 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Windows Server Forum / Exchange Server / Design / December 2006Recipient update service
We are currently migrating from MX 5.5 to 2003, 42 MX 5.5 sites/3500 users, will eventually replace 42 MX 5.5 sites with 20 MX 2003 admin groups. Question is about the RUS, do you need to set up more than the default domain/enterprise one's? You need 1 Enterprise RUS and 1 RUS for each domain that has Exchange recipients. Just a thought. Do you really need 20 Admin Groups? It sounds like quite a lot for an organization of your size. Remember that an AG is an administrative boundary and not a messgae routing boundary. /Simon > We are currently migrating from MX 5.5 to 2003, 42 MX 5.5 sites/3500 > users, will eventually replace 42 MX 5.5 sites with 20 MX 2003 admin > groups. > > Question is about the RUS, do you need to set up more than the default > domain/enterprise one's? as it's a migration then the admin model follows the old MX 5.5 site boundary ie one MX 5.5 site - 1 Admin Group. > You need 1 Enterprise RUS and 1 RUS for each domain that has Exchange > recipients. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >> Question is about the RUS, do you need to set up more than the default >> domain/enterprise one's? No that is not the case anymore. With Exchange 2003 SP1 you have the possibility to collapse the Site/AG structure with cross-ag mailbox moves. I suggest looking in to it before you go any further. http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/exchange/Guides/Ex2k3DepGuide/94541 013-3bf1-4144-a880-9cc4fee39946.mspx?mfr=true /Simon > as it's a migration then the admin model follows the old MX 5.5 site > boundary ie one MX 5.5 site - 1 Admin Group. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >>> Question is about the RUS, do you need to set up more than the default >>> domain/enterprise one's? I forgot to metion that if you are planning to go to Exchange 2007 in the near future then it might not be worth collapsing the AG structure as the AG concept dissapears in 2007. /Simon > No that is not the case anymore. > With Exchange 2003 SP1 you have the possibility to collapse the Site/AG [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] >>>> Question is about the RUS, do you need to set up more than the default >>>> domain/enterprise one's? Thanks for that, but we did decide to keep the MX 5.5 structure and add new MX 2003 server into MX 5.5 site and move all mailboxes across, where we had servers that did not need to be maintained we have planned to move these mailboxes back to a central location. Anyhow my original question about RUS all the people I've spoken have just left this alone i.e. one per domain plus the enterprise one......but I found this article....................http://www.msexchange.org/tutorials/MF017.html half way down it states that... " In most cases, having a single Recipient Update Service for each Active Directory domain will be sufficient, but if you have a single AD domain that spans across different physical locations it is recommended that you create a Recipient Update Service in each Active Directory site, and also ensure that you have a Global Catalogue server in each Active Directory site also." I can not find any Microsoft article which support these comments, what do you think about this article >I forgot to metion that if you are planning to go to Exchange 2007 in the >near future then it might not be worth collapsing the AG structure as the [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] >>>>> Question is about the RUS, do you need to set up more than the default >>>>> domain/enterprise one's? I agree that you should have a GC in each site. Regarding the RUS I am not so sure about that statement. Where will you be creating the bulk of the users? Centrally? or do you have administrators spread out across the entire org? How often do the DCs in remote site replicate with the central DCs? If you administer the org centrally then go with one RUS. Then specify a local Exhcnage server and DC on the properties of the RUS. If you replicate DC information fairly regularly (15-30 minutes or so) then go with one RUS. With a single RUS the worst thing that can happen is that: - You create a user with a mailbox in a remote site - That user account has to be replicated up to the central site - The RUS discovers that this account needs to stamped with a proxy address - This change to the account needs to be replicated back to the remote site /Simon > Thanks for that, but we did decide to keep the MX 5.5 structure and add > new MX 2003 server into MX 5.5 site and move all mailboxes across, where [quoted text clipped - 48 lines] >>>>>> Question is about the RUS, do you need to set up more than the >>>>>> default domain/enterprise one's? We administer the network centrally, all remote sites where we have a MX 2003 servers also have one GC, the AD replication is every hour. This all kicked off because the RUS service seemed to stop working, i.e. new accounts were not getting stamped with their email addresses, RUS just died on us, could not get it working, we had to reboot the GC that it was pointing to and move the exchange pointer to another server, this is when I stumbled on the msexchangeorg document, but no one that I know has implemented more than one RUS per domain. I suppose if we had two for redundancy it should eliminate the single point of failure. Regards Jim >I agree that you should have a GC in each site. > Regarding the RUS I am not so sure about that statement. Where will you be [quoted text clipped - 68 lines] >>>>>>> Question is about the RUS, do you need to set up more than the >>>>>>> default domain/enterprise one's? |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.