Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

To: for-q-clinton
No it's not. I've supported well over that number. The key is you have to buy the right hardware up front. Then Exchange runs like a champ.

Remember, I'm comparing to UNIX solutions. I've always had a few questions, like why can't I have all three nodes in a three-node cluster active? I'm forced to have one idle. What a waste. And do you realize it uses the JET Blue (MS Access) database engine? Ick!

If Microsoft wants to impress me, allow a full Exchange cluster, and have it use an SQL Server cluster as the back-end. Then both the data and the application will be in full failover.

131 posted on 01/05/2007 7:40:15 AM PST by antiRepublicrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies ]


To: antiRepublicrat
If Microsoft wants to impress me, allow a full Exchange cluster, and have it use an SQL Server cluster as the back-end. Then both the data and the application will be in full failover.

This shows how little you know about Exchange and SQL. using SQL for a bunch of small messages would yield much lower performance. JET Blue isn't exactly Access, but it is close enough for comparisons. Having said that what makes Access a bad database is a strength for messaging (once modified).

I understand Microsoft looked at using SQL for exchange and it just couldn't pump the messages out quick enough. Completely different technology. Just because SQL makes a great database doesn't make it a great email server.

139 posted on 01/05/2007 11:05:20 AM PST by for-q-clinton (If at first you don't succeed keep on sucking until you do succeed)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson