We are converting from Groupwise to Exchange. I have been looking into it since last year. I have finally found out the server specs I will be given and would like some opinions as to how to balance server roles between them. We have 3 locations. The satellite offices have 10 users and 30 users so they will get 1 server for AD, GC and holding their regular data. The main office has 275 users. We already have 4 2008r2 servers that handle AD and GC plus have some data on them. I am being given 3 servers- they have dual 6 core procs, 36 Gb of RAM and 7 300Gb Hard drives in RAID10+ Hot Spare. (I could squeeze a 4th if necessary but I would rather put that money towards archive like enterprise vault.) I am only migrating Calendar and Contacts to the live Exchange system with their existing gw mail going to PST. For speed/balance would I be better having: A. 1 mailbox server and have two CAS/HUB Servers. B. 1 HUB Server and have the other two servers run CAS and Mailbox Roles. C. Put off archive to next year and go with 3 Mailbox servers and buy two additional servers with less drive space and use those for CAS/HUB roles. What do you think?

Everything looks perfect and i would like to suggest one thing is that if you have so many server than you should have Enterprise Edition of both Windows 2008 and Exchange 2010, So that you can utilize all the features of it.. Like DAG(Windows 2008 Ent), Archive Mailbox (2010 Ent), Mail Tips etc.Gulab | MCTS-MCITP Messaging: 2010 | MCTS-MCITP Messaging: 2007 | MCC 2011 | Skype: Gulab.Mallah

thanks for your response! So do you think solution A, B or C would be better suited to the load I am looking at? I think the licensing people have already bought CALs for regular exchange.

Why not use 3 servers with all roles and load balance the RPC traffic using hardware load balancer? And use DAG for mailbox database replication/HA solution Do you have a sufficient and reliable connection between the HQ and Branch offices? Jonas Andersson | Microsoft Community Contributor Award 2011 | MCITP: EMA 2007/2010 | Blog: http://www.testlabs.se/blog | Follow me on twitter: jonand82

it sounds really good but i will suggust plan B becuase having each role on it own hardware will give you a higher avaliability. Keep in mind the exchange licensing for indenpent roles

HI, With all business thinking about Hight Availability, I would recommand, a 4th server and implement: 2 serveurs for CAS / HUb in NLB 2 servers implemented as DAG for HA. Regarding Archive, with less than 500 users and not knowing the Data volume, 1 server with low cost disk could be sufficient. Regards EK

Thanks for all the ideas. I am replying to the main email because it crosses several of the answers. I think I need a more expensive version of srv2008r2 or Exch2010 to run the DAG, so I don't think that will be possibe. At least not this fiscal year. Can DAGs be put in the mix at a later time? I was looking at some of the ideas an I am thinking of doing 3 servers with mailbox roles so I can split between sales, eng. and everyone else. This worked well on our old groupwise as most emails were between inside members of those groups or the internet versus between the groups. If I did that, should I run the CAS and or HUB roles on these boxes or should I put a couple cheaper servers with less disk space but the same RAM and Procs out front to serve as HUB and CAS roles leaving the mailbox servers to only run the MBX role? Someone suggested I put all roles on all three and uses a hardware based load balancer out front. I assume that would mean all three would have HUB, CAS and MBX roles? I have not used a load balancer before but have read up on it and I can probably get it to work in my enviro. The cost of it would probably be the same or less than the 2 server w/less disk out front idea. I'm a little bummed about the DAG thing, but I am fighting a time crunch as well so the more straight forward I make the system the more likely I can get it in here and start moving people to it. What are your thoughts on my above questions? Thanks for your help, I am looking forward to getting this thing in so I can start actually learning it rather than theorizing. :-)

If this should be a seperate topic let me know but...I was looking through the replies I've gotten as well as a few books I have and I think I may be coming at this from a bad assumption. On GroupWise, you balanced people based on who they interacted with the most for instance everyone in sales on the same server and engineering on a different server. Each of the servers ran a Post Offcie Agent that delivered between the people in that group. This meant each group was self contained and traffic was minimized. I have been assuming I should do the same in Exchange, but since the Hub Transport role and CAS are both needed to log into your own box and to send to the guy even in just the next cube, unless I put CAS, HUB and Mailbox on every server, it truly isn't going to matter which mailbox server I add the two neighboring users because traffic is still going to occur and a department wouldn't be selfcontained. Is that correct?

Hi OTS, I am sorry not familiar with the groupwise, and a little confused about what you question referred in your last reply. I want to verify what HA do you want to achieve in your target, if you want to use CAS LB, and DAG, there are different plan based on your owned HD server boxes. (Hub could achieve HA by default.) And which site do you want to deploy exchange server. Some information for you: http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/dd335211.aspx Per your description, you think the present BOX is a waste to install CAS and HUB, right? If so, the plan all denpend on you, normally we do not need so many disk space on the hub and cas server, but more processor and memory more better for users' experiencing. Regards! GavinPlease 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.

Basically, it appears that high availability options such as DAG requires Exchange Enterprise which I don't have, so I will not be doing that at this time. My company has 2 big departments and everyone else. The split is 100 people sales, 100 people engineering 60 people in all other areas. My intention was to mimic my GW setup and have 1 mailbox server for sales, 1 mailbox server for Engineering and 1 Mailbox server for everything else. Does this make sense? If so should I have MBX, CAS and HUB on each of these? If not, should I do CAS or HUB on other servers with lower disk space and have the MBX server run just the MBX role?

Hi OTS Tech, If you want to split the different users' mailbox on different server, you could install cas/hub/mailbox on each box. Regards! GavinPlease 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.

I second what Gavin said because your exchange will be supporting less than 500 users. installing ca/hub/mailbox on it's own box you be pretty good as far as stability and availability goes .since exchange support multiple storage group you can create storage groups with databases for your departments. about the remote office i will not put a dedicated servers there because is less than 100 people. i am guessing that your remote office is connected to the main office via some kind of vpn right ?

Sorry for the late reply, I was out the first few days of the week. You are correct, I have a WAN based on MPLS between the offices. It has been a pretty stable connection to this point. I think the final answer is that I will install three servers at the main location they will have CAS, HUB and MBX functionality. If after we get people on it I see traffic slowdowns, I still have enough money in the budget to get a HW load balancer like F5. At the remote sites they will get one server each with this same functionality. I am a little unclear on how mail is going to route out of this multi server system ie whether each hub will route to the smtp server to the internet or whether two will send to the third and it will ship to the outside world. I have been setting up a test bed of servers to work out the best fit. Thanks for your help...if you have any opinions on how to set up this outbound feel free to give them.

since you will have one hub in your organization all messages local or external will be routed through the hub.