Tuesday, March 10, 2009
#
My new white paper on CCR and DAS is now available!!
Continuous Cluster Replication and Direct Attached Storage: High Availability Without Breaking the Bank can be found on 3Sharp's Notable Accomplishments page, or downloaded directly from the link I've provided. Here's a quick synopsis of the paper:
The days of 2GB drives, tiny user mailbox sizes, and limiting Exchange Server to run on a single database have long since passed; storage options now abound, and disk space is cheap. Over the past ten years, storage area networks (SANs) have become ubiquitous, and IT management has often been persuaded that all data should reside on the SAN. However, the idea that the SAN is the best option for Exchange Server storage needs to be revisited; there are other options available today that provide the necessary reliability at greatly reduced cost.
The choice of building Exchange Server 2007 as a 64-bit architecture, and the availability of massive, cheap RAM, leads to greatly-reduced input/output operations per second (IOPS) for disk access. The synchronicity between this fact, and the availability of cheap disk space allows organizations to rethink their approach to storage. In this whitepaper, we explain the benefits of using Direct Attached Storage (DAS) as opposed to a SAN for Exchange Server Cluster Continuous Replication (CCR). We argue the use of DAS for CCR clusters, and provide a counterpoint to the idea that a SAN is the best storage option for CCR deployments.
My new white paper on CCR vs. SCC is now available!!
High Availability Choices for Exchange Server 2007: Continuous Cluster Replication or Single Copy Clustering can be found on 3Sharp's Notable Accomplishments page, or downloaded directly from the link I've provided. Here's a quick synopsis of the paper:
With today's reliance on e-mail services, the need for highly available systems where messaging services must be accessible at all times has become more apparent, and organizations are making significant investments in their messaging systems. Many organizations have come to the conclusion that redundancy is the only reliable way to keep e-mail services continuously available to their users. Exchange Server 2007 includes numerous high availability options that provide continuity of service and redundancy to help ensure messaging services are always up and operational. This whitepaper describes the benefits of Cluster Continuous Replication (CCR) for Exchange Server 2007, in contrast with Single Copy Clustering (SCC), and details the advantages and disadvantages of each.
Thursday, February 26, 2009
#
The Microsoft Exchange Product Group has a pretty cool tool available online (in Beta) that I learned about at the E14 Airlift (don't worry, it's not for Exchange 14), called the Microsoft Exchange Server Remote Connectivity Analyzer. This tool offers several tests that can be run against your Exchange infrastructure to see if things are configured correctly, including:
- MS Exchange ActiveSync Test, which simulates a mobile device connecting to Exchange Server
- MS Exchange ActiveSync Autodiscover Test, which simulates the steps a mobile device takes to connect to the AutoDiscover service
- MS Outlook 2007 Autodiscovery Connectivity Test, which simulates the steps Outlook 2007 takes to connect to the AutoDiscovery service
- MS Outlook 2003 RPC/HTTP Connectivity Test, which simulates the steps Outlook 2003 takes to connect to Exchange using RPC over HTTP
- Inbound SMTP Email Test, which simulates sending e-mail to your Exchange Server using SMTP
It's a pretty cool tool - you first choose one of the radio buttons, then simply click Next. You're then presented with fields where you enter your server name (obviously, use the Internet-facing name here) and your credentials (they do want a domain password, but they promise to not store it and to use SSL to encrypt it, as always YMMV, and use caution). There's also a challenge in the form of one of those annoyingly garbled strings of letters that are hard to see, but that keep automated systems from using the form. I hate these things and always mess up the first try, but understand why they're there.) Once you've filled out the forms and agreed to the terms of service, a simple click is all it takes to start the test. I just ran through the test, using 3Sharp as the target, and here's a snippet from our results (with some of the fields changed, which I've italicized. My goal is to show you what kind of results you'd see, not to show you everything we do here at 3Sharp):
Attempting to Resolve the host name server.3sharp.com in DNS.
Host successfully Resolved
Additional Details
IP(s) returned: 1.1.1.1
Testing TCP Port 443 on host server.3sharp.com to ensure it is listening/open.
The port was opened successfully.
Testing SSLCertificate for validity.
The certificate passed all validation requirements.
Additional Details
Subject: CN=server.3sharp.com, OU=Domain Control Validated, O=server.3sharp.com, Issuer SERIALNUMBER=12345678, CN=Go Daddy Secure Certification Authority, OU=http://certificates.godaddy.com/repository, O="GoDaddy.com, Inc.", L=Scottsdale, S=Arizona, C=US
Testing Http Authentication Methods for URL https://server.3sharp.com/Microsoft-Server-Activesync/
Http Authentication Methods are correct
Additional Details
Found all expected authentication methods and no disallowed methods Methods Found: Basic realm="server.3sharp.com"
Attempting an Activesync session with server
Errors were encountered while testing the ActiveSync session
Test Steps
Attempting to send OPTIONS command to server
Testing the OPTIONS command failed. See Additional Details for more info
Additional Details
A Web Exception occured because an HTTP 401 - Unauthorized response was received from IIS6
All in all, it's a pretty cool tool, and alleviates the need for you to get to a remote desktop to test your environment's connectivity. I was surprised I hadn't heard about it before, and thought I'd share this so more folks can try out the site!
The Microsoft MVP Global Summit takes place next week in Redmond, Washington (although the attendees will stay in Seattle proper and be bussed out to Redmond each day). This is an event I've always looked forward to, but won't be attending this year because I lost my status as an MVP this past October (turns out that you really do need to participate in the community - something I knew, but had let slide some the past few years). I was an MVP for Exchange Server from 1999 until 2008, though, and that's not a bad run.
So my intention is to step back up to the plate in terms of community contributions - which means updating this blog more regularly, answering questions in the Microsoft newsgroups and other venues, and getting back to writing more.
To my MVP friends who will be at the Summit, have a great time, and enjoy your time with the Product Group. The Exchange Product Group is incredibly open and responsive, and I'll miss having face time with them (I was fortunate enough to see many of them at the E14 Airlift a few weeks ago, but more is always better!)
A quick note of congratulations to my teammate Devin Ganger who recently passed the (grueling, I'm sure) lab to achieve Microsoft Certified Master status for Exchange Server 2007. This is a great achievement, and I'm thrilled for Devin!
Who, me? I have fantasies about becoming an MCM for Exchange, but the intensive three-week class keeps scaring me away - not because I don't think I could handle the technical aspect of the training, but more because it's hard on the family when I'm gone that long.
That said, if the opportunity arises to attend the training, I don't think I could turn it down. It's just too awesome to miss if you get the chance to go!
Friday, December 05, 2008
#
W00t! A new version of the Exchange Server 2007 Mailbox Server Storage Cost Calculator (sheesh, that's a lot of words) has been released, and the Exchange team has updated their original blog post on the subject to reflect the changes in the tool. (The calculator can be downloaded here.)
Why am I so excited? Well, I've been doing a lot of work around clustering and storage as of late (and having a lot of fun with it), and the work Microsoft has done for the calculator helps back up some of the work that I've done. Also, there seems to be a feeling among much of the Exchange community that SANs are best for Exchange, and I disagree with that viewpoint - I think a solution that the Exchange administrator can remain in control of is the best solution. Storage administrators don't really get Exchange, and have a tendency to say stuff like, "disk is disk", which drives me right up a tree. So my preference has always been to let the storage folks play with their bits, and have other folks let THEIR stuff reside on the SAN, and to keep Exchange away from their unappreciative hands. The storage cost calculator shows that there really are HUGE savings to be gained by following my preferred model, so I dig that too.
Anyway, the storage cost calculator is pretty cool stuff, and it definitely worth an afternoon's time to play with!
There are two types of message journaling for Exchange; message envelope journaling is the preferred method if you need to capture messages for compliance purposes, because it captures not only the message (the P2 information, i.e. the message contents), but also the message "envelope" (the P1 information, which contains specifics about who a message was sent to, including recipients who were blind copied, and expanded distribution list membership). Think about a letter you'd get in the mail - the envelope would be addressed to you, at your address, but the letter inside could say "Dear John, ...". Without envelope journaling, all you've got for reference is the "Dear John" portion of the message, but knowing who the message (i.e. letter) was actually addressed to (i.e. who received it) is also important contextual information.
If you're implementing a third-party archiving product, it will (or should - don't pick one that doesn't understand message envelope journaling) know how to handle messages that are journaled with the envelope data.
If you're not implementing a separate archiving product, and plan to use the journal mailbox as an archive, there will be some hoops to jump through to read the actual messages. However, if you're saving these messages for
compliance-related purposes, you want the envelope data, and I would strongly advise you that the journal mailbox is an inadequate long-term archive, especially for compliance-related purposes.
Database corruption is the bane of Exchange Administrators – and recovering from any type of corruption is complex and time-intensive. When either logical or physical corruption is present, administrators must determine the best path to database recovery. Recovery options include:
· Repairing the database by running the Exchange Server Database Utilities (ESEUTIL). This process entails taking the database itself offline (and thus, not providing messaging services to the users) and using ESEUTIL in repair mode (ESEUTIL /p). ESEUTIL can be destructive in certain circumstances, as database pages that cannot be repaired are discarded. After ESEUTIL has completed in repair mode, it should then be run again in defragment mode (ESEUTIL /d). ESEUTIL. It should be noted that ESEUTIL can process about 9GB of data per hour, so two different ESEUTIL operations on a 50GB database would take approximately 11 hours to complete. After both ESEUTIL operations have completed, database integrity should then be performed by using the Information Store Integrity Checker (ISINTEG) with the “–fix” and “–test alltests” switches. If ISINTEG is able to fix all database errors on the first pass, a report will be presented that shows the error count as zero – if all errors were not able to be corrected with the first ISINTEG operation, ISINTEG will need to be run again until the error count is zero. ISINTEG performance is roughly equivalent to that of ESEUTIL, depending upon the number of errors that must be corrected.
· Restoring an older database copy and letting the transaction logs generated since the backup was taken replay in order to bring the database back to the state when the failure occurred. These operations take less time than running database utilities; however there have been numerous instances where organizations that thought their backups were valid found that the backups could not be restored to operation when necessary. The speed of database recovery varies depending upon the type of backup performed – Volume Shadow Copy Service (VSS) allows third-party vendors to provide quick database backups, and these backups are also quick to restore – but they may only be restored to their original location. The Recovery Storage Group (RSG) introduced in Exchange Server 2003 reduced the complexity of previous recovery methods, however the RSG only works with streaming backups which take much longer to restore than VSS-based backups. Depending upon the number of transaction log files that must be replayed, there may be a significant amount of time that passes before a restored backup will be available to provide messaging services. (No lie - I once experienced a 10+ hour wait while transaction logs replayed. Not fun.)
· In cases where the database is still operational, the best option is often to move the mailboxes themselves to a different information store. This process involves less down time for users (while a mailbox is in the process of being moved, it will be unavailable to the individual with whom it is associated; mailboxes that are not in the process of being moved will remain available for access) and is the preferred path when available. If a database has dismounted due to physical corruption and cannot be remounted, this option will not be available.
Wednesday, October 01, 2008
#
Okay, I'll admit this may be child's play to some, but I just ran across an issue I didn't know about - I was prepping a Windows 2008 server for an installation, and needed the MMC on it. So I went to the MMC download page and tried to install the program (if you know what's coming, please don't mock me). I received a (unhelpful) error message that "Not enough storage is available to process this command".
Interesting. This was a brand new server, so I checked the disk space. There's TONS of available disk. What the heck?
I then did some digging around on the internet, without finding much, except this Microsoft KB article - Misleading error message when you install an update package in Windows Vista or Windows Server 2008: Not enough storage is available to process this command. Not much help there, if I'm getting the error message I'm going to assume that I have the wrong version. And no help on how to fix the problem. Frustrating.
Well, then I did what I should have done in the first place, and asked my co-worker Tim if there was a trick to installing Microsoft Management Console 3.0 on a Windows Server 2008 machine. He quickly (and politely) schooled me by replying, "Umm.. I thought that 3.0 was built into 2K8".
Oh.
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
#
Yesterday, I called HP's technical support line because of a problem with one of the laptops in our house. I spent an hour on hold before I hung up. That is absolutely ridiculous, and it's unfortunately all too common an experience.