Double Take does not use a pagefile anymore so you need to update your article or remove it from your website.

Anonymous User 1/31/2005 7:51:44 PM

We used a UK company called TriSys, they know all these products and recommended us with the best fit solution. We use Geospan and it has not let us down yet!

Anonymous User 11/12/2004 2:31:59 AM

I agree with John Toner. Even though your article is helpful and informative it's really about replication tools that leverage mscs. When I look for information about geography distributed clusters I'm looking for shared disk scenarios over long distances (active active or active passive). If you have any information or know how on this type of implementation please share it with us.

Rafael Cruz 6/9/2004 7:16:18 PM

I use Double-Take to replicate Exchange 2000 mailstores and trans logs across a WAN, from one MSCS cluster to another MSCS cluster. The remote cluster uses Geocluster+ to simplify hard drive configuration. My mailstores total 120Gb, and I generate about 6Gb in trans logs each day. I am not using automatic failover - manual only, by choice. I'm using V4.3 SP2, and the system works very well.

Bob4/13/2004 9:15:02 AM

I noticed that SteelEye LifeKeeper is not on this list of products.
Anyone considering replication and clustering should also take a look at SteelEye LifeKeeper as it takes an application-centric view of clustering. Making the application highly available, not just the hardware and data.

Shobana Patel 9/25/2003 9:51:14 AM

I did my own testing using DoubleTake and arrived

Jim7/18/2003 2:29:10 AM

How can you title and article “Geographically Dispersed Clustering” mention anything about "geographically dispersed clustering." This is an article about “Clustering Alternatives to MSCS" not geographic clusters. If you wanted to talk about geographic clusters, how come you don't mention anything about the possible MSCS configurations?

How do you write a geographically dispersed clustering article for a Windows environment and not mention EMC's GeoSpan for MSCS? This product was partially (if not wholly) responsible for the creation of the "Cluster/Geographic" category on Microsoft's HCL.

While I do think that the content of your article is valuable, I think your title is very misleading.

John Toner 5/16/2003 10:31:02 AM

I understood the point of this article to be a test of some data replication alternatives to Microsoft's shared resource clustering of Windows 2000 Server. If Ed Roth tested these products as alternatives to Windows clustering, then why did he install Win2k Advanced Server on the test servers instead of Windows 2000 Server?

James Kidwell 3/9/2003 3:10:33 PM

Jeremy Vignaux you are quite correct, the only real way to provide automatic failover of Exchange 2000 is using MSCS. However you will find useful information on using Double-Take with Exchange 2000 at: http://192.168.0.100:3501/WhitePapers/Exchange2KDR.pdf

Ian Masters 11/25/2002 10:38:05 AM

Why did you test with Exchange 5.5? Because most vendors couldn't support failover with Exchange 2000 yet? That is the question we really wanted answered... too bad.

Jeremy Vignaux 7/31/2002 9:04:55 PM