warn management
first so you can say "told you so" later.

If you can upgrade the links to even a 128k connection, one server at
central site should suffice.  One of our offices has over 100 users, and
they're connecting over a T1 (VPN thru Internet) to our server, and
performance is pretty good.


> I agree on both counts. We have two 2meg connections from our head office
to
> our frame relay provider, but the links between the frame relay provider
and
> our branches our presently only 32K commited and 64K burst....

> Any one else care to input?



> > Siebel sux.
> > 64K between sites on your wan really sux.



> > > We are currently planning to install Exchange Server, moving from a
LAN
> to
> > a
> > > WAN. Currently we use Exchange 5.5 SP3 with around 60 mailbox's. When
we
> > > move to the WAN, there will be 6 branches with between 20-40 new
> mailboxes
> > > at each branch. Our WAN is based on frame relay, with pipes around
64K.
> > > Would we be better off creating Exchange Servers at each branch that
> join
> > > the site at our headoffice, with local users mailboxes on the
> appropriate
> > > server, or run all the mailboxes from headoffice over the WAN. How
much
> > > bandwidth does an open Exchange mailbox take over a WAN/LAN? Any
> pointers
> > as
> > > to which is the best route to take and why. Currently we feel the
server
> > per
> > > branch all connecting to head office would be better, but are being
told
> > by
> > > our parent company that we should just use one Exchange Server (so
that
> > they
> > > can also use it, adding more mailboxes over the WAN, probably in the
> > > hundreds)...

> > > Any advice appreciated. We are also deploying a CRM solution that will
> > > integrate heavily with Exchange (either Siebel or Pivatol). Also,
would
> it
> > > be better to deploy Exchange 2000 now, or deploy 5.5 for the WAN and
> > upgrade
> > > later next year......

> > > Thank you...

 
 
 

1. Exchange Server - From LAN to WAN.....

We are currently planning to install Exchange Server, moving from a LAN to a
WAN. Currently we use Exchange 5.5 SP3 with around 60 mailbox's. When we
move to the WAN, there will be 6 branches with between 20-40 new mailboxes
at each branch. Our WAN is based on frame relay, with pipes around 64K.
Would we be better off creating Exchange Servers at each branch that join
the site at our headoffice, with local users mailboxes on the appropriate
server, or run all the mailboxes from headoffice over the WAN. How much
bandwidth does an open Exchange mailbox take over a WAN/LAN? Any pointers as
to which is the best route to take and why. Currently we feel the server per
branch all connecting to head office would be better, but are being told by
our parent company that we should just use one Exchange Server (so that they
can also use it, adding more mailboxes over the WAN, probably in the
hundreds)...

Any advice appreciated. We are also deploying a CRM solution that will
integrate heavily with Exchange (either Siebel or Pivatol). Also, would it
be better to deploy Exchange 2000 now, or deploy 5.5 for the WAN and upgrade
later next year......

Thank you...

2. Want to send email programmatically

3. Active Server Pages for Outlook Web Access

4. EXCHANGE-Client and LAN-to-LAN over WAN-Router using short hold mode

5. Looking for an exchange scripting resource.

6. Exchange seems to be linked to DNS on WAN even when all on LAN

7. User32 Error

8. who can we take a different user account between lan and wan user in exchange 5.5

9. Exchange seems to be linked to DNS on WAN even when all on LAN

10. IM on LAN/WAN/VPN

11. LAN & WAN setup