Message header firewall technology. There is a good article on MsExchagne.org. Check it out
Archive for the ‘Exchange2010’ Category
Posted by Brajesh Panda on March 19, 2012
Posted by Brajesh Panda on June 28, 2010
Exchange CXP team has released Update Rollup 4 for Exchange Server 2010 RTM (KB 982639) to the download center.
Read the rest of this entry »
Posted by Brajesh Panda on June 15, 2010
An Active Manager operation failed. Error: Operation failed with message: MapiExceptionNotFound: Unable to mount database. (hr=0x8004010f, ec=-2147221233)
Posted by Brajesh Panda on May 26, 2010
Posted by Brajesh Panda on May 12, 2010
This is a obvious question always asked by my customers; Do we need single DAG or Multiple DAG?
Answer differs as per the requirement –
1. If all mailbox servers are located in same site, there is no good justification having multiple DAGs; this is going to limit number of members; hence copies too. Because each Mailbox server can be part of one DAG.
2. Let suppose customer is stretching the DAG between sites for site level redundancy; Number of DAGs depends on how many sites going to host active mailbox databases. If both sites or multiple sites going to have active databases we are going to need multiple DAGs stretching across sites. Because if you consider one DAG with multiple active databases in different sites, WAN failure is going to bring down those remote site databases which don’t have Quorum. So better to have multiple DAG with quorum in each site.
Posted by Brajesh Panda on May 11, 2010
In my previous article we discussed about 3 Node (ODD Member) DAG (2 in primary site & 1 in secondary site) along with Node Set Majority & File Share Witness Quorum Model.
In this article lets talk about EVEN number based stretched DAG & which has more than 2 member nodes of DAG. So lets consider 4 Node based DAG. Where Primary & Secondary site has 2 nodes each. As this model is based on even number we can’t consider Node Set Majority Quorum. We have to consider a extra vote in quorum model. As DAG concept is based on shared nothing architecture, Disk based Quorum goes out of consideration, so we have to use File Share Based Witness.
If active mailbox databases are only in primary site, we can include all these 4 nodes into a single DAG and create 3 Data Base Copies; Keeping one copy at secondary site for failover.
But in case both sites are going to have active mailboxes we will be needing TWO Stretch DAG between sites with two different file share witness. Well it can be created using 1 node from each site with a file share witness at the primary site. But by doing this we will only have 2 Database Copies & each failure will be resulted as site fail over. So better to increase number of nodes in each site to at least 3 ; DAG1= 2 Node from Primary + 1 Node from Secondary, DAG2= 2 Node from Secondary + 1 Node from Primary. Fail-over & fail-back process for these DAGs will be equal to 1st scenario we discussed in previous article.
If our Active Directory site is streched then we have to use a single CAS Array FQDN for both side CAS servers but it may generate cross site MAPI traffics & complex load balancing issues. But if we have two different AD Sites we can have two different CAS Array Objects in two different site & users in that site can use the same for Outlook connectivity. While using two Active\Active sites better to use two different namespace for client access.
Posted by Brajesh Panda on March 19, 2010
Nice document posted by Milind; http://msexchangegeek.com/2010/01/30/rapid-transition-guide-from-exchange-2003-to-exchange-2010/
Posted by Brajesh Panda on March 10, 2010
When you are planning to migrate from Exchange 2000/2003/2007 to Exchange 2010, make sure you are considering below parameters;
– Exchange Upgradation Path
– Supported operating systems
– Active Directory Domain & Forest level
A. Exchange Upgradation Path
Posted by Brajesh Panda on March 10, 2010
Here is my 1st
Architecture Diagram for Exchange 2010 Stretched Cluster. Expect my step by step guide to build this environment. I will keep improving my architecture… you guys too buzz me if there is a place for improvement ;-).
For this scenario I am considering single stretched DAG & active mailboxes only in Primary site. If we keep active mailboxes in both sites with single stretched DAG, in case of WAN failure, mailboxes in secondary site will go down. If we want to put active mailboxes in other sites too, take a look at my next article.
As this architecture contains 3 nodes (Odd number), we don’t need a File Share Witness Share folder for Quorum. We can just use Node Set Majority quorum. In this architecture I am stretching the DAG between both sites, so in case one node goes down (let suppose from primary site) there are still 2 nodes online, which helps to maintain the Cluster Quorum. Let suppose two nodes goes down, now you have just one node online. Hence DAG cluster will go down. But you can manually run switch over process & activate the secondary site DAG member using Alternate File Share witness. So in this case you are changing your quorum model to FSW, but you may like came back after other two nodes came back online. One thing to note, even if we are using Node Set Majority we can mention file share witness & alternate witness – only cluster will not be using them actively. In above scenario now we have a active server with an alternate file share witness in secondary site. What happen when Primary site servers come back online before WAN link? There are two nodes in primary site, which can provide quorum & try to mount databases. Resulting Split Brain. To avoid this there is another mechanism called Data Center Activation. If this configuration is on, before they mount the databases, they will check the status of DAG from every node using Data Center Activation Protocol & then decision will be taken if Active Manager should mount the database.
Other key thing is client access name space designing. If both sites are hosted in two different AD sites, we will be having Two different CAS Array (RPCClientServerAccess) FQDN. And if in case both CAS servers or load balancer failed in Primary site, we have to manually change the DNS IP Address of Primary Site CAS Array to secondary site CAS Array IP.
Well I just love Geo/Stretched Cluster….
Posted by Brajesh Panda on February 26, 2010
This is one of my article which was published in Windows IT Pro Magazine. Here is the soft link for the same
In Exchange Server systems, you need to create Messaging API (MAPI) profiles whenever you build a new desktop or a new user joins the network. To create a MAPI profile, you need to know the name of the target Exchange server, which isn’t that simple to provide in a clustered Exchange environment. And asking the employees typically isn’t helpful. Most Exchange users don’t remember their Exchange server’s name, and new employees wouldn’t likely know this information when they start their first day on the job.
To help alleviate the tedious and time-consuming task of creating MAPI profiles, Microsoft introduced transform (.mst) files for Windows Installer. The .mst files let you customize installation packages. Although these installation packages have many nice features, preparing them takes a lot of effort and expertise.
Fortunately, I came across a tool called RichProfile, which automates MAPI profile creation. Richard Coggins developed this freeware, which you can download at http://desktopengineer.com/downloads/richprofile.zip.
RichProfile works at the command line. As the syntax
RichProfile.exe ServerName MailboxName ProfileName Y\N D\P\N