Monday, February 2, 2009

High Availability and Disaster Recovery for Exchange Servers - A Comparative Analysis

Email is becoming ubiquitous and has become the standard tool for communication in many enterprises, big and small. Microsoft is the dominant player in the messaging platform market through its Exchange Server. Enterprises are clearly choosing the reliability, scalability, and performance of Exchange, combined with the feature-rich Microsoft Outlook and Outlook Web Access clients and built-in collaboration services for workflow and other applications.

Email has become a mission-critical application for most businesses today and it has long been a challenge to backup and restore email information. If a crash occurs and if the data is not restored, it can have devastating consequences for a business. So it is imperative for companies to effectively backup and recover data and protect them from huge losses in productivity and downtime.

High Availability Solutions for Exchange Servers



Failover Clustering


Microsoft Clustering enables users to prevent hardware failures by stringing redundant hardware, called nodes, together through a central cluster manager that coordinates load balancing and data activity. Typically, nodes share common storage space and have the capability of picking up load off of a node that goes down due to hardware or software malfunction. There are two types of cluster environments—active/active and active/passive. In the former, every node in the environment is live and capable of processing requests. When one active node goes down, the others simply process more requests as the load is evenly dispersed across the remaining nodes. In the latter, there is a single active node that processes all incoming requests. Upon hardware or software failure in the active node, the passive node is immediately and automatically brought up by the cluster manager to take over the normal function of processing data requests. In this way, hardware exposure is mitigated through physical hardware redundancy.


Microsoft Exchange Server supports both active-active and active-passive cluster environments. Exchange Server Clustering provides high availability by protecting against a node failure. However, it does not prevent against storage failures. Given the size of typical cluster environments, multiple hard disks are used to build large storage arrays. In Network and System Administration, when large numbers of any one device are used, failure is expected. When a hard disk fails, application disruption is unavoidable, as all the nodes in the cluster could be using that one particular disk as shared storage which contains all files, including Exchange Server database files. As protection against this particular failure, RAID configurations are common. However, from a performance standpoint, this significantly slows down I/O in the subsystems due to writing the data to multiple disks at the same time. Administrators have to balance such performance degradation and understand that this particular implementation has limitations. Again, the RAID option is to protect against any hard disk failure but it cannot prevent site disasters.


In direct contrast to this storage dependency, using other replication approaches prevent against hardware, software and storage failures. Failover servers are normally installed on unique, usually geographically independent, Exchange Servers which serve as a barrier to failures of any type.


Exchange Server Clustering environments are more cost-intensive compared to the Standby option. The primary reason for this is the high hardware and software requirements. Clustering requires Windows NT Enterprise Edition, Windows 2000 Advanced Server or Windows 2003 Enterprise Edition and Exchange Server Enterprise Edition. Additionally, it only supports hardware listed on the Microsoft Hardware Compatibility list. On the other hand, a Standby or Failover server does not have any special hardware requirements and is simply a software solution to meet disaster recovery needs. As an additional cost, LAN connectivity is required between the Exchange Server cluster nodes to send and receive what is called a heartbeat signal, among other communications. This signal is used by each node to determine if other nodes are still available. In case any node is not available the remaining nodes take over. With Standby, LAN or WAN network connectivity will work to replicate Exchange Server mailboxes. The speed of this process is directly related to the size of the mailboxes and network bandwidth.


File or Block Level Replication


Different kinds of replication techniques can be used to replicate data between two servers both locally and remotely. In block level, replication is performed by the storage controllers or by mirroring the software. In file-system level (replication of file system changes), the host software performs the replication. In both block and file level replication, it does not matter what type of applications are getting replicated. They are basically application agnostic, but some vendors do offer solutions with some kind of application specificity. But some of the disadvantages are:


Typically, identical hardware/software in both production and replicated servers are needed.

Possibility of virus/corruption getting propagated from production server to replicated server.



Exchange 2007 Built-in High Availability Features



Exchange Server 2007 includes four features that provide high availability for Mailbox servers: Local Continuous Replication (LCR), Cluster Continuous Replication (CCR), Single Copy Clusters (SCC) and Standby Continuous Replication (SCR).


- Local Continuous Replication (LCR): LCR is a single-server solution that uses built-in asynchronous log shipping technology to create and maintain a copy, or replica, of a storage group on a second set of disks that are connected to the same server as the production storage group. LCR provides log shipping, log replay, and a quick manual switch to a secondary copy of the data.


- Cluster Continuous Replication (CCR): CCR is a clustered solution that uses built-in asynchronous log shipping technology to create and maintain a storage group replica on a second server. CCR is designed to be either a one or two datacenter solution, providing both high availability and site resilience.


- Single Copy Clusters (SCC): SCC is a clustered solution that uses a single copy of a storage group on storage that is shared between the nodes in the cluster. SCC is very similar to clustering in previous versions of Exchange Server, with some significant changes and improvements.


- Standby Continuous Replication (SCR): SCR is designed for scenarios that use or enable the use of standby recovery servers. SCR enables a separation of high availability and site resilience. SCR can be combined with CCR to replicate storage groups locally (using CCR for high availability) and remotely in a secondary site (using SCR for site resilience).



These high availability features provide good functionality but one has to be an experienced user of Exchange server to implement them. Also, here are some of the constraints one will face when implementing the built-in high availability of features of Exchange 2007.


- Exchange Server 2007 runs on a 64-bit machine and hence costs more.


- For best performance, it is recommended that Active Directory Domain Controllers also run on a 64-bit machine, but it is not mandatory.


- No support for Exchange 2000 and Exchange 2003.


- The replicated server is in a passive mode and cannot be accessed for reporting, monitoring and archival purposes.


- It cannot create replication for all storage groups at one time.


- It is a must to have only one mailbox store in a Storage Group, otherwise Exchange 2007 Replication will not work.



Mailbox Replication Approach


In this approach, the replication is done at a mailbox level and it is very application specific. One can pick and choose the mailboxes that need to be replicated. One can set up a granular plan for key executives, sales and IT people, in which the replication occurs more frequently to achieve the required Recovery Point Objective (RPO) and Recovery Time Objective (RTO). For everyone else in the company, another plan can be set up where the replication intervals are not that frequent.


Another advantage of this approach is that the replicated or failover server is in an Active mode. The failover server can be accessed for reporting and monitoring purposes. With other replication approaches, the failover server is in a Passive mode and cannot be used for maintenance, monitoring or reporting purposes.


Backup and Replication


Some solutions offer both backup and replication as part of a single solution. In this case, the backup is integrated with replication and the users get a two-in-one solution. Considered two-tier architecture, these solutions consist of an application and agent environment. The application server also hosts the network share that stores all the backup files. The files are stored on this network share and not on any particular target server so as to prevent loss of backup files. If the target server goes down, users would like to continue to access their backup files in order to rebuild the target server with as little downtime as possible.


Figure 1

The mailboxes will be backed to the backup server and then replicated to the remote failover server. The full backup and restore is done first and then only the changes will be applied through incremental. For restoring emails and mailboxes, the local backup data can be used and for disaster recovery purposes, the remote failover server can be utilized.

Failover/Failback

When a disaster strikes the primary site, then all the users will be failed over to the remote site. Once the primary is rebuilt, one has to go through the failback process. The only way to make sure that your disaster recovery solution works is to test it periodically. Unfortunately, to do that one has to failover the entire Exchange server. Exchange Administrators will be leery about doing this for fear of crashing the production Exchange server. With the mailbox replication approach, one can create a test mailbox and use it for failover/failback testing periodically.

Conclusion

Companies are impacted adversely with significant loss of productivity and revenue when an Exchange server goes down. With increasing dependence of business on Exchange server, customers are demanding instant failover to a local or remote server. This concept may mean survival of business in case of a major destruction. High availability and disaster recovery of Exchange servers should be taken seriously and companies should implement the proper solution to protect them. One has to choose the appropriate solution based on their needs to protect the Exchange servers.

Tuesday, January 6, 2009

A look at some more AX4/iSCSI availability diagrams

Your comments on AX4 & iSCSI high availability were very informative and provided a number of idea for improving on the described availability scenario. In this post, Scott Lowe continues the availability discussion.
You guys gave me some great thoughts in my last posting in which I discussed my AX4/iSCSI highly available architecture. In this posting, I will continue the thread and give you a look at what the Westminster College architecture will look like in a few weeks. Some of this information is based on ideas provided in your comments. Although I’ve had the basic architectural diagram in mind for quite some time, your comments have helped to refine it.

Let’s start with a look at how VMware ESX will fit into our architecture.


This diagram is very similar to the one from the previous posting with one change. At the bottom of the diagram, I show an ESX cluster, fully VMotion-enabled. Each ESX server has multiple connections to the iSCSI storage network as well as to the primary network the users use to connect to the ESX servers. Under this scenario, we will achieve a high level of service availability for all of the servers running on the individual ESX servers. We’ll get to a highly available architecture with our SQL servers — and well as some other non-ESX services — through clustering, which will also entail a setup like the one above.

The next scenario expands on the scenario shown in the previous discussion.


I mentioned in that posting that, for simplicity’s sake, I wouldn’t show the connections to our core switch — an HP Procurve 5412zl. One of the comments on the previous posting recommended that we use the HP 5412zl for our primary iSCSI VLAN rather than our Dell blade-based M6220 switch. Under this scenario, we would bond together the four uplink ports on the M6220 to the 5412zl. The only downside to this scenario is that all iSCSI traffic from our blade chassis will have to traverse both the M6220 and the 5412zl. An alternative would be to use one uplink port on each of the M6220’s to connect to the AX4 and connect the other pair of iSCSI ports on the AX4 to the 5412zl. Doing this, we would have only two ports available to bond together from the M6220s to the 5412zl. We will test both scenarios, but I suspect that we will go with the alternative scenario I just described as it provides a higher level of redundancy.

I look very forward to your comments and suggestions.

iSCSI is the future of storage

iSCSI is here to stay and will eventually supplant a significant portion of the installed base of Fibre Channel SANs out there. Further, as organizations make their initial forays into block-level shared storage, iSCSI will beat Fibre Channel more often than not.

This week, HP announced their $360 million acquisition of LeftHand networks. Last year, Dell surprised the tech industry with a $1.4 billion purchase of the formerly independent EqualLogic. With these iSCSI snap-ups by true tech titans, iSCSI has officially arrived, is here to stay, and, I believe, will become the technology of choice for most organizations in the future.

This is not to say that iSCSI has been sitting in the background up to this point. On the contrary, the technology has taken the industry by storm. Both of these companies based their entire business hopes on the possibility that organizations would see the intrinsic value to be found in iSCSI’s simplistic installation and management. To say that both companies have been successful would be an understatement.

I’m a big fan of both EqualLogic and LeftHand Networks offerings, having purchased an EqualLogic unit in a former life. At that time, I narrowed my selection down to two options - LeftHand and EqualLogic. Both solutions had their pros and cons, but both were more than viable.

It’s not all about EqualLogic and LeftHand, though. The big guns in storage have finally jumped feet first into the iSCSI fray with extremely compelling products of their own. Previously, these players, including EMC and NetApp, simply bolted iSCSI onto existing products. Lately, even the biggest Fibre Channel vendors are releasing native iSCSI arrays aimed at the mid-tier of the market. EMC’s AX4, for example, is available in both native iSCSI and native Fibre Channel versions and is priced in such a way that any organization considering EqualLogic or LeftHand should make sure to give the EMC AX4 a look. To be fair, the iSCSI-only AX4:

-Does not support SAN copy for SAN to SAN replication
-Is not as easy to install or manage as one of the aforementioned devices, but isn’t bad either
-The bandwidth to the array does not increase as additional space is added
-It does not include thin provisioning, although this was rumored to be rectified in a future software release
-The AX4 supports up to 64 attached hosts

But, the price per TB is simply incredible and a solution based on a different vendor would not have been attainable. This year, I purchased just shy of 14 TB of raw space on a pair of AX4 arrays-4.8 TB SAS and 9 TB SATA-for under $40K. For the foreseeable future, I don’t need SAN copy and space can be managed in ways other than through thin provisioning. Over time, we’ll run about two dozen virtual machines on the AX4 along with our administrative databases and Exchange 2007 databases. By the time I need additional features, the AX4 will be due for replacement anyway.

iSCSI started out at the low end of the market, helping smaller organizations begin to move toward shared storage and away from direct attached solutions. As time goes on, iSCSI is moving up the food chain and, in many cases, is supplanting small and mid-sized Fibre Channel arrays, particularly in organizations that have never had a SAN before. As iSCSI continues to take advantage of high-speed SAS disks and begins to use 10Gb Ethernet for a transport mechanism, I see iSCSI continuing to move higher into the market. Of course, faster, more reliable disks and faster networking capabilities will begin to close the savings gap between iSCSI and Fibre Channel, but iSCSI’s reliance on Ethernet for an underlying transport mechanism brings major simplicity to the storage equation and I doubt that iSCSI’s costs will ever surpass Fibre Channel anyway, mainly due to the expensive networking hardware needed for significant Fibre Channel implementations.

Even though iSCSI will continue to make inroads further into many organizations, I don’t think that iSCSI will ever completely push Fibre Channel out of the way. Many organizations rely on the raw performance afforded by Fibre Channel and the folks behind Fibre Channel’s specifications aren’t sitting still. Every year brings advances to Fibre Channel, including faster disks and improved connection speeds.

In short, I see the iSCSI market continuing to grow very rapidly and, over time, supplanting what would have been Fibre Channel installations. Further, as organizations continue to expand their storage infrastructures, iSCSI will be a very strong contender, particularly as the solution is updated to take advantage of improvements to the networking speed and disk performance.

Thursday, December 25, 2008

Protecting Microsoft Exchange in Physical & Virtual Environments

Introduction

For many companies, email has become a more important communication tool than the telephone. Internal employee communication, vendor and partner communication, email integration with business applications, collaboration using shared documents and schedules, and the ability to capture and archive key business interactions all contribute to the increasing reliance on email.

Businesses of all sizes, from multinational enterprises to small and midsize businesses, are using the messaging and collaboration features of Microsoft Exchange to run business functions that if lost, for even a short amount of time, can result in severe business disruption. No wonder Exchange has become a critical application for so many businesses. When these businesses look at high availability solutions to protect key business applications, Exchange is often the first application targeted for protection.

Improving the availability of Exchange involves reducing or eliminating the many potential causes of downtime. Planned downtime is less disruptive since it can be scheduled for nights or weekends - when user activity is much lower. Unplanned downtime, on the other hand, tends to occur at the worst possible times and can impact the business severely. Unplanned downtime can have many causes including hardware failures, software failures, operator errors, data loss or corruption, and site outages. To successfully protect Exchange you need to ensure that no single point of failure can render Exchange servers, storage or network unavailable. This article explains how to identify your failure risk points and highlights industry best practices to reduce or eliminate them, depending on your organization’s Exchange availability needs, resources and budget.
Exchange Availability Options

Most availability products for Exchange fall into one of three categories: traditional failover clusters, virtualization clusters and data replication. Some solutions combine elements of both clustering and data replication; however, there is no single solution that can address all possible causes of downtime. Traditional and virtualization clusters both rely on shared storage and the ability to run applications on an alternate server if the primary server fails or requires maintenance. Data replication software maintain a second copy of the application data, at either a local or remote site, and support either manual or automated failover to handle planned or unplanned server failures.

All of these products rely on redundant servers to provide availability. Applications can be moved to an alternate server if a primary server fails or requires maintenance. It is also possible to add redundant components within a server to reduce the chances of server failure.

Get Rid Of Failover – Get Rid Of Downtime

Most availability products rely on a recovery process called “failover” that begins after a failure occurs. A failover moves application processing to an alternate host after an unplanned failure occurs or by operator command to accommodate planned maintenance activity. Failovers are effective in bringing applications back online reasonably quickly but they do result in application downtime, loss of in-process transactions and in-memory application data, and expose the possibility of data corruption. Even a routine failover will result in minutes or tens of minutes of downtime including the time required for application restart and data recovery resulting from an unplanned failure. In the worst case, software bugs or errors in scripts or operational procedures can result in failovers that do not work properly; with the result that downtime can extend to hours or even days. Reducing the number of failovers, shortening the duration of failovers, and ensuring that the failover process is completely reliable, all contribute to reducing Exchange downtime.

Local server redundancy and basic failover address the most common failures that cause unplanned Exchange downtime. However, data loss or corruption, and site disruptions, although less common, can cause much longer outages and require additional solution elements to properly address.
Evaluate Unplanned Downtime Causes

Unplanned downtime can be caused by a number of different events:

-Catastrophic server failures caused by memory, processor or motherboard failures
-Server component failures including power supplies, fans, internal disks, disk controllers, host bus adapters and network adapters
-Software failures of the operating system, middleware or application
-Site problems such as power failures, network disruptions, fire, flooding or natural disasters

Each category of unplanned downtime is addressed in more detail below.
How to Avoid Server Hardware Failures

Server core components include power supplies, fans, memory, CPUs and main logic boards. Purchasing robust, name brand servers, performing recommended preventative maintenance, and monitoring server errors for signs of future problems can all help reduce the chances of failover due to catastrophic server failure.

Failovers caused by server component failures can be significantly reduced by adding redundancy at the component level. Robust servers are available with redundant power and cooling. ECC memory, with the ability to correct single-bit memory errors, has been a standard feature of most servers for several years. Newer memory technologies including advanced ECC, online spare memory, and mirrored memory provide additional protection but are only available on higher-cost servers. Online spare and mirrored memory can increase memory costs significantly and may not be cost effective for many Exchange environments.

Internal disks, disk controllers, host bus adapters and network adapters can all be duplicated. However, adding component redundancy to every server can be both expensive and complex.

Reduce Storage Hardware Failures

Storage protection relies on device redundancy combined with RAID storage to protect data access and data integrity from hardware failures. There are distinct issues for both local disk storage and for shared network storage.

Critical Moves To Protect Your Local Storage

Local storage is only used for static and temporary system data in a clustering solution. Data replication solutions maintain a copy of all local data on a second server. However, failure of unprotected local storage will result in an unplanned server failure, introducing the downtime and risks involved in a failover to an alternate server. For local storage, it is quite easy to add extra disks configured with RAID 1 protection. It is critical that a second disk controller is also used and that disks within each RAID 1 set are connected to separate controllers. Using other RAID levels, such as RAID 5, is not recommended for local disk storage the write cache is lost.
Secure Your Shared Storage

Shared storage depends on redundancy within the storage array itself. Fortunately, storage arrays from many storage vendors are available with full redundancy that includes disks, storage controllers, caches, network controllers, power and cooling. Redundant, synchronized write caches available in many storage arrays allow the use of performance-boosting write caching without the data corruption risks associated with single write caches. It is critical, however, that only fully-redundant storage arrays are used; lower-cost, non-redundant storage array options should be avoided.

Access to shared storage relies on either a fibre channel or Ethernet storage network. To assure uninterrupted access to shared storage, these networks must be designed to eliminate all single points of failure. This requires redundancy of network paths, network switches and network connections to each storage array. Multiple host bus adapters (HBAs) within each server can protect servers from HBA or path failures. Multipath IO software, required for supporting redundant HBAs, is available in many standard operating systems (including MPIO for Windows) and is also provided by many storage vendors; examples include EMC PowerPath, HP Secure Path and Hitachi Dynamic Link Manager. But these competing solutions are not universally supported by all storage network and storage array vendors, often making it difficult to choose the correct multipath software for a particular environment. This problem becomes worse if the storage environment includes network elements and storage arrays from more than a single vendor. Multipath IO software can be difficult to configure and may not be compatible with all storage network or array elements.
Say Goodbye to Networking Failures

The network infrastructure itself must be fault-tolerant, consisting of redundant network paths, switches, routers and other network elements. Server connections can also be duplicated to eliminate failovers caused by the failure of a single server component. Take care to ensure that the physical network hardware does not share common components. For example, dual-ported network cards share common hardware logic and a single card failure can disable both ports. Full redundancy requires either two separate adapters or the combination of a built-in network port along with a separate network adapter.

Software to control failover and load sharing across multiple adapters falls into the category or NIC teaming and includes many different options. Options include fault tolerance (active/passive operation with failover), load balancing (multiple transmit with single receive) and link aggregation (simultaneous transmit and receive across multiple adapters). Load balancing and link aggregation also include failover.

Choosing among these configuration options can be difficult and must be considered along with the overall network capabilities and design goals. For example, link aggregation requires support in the network switches and includes several different protocol options including Gigabit EtherChannel and IEEE 802.3ad. Link aggregation also requires that all connections be made to the same switch, opening a vulnerability to a switch failure.
Minimize Software Failures

Software failures can occur at the operating system level or at the Exchange application level. In virtualization environments, the hypervisor itself or virtual machines can fail. In addition to hard failures, performance problems or functional problems can seriously impact Exchange users, even while all of the software components continue to operate. Beyond proper software installation and configuration along with the timely installation of hot fixes, the best way to improve software reliability is the use of effective monitoring tools. Fortunately, there is a wide choice of monitoring and management tools for Exchange available from Microsoft as well as from third parties.

Reduce Operator Errors

Operator errors are a major cause of downtime. Proven, well-documented procedures and properly skilled and trained IT staff will greatly reduce the chance for operator errors. But some availability solutions can actually increase the chance of operator errors by requiring specialized staff skills and training, by introducing the need for complex failover script development and maintenance, or by requiring the precise coordination of configuration changes across multiple servers.
Secure Yourself from Site-Wide Outages

Site failures can range from an air conditioning failure or leaking roof that affect a single building, a power failure that affects a limited local area, or a major hurricane that affects a large geographic area. Site disruptions can last anywhere from a few hours to days or even weeks. While site failures are less common than hardware or software failures, they can be far more disruptive.

A disaster recovery solution based on data replication is a common to protect Exchange from a site failure while minimizing downtime associated with recovery. A data replication solution that moves data changes in real time and optimizes wide area network bandwidth will result in a low risk of data loss in the event of a site failure. Solutions based on virtualization can reduce hardware requirements at the backup site and simplify ongoing configuration management and testing.

For sites located close enough to each other to support a high-speed, low-latency network connection, solutions offering better availability with no data loss are another option.
Failover Reliability

Investments in redundant hardware and availability software are wasted if the failover process is unreliable. It is obviously important to select a robust availability solution that handles failovers reliably and to ensure that your IT staff is properly skilled and trained. Solutions need to be properly installed, configured, maintained and tested.

Some solution features that contribute to failover reliability include the following:

-Simple to install, configure and maintain, placing a smaller burden on IT staff time and specialized knowledge while reducing the chance of errors
-Avoidance of scripting or failover policy choices that can introduce failover errors
-Detection of actual hardware and software errors rather than timeout-based error detection
-Guaranteed resource reservation versus best-effort algorithms that risk resource over commitment
Protect Against Data Loss and Corruption

There are problems of data loss and corruption that require solutions beyond hardware redundancy and failover. Errors in application logic or mistakes by users or IT staff can result in accidentally deleted files or records, incorrect data changes and other data loss or integrity problems. Certain types of hardware or software failures can lead to data corruption. Site problems or natural disasters can result in loss of access to data or the complete loss of data. Beyond the need to protect current data, both business and regulatory requirements add the need to archive and retrieve historical data, often spanning several years and multiple types of data. Full protection against data loss and corruption requires a comprehensive backup and recovery strategy along with a disaster recovery plan.

In the past, backup and recovery strategies have been based on writing data to tape media that can be stored off-site. However, this approach has several drawbacks:

-Backup operations require storage and processing resources that can interfere with production operation and may require some applications to be stopped during the backup window
-Backup intervals typically range from a few hours to a full day, with the risk of losing several hours of data updates that occur between backups
-Using tape backup for disaster recovery results in recovery times measured in days, an unacceptable level of downtime for many organizations

Data replication is a better solution for both data protection and disaster recovery. Data replication solutions capture data changes from the primary production system and send them, in real time, to a backup system at a remote disaster site, at the local site, or both. There is still the chance that a system failure can occur before data changes have been replicated, but the exposure is in seconds or minutes rather than hours or days. Data replication can be combined with error detection and failover tools to help get a disaster recovery site up and running in minutes or hours, rather than days. Local data copies can be used to reduce tape backup requirements and to separate archival tape backup from production system operation to eliminate resource contention and remove backup window restrictions.

Consider Issues That Cause Planned Downtime

Hardware and software reconfiguration, hardware upgrades, software hot fixes and service packs, and new software releases can all require planned downtime. Planned downtime can be scheduled for nights and weekends, when system activity is lower, but there are still issues to consider. IT staff morale can suffer if off-hour activity is too frequent. Companies may need to pay overtime costs for this work. And application downtime, even on nights and weekends, can still be a problem for many companies that use their systems on a 24/7 basis.

Using redundant servers in an availability solution can allow reconfiguration and upgrades to be applied to one server while Exchange continues to run on a different server. After the reconfiguration or upgrade is completed, Exchange can be moved to the upgraded server with minimal downtime. Most of the work can be done during normal hours. Solutions based on virtualization, which can move applications from one server to another with no downtime, can reduce planned downtime even further. Be aware that changes to application data structures and formats can preclude this type of upgrade.
Added Benefits of Virtualization

The latest server virtualization technologies, while not required for protecting Exchange, do offer some unique benefits that can make Exchange protection both easier and more effective.

Virtualization makes it very easy to set up evaluation, test and development environments without the need for additional, dedicated hardware. Many companies cannot afford the additional hardware required for testing Exchange in a traditional, physical environment but effective testing is one of the keys to avoiding problems when making configuration changes, installing hot fixes, or moving to a new update release.

Virtualization allows resources to be adjusted dynamically to accommodate growth or peak loads. The alternative is to buy enough extra capacity upfront to handle expected growth, but this can result in expensive excess capacity. On the other hand, if the configuration was sized only for the short-term load requirements, growth can lead to poor performance and ultimately to the disruption associated with upgrading or replacing production hardware.

Managing Exchange Certificates

Introduction

Certificates can be used to encrypt the communication flow between two endpoints (both clients and servers). Certificates can also be used by these endpoints to authenticate themselves from each other. Exchange 2007 uses X.509 certificates for authentication and for encryption. X.509 certificates follow a standard format as published by the Telecommunication Standardization Sector (ITU-T).

An X.509 certificate is issued by a Certificate Authority (CA) that will bind the public key to a designated Distinguished Name, formatted according to the X.500 tradition, or to a so-called Subject Alternative Name or any of the Subject Alternative Names.
There are several components in Exchange 2007 that rely on certificates for encryption, authentication or both. In this article I will provide you with an overview of the different Exchange components that use certificates. I will then go deeper into the features of the by-default generated self-signed certificate. In part 2 of this article I will cover the naming requirements of a certificate you need to keep in mind when getting your certificates. To end, in part 3 of this article I will take a closer look at the different Exchange Management Shell cmdlets that are available to create, manage, and remove Exchange certificates.

Certificate Usage by Exchange Server 2007 Components

As already stated, several Exchange Server 2007 components rely on X.509 certificates for encryption, authentication or both. You will notice that when you install the Exchange 2007 Hub Transport server role, Client Access server role, Unified Messaging server role, and Edge Transport server role, Exchange will create by default a self-signed certificate to make sure its required components can use that certificate to function as required.

Figure 1 below shows you the self-signed certificate that is created by Exchange during the installation of the Exchange 2007 Client Access, Hub, and Unified Messaging server role. This certificate will be used by the following services: IIS, SMTP, POP, IMAP, and UM.

Figure 1: Self Signed Certificate created by default when installing the Exchange 2007 HUB, CAS, UM server role

Hub/Edge Transport server role and certificates

Transport Layer Security between Active Directory sites

The Exchange 2007 Hub Transport server role uses a certificate to encrypt all SMTP traffic between Active Directory sites. It is not possible to configure Exchange to allow unencrypted SMTP traffic between Hub Transport servers, located in different sites.

In order to see which certificate is used between two Hub Transport servers located in different Active Directory sites, you can enable SMTP protocol logging on the intra-organization Send connector on every Hub Transport server, as you can see in figure 2 below, by using the Exchange Management Shell cmdlet Set-TransportServer.
Figure 2: Setting IntraOrgConnectorProtocolLogging to verbose

By setting the so-called IntraOrgConnectorProtocolLoggingLevel to verbose, protocol logging will be added to the Send connector protocol log. After sending a mail from a mailbox homed in Site B to a mailbox located on an Exchange 2007 Mailbox server in Site A, looking at the Send protocol log reveals that the Exchange Hub Transport server in Site B (Ex2007SE) uses the certificate offered by the Exchange Hub Transport server in the destination Active Directory site (Ex2007EE) to start Transport Layer Security, as can be seen in Figure 3.


Figure 3: Send Protocol Log between Active Directory Sites

A quick look at the certificate on the Hub Transport server available for TLS, shows that it is a self-signed certificate used (Figure 4).


Figure 4: Self Signed Certificate

EdgeSync

Once EdgeSync is configured between your internal Hub Transport servers and the Edge Transport server(s), both servers will use a certificate to encrypt their communication. In addition both certificates will be used as a means to provide direct trust. Direct trust is a method of authentication where a certificate can be used for authentication when the provided certificate is present in Active Directory (for the Hub Transport server role) or ADAM/LDS (for the Edge Transport server role). When setting up EdgeSync, the requested certificates are published in the correct location.

Opportunistic Transport Layer Security

Whenever a SMTP server opens a connection to the Exchange 2007 Hub/Edge Transport server role, Exchange will allow for opportunistic TLS, by offering its certificate.
Domain Security

Certificates can also be used by the Hub/Edge Transport server to configure Domain Security with partner organizations, both for encryption and authentication.

Client Access Server role and certificates

Client Access

Certificates are used by the Client Access server role to allow the communication flow to be encrypted between the Client Access server and its different clients. By default SSL is required for:

-Outlook Web Access
-Outlook Anywhere
-Exchange ActiveSync
-POP3
-IMAP4
-Exchange Web Services as Autodiscover, EWS, and Unified Messaging

Figure 5: Require SSL

The only virtual directory for which the use of a certificate is not required by default is the one that makes the Offline Address Book available for download by Microsoft Office Outlook 2007 clients and later.

Figure 6: OAB Virtual Directory does not require SSL by default

Certificate Based Authentication

It is possible to configure certificate based authentication, thereby allowing clients to authenticate themselves against the Client Access server by using their personal certificate. For more information.

Unified Messaging Server Role and Certificates

Certificates are used by the Unified Messaging Server role to encrypt the communication when sending a recorded Voice Mail message to the Exchange Hub Transport Server role. Certificates can also be used to encrypt the SIP and/or RTP traffic to the UM IP Gateway, and have to be used when you decide to deploy Office Communications Server in your environment, since Office Communications Server only communicates with other server roles through encryption.

What is all this about the Self-Signed Certificate?

When you deploy any Exchange 2007 Server role, except for the Mailbox Server role, Exchange will generate a self-signed certificate, and allow Exchange to use this certificate when required for the services IIS, SMTP, POP3, IMAP4, and UM.

Characteristics of this Self-Signed Exchange Certificate

Let us have a look at some of the features of this by default generated Self-Signed certificate.

Self-Signed certificates are only valid for one year

Self-Signed certificates are valid for one year, as can be seen in Figure 7, and will need to be renewed after a year.

Figure 7: Self-Signed Certificate only valid for one year

To renew a Self-Signed certificate, you can use the Exchange Management Shell cmdlet New-ExchangeCertificate. If you first grab the existing certificate by running Get-ExchangeCertificate, you can pipe the object to the cmdlet New-ExchangeCertificate, which will generate a new Self-Signed Certificate with the same settings, and enable it for the same services by default.

In Figure 8 you can see how the existing Self-Signed Certificate is renewed.

Figure 8: Renew an existing Self-Signed Certificate

The Exchange 2007 Client Access server only allows one certificate to be enabled for usage with IIS, but you can have multiple certificates enabled for POP, IMAP, UM, and SMTP. When multiple certificates are available, Exchange will select a certificate based on different criteria. I will come back this certificate selection process in part 2 of this article.

Self-Signed Certificate has by default one Common Name and two Subject Alternative Names

The Self-Signed certificate that is created when deploying Exchange 2007 will have its common name set to the Host name of the Exchange server, and have two Subject Alternative Names set to its Host name and its Fully Qualified Domain Name.

Figure 9: Self-Signed Certificate and its Subject and CertificateDomains

It is possible however to generate a Self-Signed Certificate with another Subject and Subject Alternative Names to make sure it can be used in your Exchange organization.

Using the Exchange Management Shell cmdlet New-ExchangeCertificate, you can create for example a certificate with Common Name webmail.proexchange.global, and then specify Subject Alternative Names like the Exchange server its Host and Fully Qualified Domain Name, as seen in Figure 10.

Do not forget to add the boolean parameter PrivateKeyExportable and set it to True, if you want to be able to export this Self-Signed certificate to enable your users to trust it (full details on this in part 2 of the article).

Figure 10: Generating a new Self-Signed Certificate with customized Subject Alternative Names

In part 2 of this article, I will come back to the required names of a certificate. In part 3 I will explain in more detail the used cmdlets.

Self-Signed Certificate are only trusted by its issuer

It is very important to know that the Self-Signed certificate is only trusted by the issuer of the certificate itself, which could break Exchange functionality if not configured correctly. Let us see what you need to consider if you decide to use the Self-Signed certificate:

Outlook Anywhere and Exchange ActiveSync do not support the use of a self-signed certificate

The Autodiscover web service will not check if the issuer of the certificate is trusted when launching Microsoft Office Outlook 2007 from a domain-joined client pc, but will complain about the certificate if you are using Microsoft Office Outlook 2007 from a non-domain-joined client pc, as shown in Figure 11.

Figure 11: Self-Signed certificate not trusted

When Microsoft Office Outlook 2007 clients (domain-joined or not) use the Exchange Web Services provided by the Microsoft Exchange Client Access server, they will be prompted by Outlook that the certificate is not issued by a company they have chosen not to trust. Figure 12 shows the Security Alert shown when someone requests Free and Busy information.

Figure 12: Self-Signed Certificate not trusted

Microsoft does support the use of Self-Signed certificates, but only for internal scenarios, like:

-To encrypt SMTP sessions between Hub Transport servers in different sites;

- To encrypt SMTP sessions between Hub Transport servers and Edge Transport servers;

- To encrypt the synchronization of configuration and recipient information by configuring EdgeSync between internal Hub Transport servers and Edge Transport server(s);

- To encrypt SMTP sessions between Unified Messaging servers and Hub Transport servers;

- To encrypt SIP and RTP sessions between Unified Messaging servers and Office Communications servers (this does require you to make sure that the Office Communication Mediation server trusts your Exchange server as the issuer of that Self-Signed certificate);

- To encrypt internal client access to Exchange (POP,IMAP,Outlook Web Access).
If you do not want Exchange to generate a self-signed certificate during installation, you can specify the /NoSelfSignedCertificates parameter next to Setup in the command prompt. Be careful: this parameter can only be used when installing the Client Access server role or the Unified Messaging server role. If your server does not have a valid certificate available to encrypt communication between clients and the Client Access server or the Unified Messaging server, communication will be unencrypted, and therefore, insecure.

Summary

In the first part of this 3-part article on certificates and Exchange, you have seen which Exchange 2007 components use certificates, and what characteristics the self-signed certificate carries. In part 2 of this article I will show how you can trust the self-signed certificate and I will cover the requirements of a certificate you need to keep in mind when getting your certificates. To end, in part 3 of this article I will give you a close look at the different Exchange Management Shell cmdlets that are available to create, manage, and remove Exchange certificates.

Saturday, November 29, 2008

Key features in the upcoming Windows Server 2008 R2

Microsoft plans to release an R2 edition of Windows Server 2008 in 2009 or 2010. Here are the key features of the R2 release that you need to know.
—————————————————————————————————————
When Windows Server 2008 R2 is released in 2009 or 2010 (that is the current projected timeframe), there will be some important features about this release. The most prominent is that Windows Server 2008 will solely be an x64 platform with the R2 release. This will make the upgrade to x64 platforms not really a surprise, as all current server class hardware is capable of 64-bit computing. There is one last window of time to get a 2008 release of Windows still on a 32-bit platform before R2 is released, so do it now for those difficult applications that don’t seem to play well on x64 platforms.
Beyond the processor changes, here are the other important features of the R2 release of Windows Server 2008:
Hyper-V improvements: The Hyper-V is planned to offer Live Migration as an improvement to the initial release of Quick Migration; Hyper-V will measure the migration time in milliseconds. This will be a solid point in the case for Hyper-V compared to VMware’s ESX or other hypervisor platforms. Hyper-V will also include support for additional processors and Second Level Translation (SLAT).
PowerShell 2.0: PowerShell 2.0 has been out in a beta release and Customer Technology Preview capacity, but it will be fully baked into Windows Server 2008 R2 upon its release. PowerShell 2.0 includes over 240 new commands, as well as a graphical user interface. Further, PowerShell will be able to be installed on Windows Server Core.
Core Parking: This feature of Windows Server 2008 will constantly assess the amount of processing across systems with multiple cores, and under certain configurations, suspend new work being sent to the cores. Then with the core idle, it can be sent to a sleep mode and reduce the overall power consumption of the system.
All of these new features will be welcome and add great functionality to the Windows Server admin. The removal of x86 support is not entirely a surprise, but the process needs to be set in motion now for how to address any legacy applications.

Kicking the tires with Perfmon in Windows Server 2008

Over the years, there have been very few changes in how we measure Windows performance. Windows Server 2008’s implementation of the Windows Reliability And Performance Monitor introduces new features to the venerable Perfmon tool.
—————————————————————————————————————
No matter what the screen’s title bar has labeled through the years, Perfmon is one of the most important tools a Windows administrator can have at their disposal. Windows Server 2008 brings new features to the table, while still providing the same counter functionality you are accustomed to using for troubleshooting and administering Windows servers. Here is a list of some of the key new functionality of the Windows Reliability And Performance Monitor (I’m still going to call it Perfmon) in Windows Server 2008.
Data Collector Set: This is a template of sorts of collector elements that you can frequently reuse. This makes it easy to compare the same collectors over different timeframes.
Reports: Perfmon now offers reports that provide graphic representations of a collector set’s captured information. This gives you a quick snapshot so you can compare system performance as recorded in the timeframe and with the selected counters. In this report, you can perform some basic manipulations to change display, highlight certain elements of the report, and export the image to a file. Figure A shows a Perfmon report.

Reliability Monitor: Perfmon now provides the System Stability Index (SSI) for a monitored system. This is another visual tool that you can use to identify when issues occur in a timeline fashion. It can be beneficial to see when a series of issues occurred, and if they went away or increased in frequency.
Wizard-based configuration: Counters can now be made up using a wizard interface. This can be beneficial when managers or other non-technical people may need access to development or proof-of-concept systems for basic performance information. Further, the security model per object can allow delegated permissions to make this easier to manage.
To get to Perfmon, you can still just run it from a prompt. The standard user access control (UAC) irritation applies to this console, but otherwise, getting there is easy.