Your company has three data centers. The data centers are located in Montreal, New York, and
Seattle.
You have an Exchange Server 2013 organization that contains six servers. The servers are configured
as shown in the following table.
The organization is configured as shown in the following exhibit. (Click the Exhibit button.)
The file share witness for DAG1 is located on EX3.
You plan to implement site resiliency and use a single name space named mail.contoso.com.
You need to recommend a solution to minimize the amount of time that the Exchange Server
services are unavailable if either the data center in Montreal or the data center in Seattle fails.
Which two tasks should you recommend performing? (Each correct answer presents part of solution.
Choose two.)
A.
Deploy a hardware load balancer to EX3 and EX6.
B.
Create two DNS host (A) records for mail.contoso.com.
C.
Configure EX6 as an alternate file share witness.
D.
Move the file share witness to Server1.
Explanation:
When a DAG has been deployed across two datacenters, a new configuration option in Exchange
2013 is to use a third location for hosting the witness server. If your organization has a third location
with a network infrastructure that is isolated from network failures that affect the two datacentersin which your DAG is deployed, then you can deploy the DAG’s witness server in that third location,
thereby configuring your DAG with the ability automatically failover databases to the other
datacenter in response to a datacenter-level failure event. By creating two DNS host (A) records for
mail.contoso.com, we can use DNS Round Robin to distribute connections between the two CAS
servers. If one server goes down, a client will attempt to connect to the CAS server specified in the
second DNS record.
D would be correct.
Some sources say A and other say B.
I would say A is a better option than B ( DNS round robin)?????
I think this is correct. It is already recommended to have the witness in a third site.
Between A and B, A would have better availability as DNS round robin would cause some dns requests to look at the failed site
LB always the better option if you are on a budget use DNS round robin as a secondary option.
We are speaking about site resiliency and in this connection, where to put the Load Balancer, in New York? What will happened if NY goes down- No mail at all until reconfiguring and no witness. Go get it…
From another point DNS round robin is more cost effective…