Three physical site resiliency designs (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Microsoft Exchange 2010] >> High Availability



Message


chris meehan -> Three physical site resiliency designs (2.May2011 6:50:46 PM)

Everything that I read about site resiliency and high availability seems to reference a maximum of two phyiscal sites using a MS best practice of two DAGs each containing four mailbox servers with file share witness for full resiliency as part of the design to sustain quorum in the event of a WAN link failure.

Has anyone attempted or came across any documentation / guides or something that states it is not supported when three phsyical sites geographically dispersed come into play?

Heres a scenario; two physical locations located on continent A using the two physical sites in an Active /Active  / two DAG / four server in each dag model. When introducing the third site that is on continent B, create yet another DAG with three servers two of which reside on continet B and a third on continent A, acting as a lagged database copy but also to provide quorum should the WAN link go down since continent B is providing mail services to users.

Hopefully that makes sense, if not I will clarify further.

Thanks in advance for any thoughts or links..

Chris




Nithin_KS2000 -> RE: Three physical site resiliency designs (31.May2011 1:26:52 AM)

So the Continent Aís DAG is good with servers in SiteA(1) and Site A(2). The question is on Continent Bís DAG which is having two servers in Site B(1) and one server in Site A(1). This sounds good to me. Is the question on supportability or if the design sounds good ? What is the roundtrip latency between sites ?




Page: [1]