Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Two servers with Hub Transport + Client Acces (Exch 2010)

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Two servers with Hub Transport + Client Acces (Exch 2010)

    Hello,

    I am planning the deploymnt of a Exchange 2010 topology from scratch, in my Active Directory.

    I have read about it, the pre-requirements, and many other things.

    But I don't have clear if I can deploy this topology:

    -two servers with the Hub Transport and the client access roles with NLB.

    -two servers with the Mailbox role, with DAG to provide redundancy.


    As far as I know, the Mailbox role must be separated from the others, if I want to put into place DAG, which I indeed want.

    But I am doubtful as to whether or not I can put the two roles (Hub + Client Access) in the same servers, and moreover, to put then in a two-node NLB configuration.

    Thanks in advance. I am new to 2010.
    -
    Madrid (Spain).

  • #2
    Re: Two servers with Hub Transport + Client Acces (Exch 2010)

    As you say, the MBX role is not compatible with NLB as a DAG uses some clustering functionality

    There is no problem putting the CAS/HT roles on servers in an NLB cluster -- IIRC (been a long time) only the CAS role uses the NLB functionality, HT uses shadow transport queues.

    Remember that any SSL certificates should be on both CAS servers and you will need some sort of routing to map your public IP to the "up" server
    Tom Jones
    MCT, MCSE (2000:Security & 2003), MCSA:Security & Messaging, MCDBA, MCDST, MCITP(EA, EMA, SA, EDA, ES, CS), MCTS, MCP, Sec+
    PhD, MSc, FIAP, MIITT
    IT Trainer / Consultant
    Ossian Ltd
    Scotland

    ** Remember to give credit where credit is due and leave reputation points where appropriate **

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Two servers with Hub Transport + Client Acces (Exch 2010)

      Wow, that was accurate.

      Thanks Ossian! .

      I am reading in Microsoft documentation the recommended RAM for the virtual machines...8 GB....Gosh, and my physical machine has 8 GB, but to put into place several virtual machines, not just one.

      Is it too low if I put 1 GB RAM for every one of the 4 virtual machines?

      It is a lab environment, maybe it is not that critical?.

      THANKS A LOT ONCE MORE !!
      -
      Madrid (Spain).

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Two servers with Hub Transport + Client Acces (Exch 2010)

        For a lab environment you can get away with murder (bad memories of running the Exchange 2010 training on 4Gb laptops (about 6 VMs running)

        If you can use an SSD for storage, and dynamic memory on the VMs, you should be OK, but if you can provide more memory for the VMs, performance will be much better
        Tom Jones
        MCT, MCSE (2000:Security & 2003), MCSA:Security & Messaging, MCDBA, MCDST, MCITP(EA, EMA, SA, EDA, ES, CS), MCTS, MCP, Sec+
        PhD, MSc, FIAP, MIITT
        IT Trainer / Consultant
        Ossian Ltd
        Scotland

        ** Remember to give credit where credit is due and leave reputation points where appropriate **

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Two servers with Hub Transport + Client Acces (Exch 2010)

          Thanks Ossian.

          Actually I thought VMWare allocated memory dynamically. I am not very expert on VMWare, I know it well, two years working with Workstation, but I hadn't need dynamic memory allocation ever before.

          I am googling it but I find things such as paging, ballooning...how could I turn on the dynamic memory?, if that is not too much to ask.

          Thanks!
          -
          Madrid (Spain).

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Two servers with Hub Transport + Client Acces (Exch 2010)

            If you are at the design stage then that is good news, because the advice to have separate hub/cas and mailbox servers isn't great.

            Almost every deployment I do has all three roles on the same server. I never use WNLB, and the Exchange product team doesn't recommend it. If you remove WNLB there is no need to have separate Hub/CAS. Instead, put the money towards a proper load balancer, which will be more reliable and easier to setup than WNLB.

            8gb of RAM for a LAB machine? RAM is cheap, get it up 32gb or more. 1gb of RAM will barely make Windows run, let alone Exchange, which is very memory heavy.

            Simon.
            --
            Simon Butler
            Exchange MVP

            Blog: http://blog.sembee.co.uk/
            More Exchange Content: http://exchange.sembee.info/
            Exchange Resources List: http://exbpa.com/
            In the UK? Hire me: http://www.sembee.co.uk/

            Sembee is a registered trademark, used here with permission.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Two servers with Hub Transport + Client Acces (Exch 2010)

              Thanks Sembee.

              I am in a lab environment and my only machines:
              - 8 GB RAM laptop.
              - 2 GB RAM desktop.

              My deployment:

              - 2 CAS+HUB+NLB Servers.
              - 2 Mailbox Servers. (DAG group)

              For my lab, I cannot afford a load balancer other than WNLB, but it is true that I had read your recommendation regarding a thrid-party strong reliable load balancer.
              --------------------------------------------------------
              I came into another question:

              I already did all the prerequisites in the 4 machines (Microsoft Filter, a patch, some Windows Features...) and in the domain (Setup /PrepareAD /organizationname:mydomain.eu )

              but I wonder: Once this is done, Can I install two Exchange servers at the same time.

              I am installing at this very moment "Exchange1", so, Could I install also "Exchange2" now or better wait until Exchange1 is finished ?

              THANKS A LOT IN ADVANCE!
              Last edited by loureed4; 22nd July 2014, 09:28. Reason: Clarification
              -
              Madrid (Spain).

              Comment

              Working...
              X