When doing a design for Exchange 2010 it is takes a lot of effort to look at all aspects of a system before choosing a product. Choosing the right size load balancer for exchange entails looking at the systems as a whole and how it will be used. A few of the things I look at before making a decision are
1. Client Count
2. Protocols used
3. Client connection speeds
4. Encryption Used
5. Device type
6. Message size
These numbers will tell a person a lot about Exchange and how it is being used so that one can make an educated decision about the size and capabilities of a load balancer. Unfortunately time constraints or a number of other factors do not always allow one the time to analyze and Exchange environment. In other cases a general idea is need for general discussion or budgetary estimates are needed prior to a deep analysis is done. Luckily Kemp Technologies has come up with a handy tool that can be used to get a broad look at what products they offer and a general idea of how to size them, given certain parameters. Take a look at the tool and give it a whirl.
http://www.kemptechnologies.com/fileadmin/templates/sizingDoc/lme_calc_2k/lme_calc_2k.htm
Tag Archives: HA
Providing XSHADOW with Partner Exchange Organizations
of fault tolerance to the SMTP protocol. This Feature is known as Shadow
Redundancy (XSHADOW). The basic premise behind XSHADOW is that a server sending
an email message won’t delete its’ copy of the message until the server that
received the message confirms delivery to the next hop or the message has
reached its final destination. This feature is enabled by default for all SMTP
communication within in an Exchange Org. However, once the mail leaves the
organization and is destined for the internet or a partner Exchange Org these
features are stripped off and mail falls back to un-reliable transmission.
receive connectors that provide XSHADOW capabilities between two Exchange 2010
Organizations.
need to be modified to fit you environment. Once the commands are run test
messages can be sent to the Partner Exchange Organization. The SMTP protocol Log
should be checked to ensure functionality mine looked something like this. I
have highlighted the lines in red that you should look for
AcceptRoutingHeaders SMTPAcceptXShadow,Set Session Permissions
SMTPSubmit
SMTPAcceptAnyRecipient SMTPAcceptAuthenticationFlag SMTPAcceptAnySender
SMTPAcceptAuthoritativeDomainSender BypassAntiSpam BypassMessageSizeLimit
SMTPAcceptEXCH50 AcceptRoutingHeaders SMTPAcceptXShadow,Set Session
Permissions
220 Exchange 2010 Partner SMTP Server,
EHLO
Sesko-HTCAS1.planetsesko.com,
250-EXBYTES-EX2010.ExchangeBytes.com Hello
[192.168.1.201],
250-SIZE
10485760,
250-PIPELINING,
250-DSN,
250-ENHANCEDSTATUSCODES,
250-AUTH,
250-8BITMIME,
250-BINARYMIME,
250-CHUNKING,
250-XEXCH50,
250 XSHADOW,
XSHADOW
MTU5MzMxN2QtZjk2NC00NjJiLWIyZmMtNGJiMDY1YmU0N2U3QFNlc2tvLUhUQ0FTMS5wbGFuZXRzZXNrby5jb21A,
250
Hvk+wU5ce0CZFFNThj4qrg==,
MAIL FROM: SIZE=3311
XSHADOW=0ed7615e-0415-4937-a1ca-4e4c039b3e1c,
08CD97829EBEDB78;2011-02-10T21:42:59.395Z;1,receiving
message
RCPT TO:,
250 2.1.0 Sender OK,
250 2.1.5 Recipient OK,
BDAT
1838 LAST,
250 2.6.0
<24A22FAC6F413D45B55B61AC3F0168FA04E660F1@Sesko-MBXN2.planetsesko.com>
[InternalId=1] Queued mail for delivery,
XQDISCARD
50,
“251 OK, no discard events”,
221
2.0.0 Service closing transmission channel,
-SmartHosts 192.168.1.100 -Usage Custom -SourceTransportServers HubServer1
Exchange\Externally Secured Servers” -ExtendedRights
ms-Exch-SMTP-Send-XSHADOW
AUTHORITY\ANONYMOUS LOGON” -ExtendedRights ms-Exch-SMTP-Send-XSHADOW
0.0.0.0:25 -RemoteIPRanges 192.168.1.201,192.168.2.201 -Usage Custom
-ProtocolLoggingLevel Verbose -PermissionGroups
ExchangeServers,AnonymousUsers,Partners -Banner “220 Exchange 2010 Partner SMTP
Server” -AuthMechanism ExternalAuthoritative
“NT AUTHORITY\ANONYMOUS LOGON” -ExtendedRights ms-Exch-SMTP-Accept-XSHADOW
“MS Exchange\Externally Secured Servers” -ExtendedRights
ms-Exch-SMTP-Accept-XSHADOW
If you have any questions or comments please don’t hesitate to
ask
Exchange 2010 Hardware Load Balancing Client Access Services (True High Availability)
d Balancing Exchange 2010 Client Access Roles has never been easier with today technologies. When you load balance Exchange by creating 1 big rule for all ports or even a rule for each port sometimes it is not always the best course of action. With a few simple changes and a lot of IP address an Exchange administrator can build a greater degree of availability into ones environment.
Most all Exchange admins know that more and more Exchange services are moving to web driven services. Services like Outlook Web Access, Exchange Web Services, and ActiveSync all are just a few examples. Like most web services these application rely on either port 443 or port 80. Most load balancers will tell you when a port is up or down and if it is down will remove it from the pool so that users do not get random failures for port 80. Again the scope of you reporting on these protocols is that they are up or down and not which one of the services using the protocol is up or down. Having a single rule for each of these protocols limits the ability of an administrator to know what each services is doing and if it is responding properly. Take the following example.
Environment:
You have 5 servers in a load balanced cluster. You have a hardware load balancer handling all traffic for port 443 and port 80. A rule has been created for each protocol and each of the servers has been configured as the “Real Server” for the above rule. You create an A record in DNS and point it to your load balanced IP address for your CAS Servers. You then configure each of your exchange services to use the A record for web service using the name webmail.domain.com.
Problem: ActiveSync is not functioning for some Users
Users in your environment are reporting that they are randomly unable to receive email on their mobile device. There appears to be no reason why the device works one minute and not the next. In trouble shooting you find that the ActiveSync Service on server 2 is not responding properly to request. Since you have created one rule for port 443 you were never made aware of the situation because port 443 was responding but the service was not.
Solution: Check Port/Check URL
The ability of Load balancers to use both a check port and check parameter on that port will allow you to not only create a rule that checks to ensure that the port is alive but that the requested url is also function properly. To achieve this configuration 1 must create a unique IP address and port combination for each protocol selected. For example, an administrator would create a Virtual IP address (VIP) for each Exchange related web service and assign each web service a rule in the load balancer with port 443 and the proper check url parameter for each web service. Each respective VIP would then have an associated DNS A record for the required service IE (owa.domain.com, oab.domain.com, ActiveSync.domain.com, and EWS.domain.com). Now when a particular services is experiencing a problem it is remove from the pool of available servers automatically for non-response to the check url and users don’t receive random failures
Exchange 2010 & Load Balancers
Now that Microsoft has moved the client Endpoint from the mailbox server to
the Client Access Server (CAS) role the importance of having a highly available
CAS is even more important. Nothing is more frustrating that having an online
database that nobody can access due to a down CAS. In recent post by Microsoft
at TechEd Europe Microsoft is now recommending Hardware
Network Load Balancers (NLB) or Virtual NLB type devices for some very good
reasons. A primary reason for me and my customer for using Hardware based
load balancers is the ability to run multi role boxes providing Database
availability services and function as a member of a Client Access Array. With
the Microsoft Free NLB product it is not possible to have both the Network Load
Balancing services and required cluster components installed on the same server.
This leaves you with two options (1) split the roles in install more servers (2)
install and configure a hardware load balancer. Having used both the Microsoft
and Appliance based load balancers, I can say without a doubt the Appliance
based NLB devices are far superior in the form of performance and granularity of
control. Even the cost of the devices can be justified over building additional
servers. Personally, I have come to love Kemp Technologies VLM This product is fantastic!
It is simple easy to setup and performs extremely well. The Kemp Team has an
excellent support staff and provide you with great documentation to get you going right
away.
Load Balancers are great devices and provide a high level redundancy into
your Exchange Environment. However, Load Balancers do provide a level of
complexity that must be taken into consideration when working with
3rd party applications. For Example, Exchange Backups programs
usually have a client install piece that talks with some sort of media/master
backup server. These agents are usually network based and have a higher order
TCP port association 1024 and above. When installing network load balancer to
work with Exchange you configure a Virtual IP (VIP) and associate TCP ports to
this VIP along with the real servers that services them. One should note in
order to get these types of client network based 3rd party
applications working with a network load balancer the applications ports must be
identified and added to the load balancer. It should also be noted that these
applications may have multiple ports that need to be configured as a single
entity with a longer affinity defined. You would not want network communications
in the middle of a backup to switch halfway through. Even with these required
extra steps, NLB devices are worth every penny.
if you missed the links in the article here they are again
http://www.msteched.com/2010/Europe/UNC311
http://www.kemptechnologies.com/us/
Tweet
Achieving High Availability with SMTP Smart Hosts and
Exchange 2010 has built in features that allow for the timely delivery of
email even in the event of an Exchange server failure. However, Exchange does
not reroute messages automatically when a network connectivity issue is
preventing communication with an SMTP smart host.
Problem:
When an Exchange client sends a message to external recipient the exchange
server determines the best route for the messages and sends the message on its.
This message will find its way to a send connector that is setup for either
smart host or DNS based delivery. If a smart host is configured exchange routes
the message to a queue waiting for smart host connectivity. If the smart host
is available, the message is delivered, and the smart host sends the message to
the next hop. The problem becomes if the smart host is unavailable the message
will sit in queue until the max retries are hit. If the message is not
delivered during this period it will NDR the message back to the original
sender.
Solution:
Use a Hardware or Virtual Load Balancer to route SMTP traffic based on
availability. Load Balancers are becoming a very popular item with Exchange
2010 especially in large environments where High Availability (HA) is a must.
Here is a sample configuration to illustrate this HA solution.
So given the above solution we are dealing with 2 sites, both with inbound
and outbound direct SMTP. In our case we would create 4 Virtual IPs (VIP) 2 in
New York and 2 in Detroit. In New York we would create a VIP that would allow
the edge DMZ smart hosts to talk to talk to the exchange servers via a load
balanced IP. Because Load balancers have the capability of checking service
availability, if one of our exchange servers goes down in New York the down
server is removed from the pool and all SMTP traffic is directed to the
surviving exchange servers. Now because we only have a single Edge SMTP device
in New York, we will create another VIP and have one member of pool be in New
York and the other member be in Detroit. With this configuration we have HA for
our SMTP edge devices. To control traffic so that we are not sending external
email from New York to Detroit needlessly, we can associate a cost on the pool
members. For Example, the SMTP device in New York we will have a cost of 1 and
the device in Detroit will have a cost of 100. The Load Balancer will then only
use the lower cost device unless it becomes unavailable at which point it will
direct all outbound traffic to Detroit. Now when we can create our SMTP send
connectors in Exchange and specify the VIP we created for outbound SMTP as the
smart host destination. Finally, we would duplicate this configuration in
Detroit changing the cost of the devices to ensure the local devices always have
a lower cost. Exchange will now route all messages to the VIP providing us a
higher degree of redundancy without manual intervention.


