Currently we are 99% virtulized on VMware vSphere 4.1 with Exchange 2003 virtualized with a single mailbox server and a single front end server. We have about 1500 users in total, with a good 70% of them light users. Exchange is at one main site and users at remote sites are using Thin devices to either jump on a Terminal server or a VMware View VDI, all located in the same data center as the Exchage servers. We have a DR site, and we replicate/mirror all of VMware volumes to that sight daily. We also will backup using DPM 2010 to SATA/SAN at the primary site and then a secondary DPM server at our DR site to backup the first DPM server. With our user count I am going to build a single CAS server, single hub transport server and a single mailbox server for Exchange 2010. My question....should I setup a DAG on a the single mailbox server or use normal databases? I have read that even on a single mailbox server using a DAG is better? If for no other reason than it makes adding a second server/DAG easier?? I have read that a DAG needs to be manually defragged and that is loses SIS, is this true? Also I have read on these forums that DAG's are not support using VMware DRS (vmotion)?? Thanks for any help!Thanks, -Lindy

Hi Lindy, Based on your configuration, you need to ask yourself what you would like to achive by making your MBX server part of a DAG and given your reliance on VMWare HA, I would not recommend it. As soon as you make your MBX server part of a DAG, you are not allowed (to be supported) to place your MBX on a HA hypervisor or you should at least disable the HA capabilities of the Virtual Machine. Since you only have one server, it does mean you will have no protection in anycase, thus you will probably be better of using a stand alone server. As for making a single server part of dag from the start, the only variable you need to think of is the OS. Windows Enterprise is required for DAG members, so if you do plan to introduce a DAG at a later stage, just make sure you install the right OS from the start. As for your last two questions, DAG memebers do not have to be defragged manually. That is rubish. And secondly SIS is gone in 2010 all together. It doesn't matter if the server is stand alone or part of a DAG. Hope this helps.Casper Pieterse, Principle Consultant - UC, Dimension Data South Africa, Microsoft Certified Master: Exchange 2007

Casper thanks for the heads-up on needing Enterprise. I was just going to use our Windows 2008 R2 VMware template for my mailbox server, now I will put up a Enterprise version just in case. On the defrag, that actually came from my Microsoft instructor, something about how a DAG is setup or how it writes tends to make it need a defrag. He said that you just Defrag one copy that no one is pointed to then point everyone to the defragged copy after its done.....if I remember correctly. I will probably just use standard DB's sine I dont have any real HA requirments from the company.Thanks, -Lindy

well. lindy you would need at least two members in a DAG for you to be able to configure multiple copies of a database, ESE in exchange server 2010 has been enhances so that is compacts the database automatically so that takes care of the SIS, and alos ESE is enhanced to run the maintainence always. instead of a specific interval so databse will not need offlife defrag Dhruv

I think Dhruv is talking about the “Online Defragmentation” in exchange 2010 that can help to reduce the cost of maintaining a database New Exchange Core Store Functionality Quote: “Defrag one copy that no one is pointed to then point everyone to the defragged copy after its done” According to the article below, reseeding will be required if you do the offline defragmentation Update a Mailbox Database Copy James Luo 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.