Setting up second redundant AD controller / Exchange 2007 server

Hi,

We currently have one WS2008 server as a fileserver, domain controller, and
Exchange 2007 server (with all roles installed).

We're getting a second server to act as a redundant copy of the first one -
the main roles are Exchange and AD. How would I go around setting up a
redundant Exchange server, so it can replace the first one seamlessly in case
the first one goes down (I've got Failover Clustering installed?)

Max

Buy another box, build a CCR cluster, move all mailboxes to it from the
original server. But, if you have just one DC, I would be more concerned
about that being non-redundant than I would about the mailbox server being
non-redundant. An Exchange cluster can't have the hub transport or client
access roles, so if you want a clustered mailbox server, you need a minimum
of three servers, and I wouldn't have fewer than four, to make the DC, HT
and CAS all redundant.
--
Ed Crowley MVP
"There are seldom good technological solutions to behavioral problems."
..

"Nippoo" <> wrote in message
news:58C1E4F8-2D0F-4D99-B106-...
> Hi,
>
> We currently have one WS2008 server as a fileserver, domain controller,
> and
> Exchange 2007 server (with all roles installed).
>
> We're getting a second server to act as a redundant copy of the first
> one -
> the main roles are Exchange and AD. How would I go around setting up a
> redundant Exchange server, so it can replace the first one seamlessly in
> case
> the first one goes down (I've got Failover Clustering installed?)
>
> Max

Right. We're a small business, though, and having three (and definitely four)
servers would be a bit excessive. I'm happy to try out Hyper-V or similar,
but I think two physical servers is the limit for the moment! Does CCR only
work on failover clusters? I was thinking of: installing WS2008, promoting
the new server to a domain controller, then getting Exchange 2007 installed
and configuring it as a redundant HT and CAS, and mailbox server. Is there
any particular reason why CCR can't coexist with HT and CAS? Is there no way
of having a two-physical-server fully redundant setup?

"Ed Crowley [MVP]" wrote:

> Buy another box, build a CCR cluster, move all mailboxes to it from the
> original server. But, if you have just one DC, I would be more concerned
> about that being non-redundant than I would about the mailbox server being
> non-redundant. An Exchange cluster can't have the hub transport or client
> access roles, so if you want a clustered mailbox server, you need a minimum
> of three servers, and I wouldn't have fewer than four, to make the DC, HT
> and CAS all redundant.
> --
> Ed Crowley MVP
> "There are seldom good technological solutions to behavioral problems."
> ..
>
> "Nippoo" <> wrote in message
> news:58C1E4F8-2D0F-4D99-B106-...
> > Hi,
> >
> > We currently have one WS2008 server as a fileserver, domain controller,
> > and
> > Exchange 2007 server (with all roles installed).
> >
> > We're getting a second server to act as a redundant copy of the first
> > one -
> > the main roles are Exchange and AD. How would I go around setting up a
> > redundant Exchange server, so it can replace the first one seamlessly in
> > case
> > the first one goes down (I've got Failover Clustering installed?)
> >
> > Max
>
>

Right. We're a small business, though, and having three (and definitely four)
servers would be a bit excessive. I'm happy to try out Hyper-V or similar,
but I think two physical servers is the limit for the moment! Does CCR only
work on failover clusters? I was thinking of: installing WS2008, promoting
the new server to a domain controller, then getting Exchange 2007 installed
and configuring it as a redundant HT and CAS, and mailbox server. Is there
any particular reason why CCR can't coexist with HT and CAS? Is there no way
of having a two-physical-server fully redundant setup?

"Ed Crowley [MVP]" wrote:

> Buy another box, build a CCR cluster, move all mailboxes to it from the
> original server. But, if you have just one DC, I would be more concerned
> about that being non-redundant than I would about the mailbox server being
> non-redundant. An Exchange cluster can't have the hub transport or client
> access roles, so if you want a clustered mailbox server, you need a minimum
> of three servers, and I wouldn't have fewer than four, to make the DC, HT
> and CAS all redundant.
> --
> Ed Crowley MVP
> "There are seldom good technological solutions to behavioral problems."
> ..
>
> "Nippoo" <> wrote in message
> news:58C1E4F8-2D0F-4D99-B106-...
> > Hi,
> >
> > We currently have one WS2008 server as a fileserver, domain controller,
> > and
> > Exchange 2007 server (with all roles installed).
> >
> > We're getting a second server to act as a redundant copy of the first
> > one -
> > the main roles are Exchange and AD. How would I go around setting up a
> > redundant Exchange server, so it can replace the first one seamlessly in
> > case
> > the first one goes down (I've got Failover Clustering installed?)
> >
> > Max
>
>

I wouldn't mind having to do a bit of reconfiguration to set up the second
server - it wouldn't need to be completely automatically redundant, but if
the main server goes down I'd like to be able to remotely set the second one
up as an Exchange server. Could I not have LCR or something on a network
share?

"Nippoo" wrote:

> Right. We're a small business, though, and having three (and definitely four)
> servers would be a bit excessive. I'm happy to try out Hyper-V or similar,
> but I think two physical servers is the limit for the moment! Does CCR only
> work on failover clusters? I was thinking of: installing WS2008, promoting
> the new server to a domain controller, then getting Exchange 2007 installed
> and configuring it as a redundant HT and CAS, and mailbox server. Is there
> any particular reason why CCR can't coexist with HT and CAS? Is there no way
> of having a two-physical-server fully redundant setup?
>
> "Ed Crowley [MVP]" wrote:
>
> > Buy another box, build a CCR cluster, move all mailboxes to it from the
> > original server. But, if you have just one DC, I would be more concerned
> > about that being non-redundant than I would about the mailbox server being
> > non-redundant. An Exchange cluster can't have the hub transport or client
> > access roles, so if you want a clustered mailbox server, you need a minimum
> > of three servers, and I wouldn't have fewer than four, to make the DC, HT
> > and CAS all redundant.
> > --
> > Ed Crowley MVP
> > "There are seldom good technological solutions to behavioral problems."
> > ..
> >
> > "Nippoo" <> wrote in message
> > news:58C1E4F8-2D0F-4D99-B106-...
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > We currently have one WS2008 server as a fileserver, domain controller,
> > > and
> > > Exchange 2007 server (with all roles installed).
> > >
> > > We're getting a second server to act as a redundant copy of the first
> > > one -
> > > the main roles are Exchange and AD. How would I go around setting up a
> > > redundant Exchange server, so it can replace the first one seamlessly in
> > > case
> > > the first one goes down (I've got Failover Clustering installed?)
> > >
> > > Max
> >
> >

Your requirement for failover taking effect "seamlessly" requires a failover
cluster. SCR will let you ship logs between two servers--they don't have to
be identical hardware--but recovery using that is not "seamless". It
requires you to take a few steps. Still, if your Exchange server is
combined with your only domain controller, SCR isn't for you. I think you
ought to be looking at separating your servers into several, but doing it
with Hyper-V or VMware. Then you can do what you want with two physical
boxes as long as they have enough resources.
--
Ed Crowley MVP
"There are seldom good technological solutions to behavioral problems."
..

"Nippoo" <> wrote in message
news:FBFCFD2B-F68A-4C8E-83AA-...
>I wouldn't mind having to do a bit of reconfiguration to set up the second
> server - it wouldn't need to be completely automatically redundant, but if
> the main server goes down I'd like to be able to remotely set the second
> one
> up as an Exchange server. Could I not have LCR or something on a network
> share?
>
> "Nippoo" wrote:
>
>> Right. We're a small business, though, and having three (and definitely
>> four)
>> servers would be a bit excessive. I'm happy to try out Hyper-V or
>> similar,
>> but I think two physical servers is the limit for the moment! Does CCR
>> only
>> work on failover clusters? I was thinking of: installing WS2008,
>> promoting
>> the new server to a domain controller, then getting Exchange 2007
>> installed
>> and configuring it as a redundant HT and CAS, and mailbox server. Is
>> there
>> any particular reason why CCR can't coexist with HT and CAS? Is there no
>> way
>> of having a two-physical-server fully redundant setup?
>>
>> "Ed Crowley [MVP]" wrote:
>>
>> > Buy another box, build a CCR cluster, move all mailboxes to it from the
>> > original server. But, if you have just one DC, I would be more
>> > concerned
>> > about that being non-redundant than I would about the mailbox server
>> > being
>> > non-redundant. An Exchange cluster can't have the hub transport or
>> > client
>> > access roles, so if you want a clustered mailbox server, you need a
>> > minimum
>> > of three servers, and I wouldn't have fewer than four, to make the DC,
>> > HT
>> > and CAS all redundant.
>> > --
>> > Ed Crowley MVP
>> > "There are seldom good technological solutions to behavioral problems."
>> > ..
>> >
>> > "Nippoo" <> wrote in message
>> > news:58C1E4F8-2D0F-4D99-B106-...
>> > > Hi,
>> > >
>> > > We currently have one WS2008 server as a fileserver, domain
>> > > controller,
>> > > and
>> > > Exchange 2007 server (with all roles installed).
>> > >
>> > > We're getting a second server to act as a redundant copy of the first
>> > > one -
>> > > the main roles are Exchange and AD. How would I go around setting up
>> > > a
>> > > redundant Exchange server, so it can replace the first one seamlessly
>> > > in
>> > > case
>> > > the first one goes down (I've got Failover Clustering installed?)
>> > >
>> > > Max
>> >
>> >

"Nippoo" <> wrote in message
news:58C1E4F8-2D0F-4D99-B106-...
> Hi,
>
> We currently have one WS2008 server as a fileserver, domain controller,
> and
> Exchange 2007 server (with all roles installed).
>
> We're getting a second server to act as a redundant copy of the first
> one -
> the main roles are Exchange and AD. How would I go around setting up a
> redundant Exchange server, so it can replace the first one seamlessly in
> case
> the first one goes down (I've got Failover Clustering installed?)

As a small organization that really can't afford the number of servers
needed, you might want to check out Microsoft's Online Services which is a
hosted environment that is highly redundant and will likely save your
company money in the long run.

http://www.microsoft.com/online/default.mspx

Good luck.


--
Russ Kaufmann,
MVP, MCSE: Messaging and Security, MCT, MCITP, MCTS and other stuff

ClusterHelp.com, a Microsoft Certified Gold Partner
Web http://www.clusterhelp.com
Blog http://msmvps.com/clusterhelp

Ed,

Thanks for this. Seems a bit of an odd artificial limitation not to allow
those simultaneous Exchange roles - what it seems like I need to do, then, is:

Have two virtual servers per physical machine, with the primary one (per
machine) acting as a redundant domain controller and Exchange Server with the
HT and CAS roles - then have another virtual server on each machine, with the
two clustered, as redundant printservers, fileservers, and most importantly
clustered MBX stores. Like that, if any one physical server drops offline for
any reason, the remaining physical server would be completely redundant.

Would this work? I presume there's no problem with having two HT and CAS
servers (obviously they'll both have to have an external IP and I'll need to
add an extra MX record) - and the two clustered servers won't need to have
any external-facing IP...

Russ - thanks for your suggestion. Our company does a lot of moving large
files around across the network, and a fair bit of printing and suchlike -
we've investigated similar services but we're going to stick with hosting our
own at the moment!

Max

"Ed Crowley [MVP]" wrote:

> Your requirement for failover taking effect "seamlessly" requires a failover
> cluster. SCR will let you ship logs between two servers--they don't have to
> be identical hardware--but recovery using that is not "seamless". It
> requires you to take a few steps. Still, if your Exchange server is
> combined with your only domain controller, SCR isn't for you. I think you
> ought to be looking at separating your servers into several, but doing it
> with Hyper-V or VMware. Then you can do what you want with two physical
> boxes as long as they have enough resources.
> --
> Ed Crowley MVP
> "There are seldom good technological solutions to behavioral problems."
> ..
>
> "Nippoo" <> wrote in message
> news:FBFCFD2B-F68A-4C8E-83AA-...
> >I wouldn't mind having to do a bit of reconfiguration to set up the second
> > server - it wouldn't need to be completely automatically redundant, but if
> > the main server goes down I'd like to be able to remotely set the second
> > one
> > up as an Exchange server. Could I not have LCR or something on a network
> > share?
> >
> > "Nippoo" wrote:
> >
> >> Right. We're a small business, though, and having three (and definitely
> >> four)
> >> servers would be a bit excessive. I'm happy to try out Hyper-V or
> >> similar,
> >> but I think two physical servers is the limit for the moment! Does CCR
> >> only
> >> work on failover clusters? I was thinking of: installing WS2008,
> >> promoting
> >> the new server to a domain controller, then getting Exchange 2007
> >> installed
> >> and configuring it as a redundant HT and CAS, and mailbox server. Is
> >> there
> >> any particular reason why CCR can't coexist with HT and CAS? Is there no
> >> way
> >> of having a two-physical-server fully redundant setup?
> >>
> >> "Ed Crowley [MVP]" wrote:
> >>
> >> > Buy another box, build a CCR cluster, move all mailboxes to it from the
> >> > original server. But, if you have just one DC, I would be more
> >> > concerned
> >> > about that being non-redundant than I would about the mailbox server
> >> > being
> >> > non-redundant. An Exchange cluster can't have the hub transport or
> >> > client
> >> > access roles, so if you want a clustered mailbox server, you need a
> >> > minimum
> >> > of three servers, and I wouldn't have fewer than four, to make the DC,
> >> > HT
> >> > and CAS all redundant.
> >> > --
> >> > Ed Crowley MVP
> >> > "There are seldom good technological solutions to behavioral problems."
> >> > ..
> >> >
> >> > "Nippoo" <> wrote in message
> >> > news:58C1E4F8-2D0F-4D99-B106-...
> >> > > Hi,
> >> > >
> >> > > We currently have one WS2008 server as a fileserver, domain
> >> > > controller,
> >> > > and
> >> > > Exchange 2007 server (with all roles installed).
> >> > >
> >> > > We're getting a second server to act as a redundant copy of the first
> >> > > one -
> >> > > the main roles are Exchange and AD. How would I go around setting up
> >> > > a
> >> > > redundant Exchange server, so it can replace the first one seamlessly
> >> > > in
> >> > > case
> >> > > the first one goes down (I've got Failover Clustering installed?)
> >> > >
> >> > > Max
> >> >
> >> >
>
>

"Nippoo" <> wrote in message
news:3FE5CF06-1DF9-42AE-ACA0-...

> Have two virtual servers per physical machine, with the primary one (per
> machine) acting as a redundant domain controller and Exchange Server with
> the
> HT and CAS roles - then have another virtual server on each machine, with
> the
> two clustered, as redundant printservers, fileservers, and most
> importantly
> clustered MBX stores. Like that, if any one physical server drops offline
> for
> any reason, the remaining physical server would be completely redundant.
>
> Would this work? I presume there's no problem with having two HT and CAS
> servers (obviously they'll both have to have an external IP and I'll need
> to
> add an extra MX record) - and the two clustered servers won't need to have
> any external-facing IP...
>
> Russ - thanks for your suggestion. Our company does a lot of moving large
> files around across the network, and a fair bit of printing and suchlike -
> we've investigated similar services but we're going to stick with hosting
> our
> own at the moment!

Another option is to use the second server as an SCR target and that would
provide a second copy of your Exchange.

Having just two physical servers, and using virtualization might work for
you. The problem that you will probably face is the use of physical disks in
clustering. While Exchange CCR does not require a SAN, File and Print
clustering does require a SAN, either Fiber of iSCSI.

Good luck.


--
Russ Kaufmann,
MVP, MCSE: Messaging and Security, MCT, MCITP, MCTS and other stuff

ClusterHelp.com, a Microsoft Certified Gold Partner
Web http://www.clusterhelp.com
Blog http://msmvps.com/clusterhelp

That should be fine as long as you stay within the support guidelines.
--
Ed Crowley MVP
"There are seldom good technological solutions to behavioral problems."
..

"Nippoo" <> wrote in message
news:3FE5CF06-1DF9-42AE-ACA0-...
> Ed,
>
> Thanks for this. Seems a bit of an odd artificial limitation not to allow
> those simultaneous Exchange roles - what it seems like I need to do, then,
> is:
>
> Have two virtual servers per physical machine, with the primary one (per
> machine) acting as a redundant domain controller and Exchange Server with
> the
> HT and CAS roles - then have another virtual server on each machine, with
> the
> two clustered, as redundant printservers, fileservers, and most
> importantly
> clustered MBX stores. Like that, if any one physical server drops offline
> for
> any reason, the remaining physical server would be completely redundant.
>
> Would this work? I presume there's no problem with having two HT and CAS
> servers (obviously they'll both have to have an external IP and I'll need
> to
> add an extra MX record) - and the two clustered servers won't need to have
> any external-facing IP...
>
> Russ - thanks for your suggestion. Our company does a lot of moving large
> files around across the network, and a fair bit of printing and suchlike -
> we've investigated similar services but we're going to stick with hosting
> our
> own at the moment!
>
> Max
>
> "Ed Crowley [MVP]" wrote:
>
>> Your requirement for failover taking effect "seamlessly" requires a
>> failover
>> cluster. SCR will let you ship logs between two servers--they don't have
>> to
>> be identical hardware--but recovery using that is not "seamless". It
>> requires you to take a few steps. Still, if your Exchange server is
>> combined with your only domain controller, SCR isn't for you. I think
>> you
>> ought to be looking at separating your servers into several, but doing it
>> with Hyper-V or VMware. Then you can do what you want with two physical
>> boxes as long as they have enough resources.
>> --
>> Ed Crowley MVP
>> "There are seldom good technological solutions to behavioral problems."
>> ..
>>
>> "Nippoo" <> wrote in message
>> news:FBFCFD2B-F68A-4C8E-83AA-...
>> >I wouldn't mind having to do a bit of reconfiguration to set up the
>> >second
>> > server - it wouldn't need to be completely automatically redundant, but
>> > if
>> > the main server goes down I'd like to be able to remotely set the
>> > second
>> > one
>> > up as an Exchange server. Could I not have LCR or something on a
>> > network
>> > share?
>> >
>> > "Nippoo" wrote:
>> >
>> >> Right. We're a small business, though, and having three (and
>> >> definitely
>> >> four)
>> >> servers would be a bit excessive. I'm happy to try out Hyper-V or
>> >> similar,
>> >> but I think two physical servers is the limit for the moment! Does CCR
>> >> only
>> >> work on failover clusters? I was thinking of: installing WS2008,
>> >> promoting
>> >> the new server to a domain controller, then getting Exchange 2007
>> >> installed
>> >> and configuring it as a redundant HT and CAS, and mailbox server. Is
>> >> there
>> >> any particular reason why CCR can't coexist with HT and CAS? Is there
>> >> no
>> >> way
>> >> of having a two-physical-server fully redundant setup?
>> >>
>> >> "Ed Crowley [MVP]" wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > Buy another box, build a CCR cluster, move all mailboxes to it from
>> >> > the
>> >> > original server. But, if you have just one DC, I would be more
>> >> > concerned
>> >> > about that being non-redundant than I would about the mailbox server
>> >> > being
>> >> > non-redundant. An Exchange cluster can't have the hub transport or
>> >> > client
>> >> > access roles, so if you want a clustered mailbox server, you need a
>> >> > minimum
>> >> > of three servers, and I wouldn't have fewer than four, to make the
>> >> > DC,
>> >> > HT
>> >> > and CAS all redundant.
>> >> > --
>> >> > Ed Crowley MVP
>> >> > "There are seldom good technological solutions to behavioral
>> >> > problems."
>> >> > ..
>> >> >
>> >> > "Nippoo" <> wrote in message
>> >> > news:58C1E4F8-2D0F-4D99-B106-...
>> >> > > Hi,
>> >> > >
>> >> > > We currently have one WS2008 server as a fileserver, domain
>> >> > > controller,
>> >> > > and
>> >> > > Exchange 2007 server (with all roles installed).
>> >> > >
>> >> > > We're getting a second server to act as a redundant copy of the
>> >> > > first
>> >> > > one -
>> >> > > the main roles are Exchange and AD. How would I go around setting
>> >> > > up
>> >> > > a
>> >> > > redundant Exchange server, so it can replace the first one
>> >> > > seamlessly
>> >> > > in
>> >> > > case
>> >> > > the first one goes down (I've got Failover Clustering installed?)
>> >> > >
>> >> > > Max
>> >> >
>> >> >
>>
>>