|
exchange
newsgroups
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Technical reasons to consolidate a distributed E2K3 Org ?Hi, We have a very large and distributed Exchange 2003 Organization (+280
servers) and increasing. We would like to consolidate and reduce the total number of servers but our branch offices are fairly independent and need to be convinced to accept a consolidation. In our case technical arguments would be more convincing than financial ones. We have had some issues with Link State tables in the past but the situation is stabilized now. I wonder if you can help gathering some technical arguments in favor of consolidation to present to the management. Apart from that, are there any limitations to the size of an Exchange organization in terms of Sites, Servers, Routing Groups, etc. or even users ? I suppose that one can not just keep on adding servers indefinitely, what will happen if you do so, what are the problems that may occur ? Thanks for your help, Luca. On Tue, 8 Nov 2005 00:26:03 -0800, "Luca"
<L***@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote: Show quote >Hi, We have a very large and distributed Exchange 2003 Organization (+280 Technical reasons are secondary here. If you have good links then the>servers) and increasing. We would like to consolidate and reduce the total >number of servers but our branch offices are fairly independent and need to >be convinced to accept a consolidation. In our case technical arguments would >be more convincing than financial ones. >We have had some issues with Link State tables in the past but the situation >is stabilized now. > >I wonder if you can help gathering some technical arguments in favor of >consolidation to present to the management. >Apart from that, are there any limitations to the size of an Exchange >organization in terms of Sites, Servers, Routing Groups, etc. or even users ? >I suppose that one can not just keep on adding servers indefinitely, what >will happen if you do so, what are the problems that may occur ? > >Thanks for your help, Luca. reasons for you to maintain so many servers is reduced. If you have bad links between locations then there is no technical reason to consolidate. Get what I'm saying? You telling us that there are 280 servers and you want reasons to reduce them is nowhere near enough. What I will say is that unless you are the Exchange architect for Siemens AG (and I know you aren't) then 280 servers is an enormous number and I would suggest, without risk of contradiction, that you have too many Exchange 2003 servers given what links and connectivity options you have now. Anyway, 280 servers is costing a kings ransom to support. Don't even go near technical reasons on this one. Take a look at your data centre and the links. Then plan on which ones you can beef up and remove the servers for. Thanks Mark for your reply,
I understand what you are saying but let’s say that we have a special case and technical arguments are primary here. Appart from financial reasons I can think of reasons such as: better control, improved security, less administrator playing with systems, etc. etc. But what if we did not consolidate, what could go wrong if we kept on adding new servers for each new branch office, are there any limits ? Luca. Show quote "Mark Arnold [MVP]" wrote: > On Tue, 8 Nov 2005 00:26:03 -0800, "Luca" > <L***@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote: > > >Hi, We have a very large and distributed Exchange 2003 Organization (+280 > >servers) and increasing. We would like to consolidate and reduce the total > >number of servers but our branch offices are fairly independent and need to > >be convinced to accept a consolidation. In our case technical arguments would > >be more convincing than financial ones. > >We have had some issues with Link State tables in the past but the situation > >is stabilized now. > > > >I wonder if you can help gathering some technical arguments in favor of > >consolidation to present to the management. > >Apart from that, are there any limitations to the size of an Exchange > >organization in terms of Sites, Servers, Routing Groups, etc. or even users ? > >I suppose that one can not just keep on adding servers indefinitely, what > >will happen if you do so, what are the problems that may occur ? > > > >Thanks for your help, Luca. > > Technical reasons are secondary here. If you have good links then the > reasons for you to maintain so many servers is reduced. If you have > bad links between locations then there is no technical reason to > consolidate. Get what I'm saying? You telling us that there are 280 > servers and you want reasons to reduce them is nowhere near enough. > > What I will say is that unless you are the Exchange architect for > Siemens AG (and I know you aren't) then 280 servers is an enormous > number and I would suggest, without risk of contradiction, that you > have too many Exchange 2003 servers given what links and connectivity > options you have now. > > Anyway, 280 servers is costing a kings ransom to support. Don't even > go near technical reasons on this one. Take a look at your data centre > and the links. Then plan on which ones you can beef up and remove the > servers for. > On Tue, 8 Nov 2005 02:15:04 -0800, "Luca"
<L***@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote: >Thanks Mark for your reply, There are limits to the number of Routing Groups you can cope with,> >I understand what you are saying but let’s say that we have a special case >and technical arguments are primary here. Appart from financial reasons I can >think of reasons such as: better control, improved security, less >administrator playing with systems, etc. etc. >But what if we did not consolidate, what could go wrong if we kept on adding >new servers for each new branch office, are there any limits ? >Luca. > IIRC it was about 150 but I'd need to check that again as I'm getting old and I think that was only for E2K anyway. There aren't any issues with shoving servers at it like it's raining Exchange licences.  |
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Other interesting topics