Hi :) I have to deploy Exch. 2010 and have one server with 2 x E5620 Xeon quad core CPU 2,4 GHz and 48 GB RAM. My idea is to bring that server into already existing failovercluster and to deploy virtual Exchange server in failover cluster. What do you recommend, to separate roles for Exchange into 3 virtual server, one for CAS, one for HT and one for MBX or install all 3 roles into one virtual server ? For mailbox database temporary will be using NetAPP storage so on that level I have redunancy - no DAG will be using. Idea for virtual Exchange in failovercluster is that in any case of failure of physical "dedicated to Exchange" failovercluster node I can migrate virtual Exchange to another node in failovercluster untill failied node is remedy so users ( < 300 mbx) will continue to have email. Any suggestions are welcome :) Best regards

1. You have a few options. Really depends on how it suits your env. 2. So you're using virtual HA for the mbx instead of DAG. I have no idea how your physical hosts are configured and assume you have them clustered by the sounds of it. Also do you want only 3 servers for your exch deployment or more.. Not sure what your restrictions are. Let's go with what you have suggested, 3. 3. So you're covered you MBX. What about your HUB's and CAS. What happens if they fail? May you should consider having a CAS array with 2 CAS servers. Maybe you should have 2 HUB servers. 4. No idea of your AD deployment physical sites. Consider multiple AD sites and how that would work in your env if applicable.Sukh

Hi CNenad, In my opinion, I do not think your plan would work well as expected, I have never hear that use windows server failover cluster for the whole exchange email system. I would follow below to achieve the exchange 2010 HA: http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/dd638121.aspx For cas I would use cas array and LB. If I misunderstand your issue, PLease tell me. Regards! Gavin TechNet Subscriber Support in forum If you have any feedback on our support, please contact tngfb@microsoft.com Please remember to click Mark as Answer on the post that helps you, and to click Unmark as Answer if a marked post does not actually answer your question. This can be beneficial to other community members reading the thread.

Hi Sukh828 :) thank you for your opionion. 2. How many MBX servers in DAG is minimum required for full redunancy (2 or 3 ?) However, problem is with number of HD's in server, two HD's per server are not enough (1U server have only space for two inside rack mounted HD's). There are two physical servers which are nodes of failover cluster for Hyper-V. Right now I am not in mood to have administrative overhead for 3 VM more :) Because, NetAPP storage have full redunancy (at one site) I do not think about that. If I use DAG I will have duplicate databases on storage. 3. Idea is as I wrote that if one physical node failed, one Exchange VM (with three roles) should be migrate to another one node. 4. We have two physical sites, however both sites have VLAN's from both sites :) Site 1 have let's say "first native VLAN 1" and site 2 have "first native VLAN2". But vice versa also site 1 have VLAN2 from site 2 and also site 2 have VLAN 1 from site 1. Best regards

Hi Gavin :) Why you think that plan should not work well ? If we can live migrate instance of SQL server why not Exchange ? Best regards

1. You can have 2 but 3 is better. 2. Also understand the failover if you have a site failure.Sukh

Hi Sukh828 :) I agree with you, but if company wants to migrate email to Exchange - so that become critical for business mission - but can not afford minimum of 6 physical server, that's not my problem :) Also I have a limited number of avail. licenses. If I have possibilities I will deploy 2 CAS, 3 DAG on both sites. Maybe I could deploy at least 2 DAG servers in 2 different sites, will see :) Almost all users are mostly primary located and bounded to one site. That first one Exch. is installed under 2008 R2 Enterprise so I can in future activate DAG. However, what small companies which using SBS have option, they have all in one box ?