What are the other differences between SCC and CCR?
??‘ Both data and server resilience. SCC provides only server resilience unless additional third -
party SAN replication is used.
??‘ No special hardware. Not required to use Windows Hardware Compatibility List (WHCL)
certified hardware and each node can run different hardware.
??‘ No shared storage. It is possible to use a variety of storage solutions.
??‘ No split brain syndrome.
On the surface it would appear CCR requires double the storage needed compared to an SCC cluster,
because each node has a copy of the database and logs. However, many organizations use third - party
solutions to provide data resiliency in an SCC SAN solution. So, in fact it is common for SCC and CCR to
use the same amount of storage.
The third bullet, no shared storage, allows a company to use either SAN technologies or direct attached
storage (DAS). DAS has come a long way since Exchange 5.5, and is a low - cost alternative to using a
SAN. Most of the features offered by a SAN are from the software that runs the disk array. The actual
hard drives do not differ between the storage solutions. Because Exchange provides data replication out
of the box, there is no need to turn to third - party offerings, which are often costly. For companies that
have an existing SAN strategy, it is perfectly fine to use it for CCR.
Pages:
446
447
448
449
450
451
452
453
454
455
456
457
458
459
460
461
462
463
464
465
466
467
468
469
470