Re: Backup Exchange Server by Steve
Steve
Tue Nov 04 22:30:32 CST 2003
Mark Mancini wrote:
> Ok, Steve....
> 1) compared to MS, Linux has about 100 times fewer needs for reboot.
> The number of updates that require recompile is small compared.
> Perfect uptime....b/c my datacenter had a 4hour outage with SQL
> slammer, that was the only downtime in 2003 except a few minutes for
> recompiles. It isn't perfect but qualifies for 99.999% which is less
> than 6 hours/year. I think Linux has come further than MS has in
> this area and this is why many enterprise size companies use Linux
> Smarthosts.
I'm not arguing about whether MS or Linux require more or less reboots,
only that neither OS (nor any other mainstream OS AFAIK) can be kept
updated without any reboots.
99.999% uptime means <6 minutes/year downtime, not 6hrs.
365*24*60* 0.001% = 5.256 minutes.
2) some people open port 25 AND port 110....why?!?! I
> don't know but ask some of these people and you will see that many
> newbies open both. I making an assumption from what I see from other
> "consultant" installs.
Unless a company wants to host POP services, there's no reason to open
port 110 at all, as I'm quite sure you're aware. SBS doesn't leave it
open by default.
3) Yes, it will retry but the ND email is one
> that looks REALLY BAD!! I deal with professionals and this is not
> acceptable...even if it eventually gets there. I prefer to remove
> this blemish. besides, how long do your servers take to scan disk?
> Some of mine about 1+ hours.
How can it look really bad? The internet is not a 100% reliable medium
ever. There are often minor outages that can impact mail delivery
between two points. Heck, a minor goof-up by the sender's IT dept could
cause unable to deliver messages. I find I can't always reach various
websites or mail servers on the net when I roam the planet.
Not sure why the reference to scanning disks?
4) your right, when I said "in front"
> of their firewall I meant in front of their REAL firewall, not in
> front of a NAT router or something not as costly as one that secures
> the LAN side of the DMZ. I don't think anyone nowadays runs naked on
> the net....then again there are idiots. I figure if you know enough
> to use a smart host then this is a given assumption that I think is
> safe.
Using a smart host simply shifts the burden. You're now relying on
someone else doing things right.
>5) What happens when YOU suffer a DoS attack. Funny you
> should say that though!!! My datacenter already thought of this and
> other attacks and their Cisco outer perimeter routers block many such
> traffic. They don't want their 45Mb pipe clogged either.
I figure that if the likes of Microsoft, Verisign, Amazon, various
banks and other large commercial organisations find it hard to
withstand a DoS, what chance would a small operator have?
>
> Well, I know Kevin uses this approach as well but you probably just
> hate me so I assume that is why you posted instead of helping Gary
> here....nice MVP!
No, I don't hate you. I just don't like to see vague or woolly postings
out here, particularly since Google are trying to archive everything,
and context is not always available when archives are searched. IMHO, I
simply thought your first post was a bit on the woolly side. I'm not
claiming to be perfect either - none of us are, after all (except Susan
maybe <g>) and I'm sure better folks than either of us have either
tutted at or corrected posts of mine too.
Frankly, if I make a mistake, I *want* and expect someone to correct me
on it. That's part of what the SBS community is about. You're bound to
have noticed that the general level of noise, spam, flamage, etc. is
pretty low on these groups. And I think it's reasonably safe to assume
that most folks like it that way.
And I have since posted a direct response to Gary, once I'd checked on
a couple of things.
--
Steve Foster [SBS MVP]
---------------------------------------
MVPs do not work for Microsoft. Please reply only to the newsgroups.