Seperate CAS for Vaulting

[tim_d_jordan]

Does anyone know if there is a benefit from creating a seperate cas server just for vaulting?

We have a large backlog of mail to archive (9TB) and have noticed that the rate is slower with user load than without.

I was thinking that maybe we would get better throughput from creating a seperate CAS array.

Tim

[TonySterling]

Can you elaborate a bit more on what your above scenario is?

It sounds like your EV System mailboxes might be getting moved and that is causing some slowness.

[tim_d_jordan]

I have 2 MBX servers in a DAG

I have 1 MBX server standalone

I have 2 CAS/HUB servers in a CAS array

All servers are in the same AD site.

I am trying to limit the impact of vault on the user base and at the same time get the best vault performance.

My question is whether by adding a third CAS server not in the CAS array and sitting it on a VM only network between vault and the mbx server whether this would give any real performance benefits by alleviating the CAS load or whether I am actually being constrained by the response of the MBX servers.

Tim

[TonySterling · Accepted solution]

So I doubt you see a performance boost.  The archive task is still going to connect to the Exchange Server, that is why it is recommended to keep the EV System mailbox on the Exchange server.

Not sure if you have seen the attached.

[Ameen]

I dont think having a dedicated CAS server for EV is going work. If you have CAS server ready then make that server part of the CAS array that will improve the over all performance.

If you feel the archival is not happening as you expected then review your Background archival window and the properties of the archiving task and make sure that maximum mails are getting archived in one run.

[tim_d_jordan]

Thanks will probably do that then.

[TonySterling]

actually using a CAS Array may cause some additional issues as noted here:

Event 3419 MAPI error detected for an Exchange 2010 or later target (possible DAG failover) - 0x80040115

Article: TECH169970

|

Created: 2011-09-20

|

Updated: 2011-12-13

|

Article URL http://www.symantec.com/docs/TECH169970

The workaround is this:

Workaround:
Bypass the hardware load balancer with a hosts file entry so that the Enterprise Vault Server may communicate directly with a single Client Access Server (CAS).

1. Browse to c:\Windows\System32\drivers\etc and edit the hosts file.
2. Create an entry with the IP address of one of the CAS nodes and the network name of the hardware load balancer. The name of the hardware load balancer will match the Exchange 2010 CAS Array name.

[Ameen]

Thanks Tony, I didnt know about the article, I am still using CAS array and didnt find any issue. May be I have to review the situation!