Hi

Currently we have the following setup:

Exchange 2003 envirnomet single site single Active Directory.

Cluster 1 Setup - which comprises of 4 nodes in a 3 Active 1 Passive
configuration hosting 22,000 users with backend SAN from StorageTek FLX 240

Cluster 2 Setup - which comprises of 3 Nodes in 2 Active and 1 Passive Setup
configuration hosting 15,000 users with a backend SAN from HP EVA 8100

Also we have OWA NLB farm comprising of four nodes for the front-end for
this Exchange 2003 environment.

All mail is forwarded to a smart SMTP host at which message hygiene is also
undetaken.

Our concurrency of users is between 45 – 55 percent depending on the day of
the week or month. This has been analysized over the course of 3-6 months.

We are hosting the environment for a large client who wishes us to host
1250,000 users eventually on a Microsoft platform in the next 3 years.

We must host another 15,000 users within the next 2 months which has been
designed to follow a setup equal to Cluster 2 Setup - 3 nodes in a AAP
configuration as mentioned above with an EVA 8100 for the backend storage.

The cost of SAN storage for each Cluster Setup and future cluster setup
based on this modular design is proving to be much more expensive than was
initially scoped for by our internal sales team in the bid for the project.
The is  necessary in order to provide the recommended IOPS performance from
each SAN.

We must also provide disaster recovery of the above environment when it is
completed for a certain percentage of service to our Secondary Data Centre
less than a mile away to which we have redundant fibre connectivitiy. This
must be a supported Microsoft setup and we are thinking of using Standby
cluster hence increasing our costs further.

We are thinking of deploying the new 15000 users on Exchange 2007 in a CCR
configuration and all future users and migrating the 37,000 users on Exchange
2003 eventually over to Exchange 20007.

Naturally the reason behind this is the IOPS requirements are much less in a
Exchange 2007 hence reducing our storage investment. We also understand there
is a trade off on the physcial nodes which would require more RAM then the
4GB limit in Exchange 2003.

The plan is to host the new 15000 users on a node in a CCR configuration
planning for a 75 percent concurrency using an Average user profile. The
passive node will be at our primary Data Centre initially and then we will
move it to our Secondary Data Centre so DR is also met. This will then be our
future setup for all new user deployments on a 15000 user deployment basis.

Issues and questions we have are:

Microsoft suggests a Transition path where you deploy:

1)    Deploy Client Access Servers
2)    Hub Transport Servers
3)    Mailbox servers

Is it possible for us to follow a transition path:

1)    Hub Transport Servers – we will deploy more than one for HA
2)    Mailbox servers for Exchange 2007
3)    Client Access Servers

Basically we want to introduce the new 15000 mailboxes on a back-end setup
using  Exchange 2007 so we can reduce storage costs and also meet DR
requirements in the future.  We want to leave our current front-end
infrastructure in place using OWA in NLB with Exchange 2003.

Is this possible to follow this transition path?

Also is there any concerns with deploying  15000 users per node in the CCR
setup?

We are looking at the possibilty of costing using SCC and then SCR
eventually to see if the costs are lower using the method

Regards

Tony

0X8004010F
exmerge errors
Exhange Ate Email Messages
Information Store service shuts down continuously
Public Folder Permissions