>In a single site, if we have multiple CAS, HUB & UM servers, if/how is the
>traffic load balanced between them?
UM traffic isn't going to be load balanced by Exchange because the SIP
gateway will point traffic to the box that manages the extensions.
http://markarnold.blogspot.com/2007/01/exchange-2007-when-to-nlb-and-when-not.ht
ml#links
and Neil's comment adds a little extra to the debate.
In short, it all depends on what you implemented. Sometimes you will
want to implement NLB, other times you won't need to because Exchange
does it for you. Neil explains about CAS and ISA, which is pretty
cute.
Neil Hobson [MVP] - 08 Feb 2007 12:47 GMT
I should have clarified that the ISA portion is only for HTTP access. If
someone is looking to load balance POP, IMAP, etc, that's a different story.
;)

Signature
Neil Hobson
Exchange MVP
http://www.msexchange.org/Neil_Hobson/
>>In a single site, if we have multiple CAS, HUB & UM servers, if/how is the
>>traffic load balanced between them?
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> does it for you. Neil explains about CAS and ISA, which is pretty
> cute.
Ex07Admin - 11 Feb 2007 23:03 GMT
Thanks for the link. However, it stated that you should remove SMTP from
NLB. If you have multiple HUB's receiving email from a single gateway, then
what is the preferred method to get mail to both?
>>In a single site, if we have multiple CAS, HUB & UM servers, if/how is the
>>traffic load balanced between them?
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> does it for you. Neil explains about CAS and ISA, which is pretty
> cute.
Del - 12 Feb 2007 00:47 GMT
this should work, configure that gateway to deliver to both HT's and
configure Receive Connectors on both HT's.
> Thanks for the link. However, it stated that you should remove SMTP from
> NLB. If you have multiple HUB's receiving email from a single gateway,
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
>> does it for you. Neil explains about CAS and ISA, which is pretty
>> cute.
Mark Arnold [MVP] - 12 Feb 2007 16:24 GMT
Responded to your private mails.
Cheers.