CAS/HT/MB all on same server? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Microsoft Exchange 2010] >> Installation



Message


wardog25 -> CAS/HT/MB all on same server? (15.Jun.2011 3:27:13 PM)

When we upgraded to Exchange 2007, Microsoft insisted you should NOT have the CAS and the Mailbox server on the same box.

Has that recommendation gone away with 2010? Will anything be hurt if I put CAS/HT/Mailbox all on the same server? We only have about 1000 mailboxes, by the way.




rgaudet -> RE: CAS/HT/MB all on same server? (16.Jun.2011 12:08:27 PM)

We have around 650 email users and I built my solution based on a 1000 user scenario using HP's sizing utility for Exchange 2010. I know at 1000, the util let me choose to have a multirole solution on one server. I personally did two virtual machines on separate servers with each VM meeting the hardware specs recommended by the utililty for high availability with DAG, CAS Array, and using a hardware load balancers from Barracuda.

I just ran a few scenarios and even at 1500 users, the utility still let me choose a multirole install on one server. I think once you get beyond that, a separation of roles is for sure. Have you run through the Microsoft mailbox calculator yet? http://blogs.technet.com/b/exchange/archive/2011/06/06/v17-2-of-the-e2010-mailbox-role-requirements-calculator-released.aspx




wardog25 -> RE: CAS/HT/MB all on same server? (16.Jun.2011 4:21:17 PM)

So you have two servers, each with CAS, hub transport, and mailbox roles on them? We have a hardware load balancer, so perhaps that would be a good solution for us. I just wanted to make sure that CAS and mailbox roles could be on the same server in 2010 (in 2007 they couldn't be on the same box without causing issues)

Thanks.




rgaudet -> RE: CAS/HT/MB all on same server? (16.Jun.2011 6:23:52 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: wardog25

So you have two servers, each with CAS, hub transport, and mailbox roles on them? We have a hardware load balancer, so perhaps that would be a good solution for us. I just wanted to make sure that CAS and mailbox roles could be on the same server in 2010 (in 2007 they couldn't be on the same box without causing issues)

Thanks.


Yep, the hardware load balancers spread the load for CAS to the CAS Array as well as Hub Transport for inbound SMTP connections. I had already done my VMs that way when the Microsoft Team released supporting DAG on a Hype-V cluster now. So I have a two node Hyper-V cluster, but the Exchange VMs aren't part of the cluster, they are just a VM on each server. Also, you can spread your databases across your servers with DAG so that, for example, one database is "active" on one server, and another database is "active" on the server (with their respective opposite servers hold "passive" copies...spreads the database load). Just one more note though, in stating that I have a multirole install on each VM, that does not include Unified Messaging. I know that role is also now supported as a VM, I'm still deciding on whether I'll do that one virtual or physical.

Hope I helped.




de.blackman -> RE: CAS/HT/MB all on same server? (17.Jun.2011 11:32:25 AM)

Microsoft definitely supports running the CAS, hub transport and mailbox role on the same box in both Exchange 2007 and 2010! What they say is that you should not implement DAG with CAS network load balancing. Instead you should use a hardware load balancer because DAG and NLB are not supported on the same server.

http://www.howexchangeworks.com/2009/12/can-i-load-balance-cas-after-installing.html
http://www.msexchange.org/articles_tutorials/exchange-server-2007/planning-architecture/uncovering-new-rpc-client-access-service-exchange-2010-part1.html




wardog25 -> RE: CAS/HT/MB all on same server? (17.Jun.2011 1:55:37 PM)

Thank you both for the assistance.

Much appreciated.




wardog25 -> RE: CAS/HT/MB all on same server? (20.Jun.2011 4:55:49 PM)

Now that I look at it, I think we were recommended to keep the CAS (2007) on a separate server because we have a sister organization that still uses Exchange 2003. Therefore, because of the coexistance, it was recommended CAS have its own box separate from the other roles.

Is this still a recommendation with 2010? I think the other organization that is connected to us will remain on 2003 for a while longer.




Page: [1]