I recently (hopefully recently, my last post took two years to get published so I'm not sure when this one will go out, LOL) posted one of my typical light-hearted looks into life at Microsoft (it wa...
Updated Jul 01, 2019
Version 2.0
Blog Post
For those of us trying to do geo-clustering, how about a way to restrict cross-physical-site communication?
I'd rather not have a MBX server use a HUB server in the remote datacenter if possible since the message it just sent over the WAN may just be going right back to the MBX server it came from over the WAN again. I know we can configure a static list of HUBs to use on each MBX server, but this has issues too; 1) We lose automatic failover to the other HUBs if the ones in the first site go down. 2) You'd have to reconfigure the list every time your MBX server failed over to the other datacenter.
How about weighting them in some way so we can say ... "Use HUB1, HUB2, HUB3 with a cost of 10, then HUB4, HUB5, HUB6 with a weight of 20." Some way of doing this will help us cut down on unnecessary WAN traffic between sites.
With SP1 installed is it ok to use CNAMEs for MBX--> HUB now in a static list? I could then do something like put the local HUBs by name in the list, then put a round robin CNAME as the last entry. If I had 8 HUB servers (4 physical per site, same AD site) then I'd have 5 entries, 4 real and one CNAME which round robins to the 4 IPs in the remote phsyical site. In theory I could drop the unneeded WAN traffic by 75% this way. At least I think so...
Thank you.
I'd rather not have a MBX server use a HUB server in the remote datacenter if possible since the message it just sent over the WAN may just be going right back to the MBX server it came from over the WAN again. I know we can configure a static list of HUBs to use on each MBX server, but this has issues too; 1) We lose automatic failover to the other HUBs if the ones in the first site go down. 2) You'd have to reconfigure the list every time your MBX server failed over to the other datacenter.
How about weighting them in some way so we can say ... "Use HUB1, HUB2, HUB3 with a cost of 10, then HUB4, HUB5, HUB6 with a weight of 20." Some way of doing this will help us cut down on unnecessary WAN traffic between sites.
With SP1 installed is it ok to use CNAMEs for MBX--> HUB now in a static list? I could then do something like put the local HUBs by name in the list, then put a round robin CNAME as the last entry. If I had 8 HUB servers (4 physical per site, same AD site) then I'd have 5 entries, 4 real and one CNAME which round robins to the 4 IPs in the remote phsyical site. In theory I could drop the unneeded WAN traffic by 75% this way. At least I think so...
Thank you.