Unsolved
This post is more than 5 years old
46 Posts
0
780
December 23rd, 2009 02:00
Moving the EmailXtender database
Hi all,
Our EmailXtender environment has it's own (remote) SQL server at the moment. We are currently reviewing our total SQL environment and have implemented a SQL Server 2005 SP3 cluster.
In the EX documentation it is recommended that the EX database should not be used for any other applications.
Can anyone clarify why this not recommended, as we use a dual quad core server with 32GB for our cluster, and the currently used SQL server has far less CPU power and RAM.
Is it supported to migrate this SQL instance to the cluster? Or otherwise move the instance to another SQL server, where other databases are running?
Kind regards,
Duncan
No Events found!
RKatwal
2 Intern
•
600 Posts
1
December 23rd, 2009 04:00
Hi Duncan,
"EX database should not be used for any other applications "
I do not think EX will have any problem sharing a SQL server provided it gets resources when needed. You cannot share EX database but to my understanding you should be okay to host multiple databases on the same EX server. Usually sharing SQL server might not be a good idea if there are other applications that could keep you SQL server busy due to high I/O, if that happens EX will have problems.
Which page of documentation are you referring to ?
Thanks,
Rajan
minfin
46 Posts
0
December 23rd, 2009 06:00
Hi Rajan,
Thanks for your quick reply. I was referring to page 3-22 from the ExInstallGuide (v4.8 SP1) we used during install.
"Using a remote SQL Server database may cause a decrease in EmailXtender system performance." and
"The SQL Server installation you plan to use with EmailXtender and EmailXtender Audit should not be used for any other applications"
Is there any documentation on how we can migrate the database to the SQL cluster?
Very kind regards,
Duncan
Wisers
2 Intern
•
138 Posts
0
December 23rd, 2009 07:00
Hi Minfin and Rajan,
We have two EX servers. One for each Exchange Org our company has. EX server #1 has SQL 2000 installed locally. It is an old server (EX upgraded often) set up by EMC professional services, and they went with the guidelines in the manuals about installing SQL locally.
Our 2nd EX server is just coming online now. We are planning to use our centralized SQL 2005 server. We have an instance on this centralized server set aside for our "Messaging" databases such as BES, Meeting Tools, Exchange Statistics databases, and now EX and EXAudit. Our network connection between the servers is redundant and 1GB.
Although the documentation still recommends installing SQL locally, I beleive it is to avoid the unexpected Network issues and latencies that can occur if a customer installed the SQL databases on a low end centralized server. With most companies wanting to consolidate and centralize to save both time and money, this is the way things are going.
I will reply to this post should we find any problems using our centralized SQL database, but like you, our SQL servers are over sized and as long as performance is high and latency is low, I think we will be ok. Monitoring of performance and logs is essential.