Mdaemon vs exchange 2013
Instead, it suffices to configure multiple Client Access Servers with the same internal hostname for Outlook Anywhere. Now, since Exchange Server 2013 dumped using RPC-over-TCP, I no longer see the purpose in creating the RPC Client Access Array object (New-ClientAccessArray). Yes, the use of the term CAS Array can be a little confusing. What I find is that people tend to mix up the RPC Client Access Array and the load-balanced array used for http-based traffic.
A lot of them were addressed by Brian Day in a very interesting article he wrote. While this might be a cost-effective way to have load-balancing and a very, very basic form of high availability, it is not a real viable solution for most deployments…Įver since the CAS Array was first introduced, it was subject to quite some misconceptions. Yes, because it will load-balance between multiple Client Access Servers no because if a server would fail, you’d have to remove the server (manually) from DNS and wait for the record to time-out on all the clients. I hear you thinking: does this mean we could use DNS load balancing (a.k.a. This is because CAS in Exchange Server 2013 doesn’t do any data-rendering anymore: everything happens on the backend (Mailbox servers). The latter is the process where a connection – once it was built – had to be persisted through the same Client Access Servers. Yes, you are no longer required to configure “affinity”. Layer-4 load balancing only takes into account the IP (and TCP port). Other than before, layer-4 load balancing now becomes a viable options, though that would only be in the smallest deployments where there’s no budget for load balancers. To achieve high availability, you create a load-balanced array of Client Access Servers just like in Exchange Server 2010.