<rss version="2.0" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xmlns:trackback="http://madskills.com/public/xml/rss/module/trackback/" xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/" xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/" xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/" xmlns:evnet="http://www.mscommunities.com/rssmodule/"><channel><title>Entries for Wayne Taylor</title><atom:link rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" href="http://edge.technet.com/people/kryptoskiller/rss/default.aspx" /><description>Entries, comments and threads posted by Wayne Taylor</description><link>http://edge.technet.com/People/kryptoskiller/</link><language>en-us</language><pubDate>Fri, 13 Jun 2008 12:31:23 GMT</pubDate><lastBuildDate>Fri, 13 Jun 2008 12:31:23 GMT</lastBuildDate><generator>EvNet (EvNet, Version=1.0.3531.14011, Culture=neutral, PublicKeyToken=null)</generator><item><title>Secondary SMTP Server [Secondary SMTP Server]</title><description>Hi All,&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;We have a number of clients (20+) all running SBS 2003 Running Exchange, MX record pointing to the server's e-mail OK.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;This is what I'm thinking, just need some feed back if it's possible....&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Setup a Windows Server 2003 Have the SMTP running, set our customers secondary MX record to that mail server.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Would the e-mail be&amp;nbsp;queued if there Mail server wasn't avaiable for some reason?&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Thanks&lt;p&gt;in reply to &lt;a href='http://edge.technet.com/Forums/Perimeter/1251-Secondary-SMTP-Server/'&gt;Secondary SMTP Server&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;img src="http://edge.technet.com/1251/WebViewBug.aspx?EVT=0" height="1" width="1" alt="" /&gt;</description><comments>http://edge.technet.com/Forums/Perimeter/1251-Secondary-SMTP-Server/</comments><link>http://edge.technet.com/Forums/Perimeter/1251-Secondary-SMTP-Server/</link><pubDate>Fri, 13 Jun 2008 12:31:23 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">http://edge.technet.com/Forums/Perimeter/1251-Secondary-SMTP-Server/</guid><evnet:views>902</evnet:views><evnet:viewtrackingurl>http://edge.technet.com/1251/WebViewBug.aspx?EVT=0</evnet:viewtrackingurl><evnet:previewtext>Hi All,We have a number of clients (20+) all running SBS 2003 Running Exchange, MX record pointing to the server's e-mail OK.This is what I'm thinking, just need some feed back if it's possible....Setup a Windows Server 2003 Have the SMTP running, set our customers secondary MX record to that mail&amp;#8230;</evnet:previewtext><dc:creator>Wayne Taylor</dc:creator><slash:comments>3</slash:comments><wfw:commentRss>http://edge.technet.com/Forums/Perimeter/1251-Secondary-SMTP-Server/RSS/</wfw:commentRss><trackback:ping>http://edge.technet.com/1251/Trackback.aspx</trackback:ping></item><item><title>RAID5 v RAID10 [RAID5 v RAID10]</title><description>&lt;p&gt;From what I can tell RAID 5 is better for redundancy where as RAID10 or RAID 1+0&amp;nbsp;has better performance.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;I know with RAID5 if a drive fails then the sever will still boot...&amp;nbsp;Which is what&amp;nbsp;I think is the great need.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;What I'm not sure about is, is that the case with RAID10, if a drive fails and it has the OS installed on that RAID10 configuration will it still boot the&amp;nbsp;OS?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Thanks&amp;nbsp;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;in reply to &lt;a href='http://edge.technet.com/Forums/Perimeter/346-RAID5-v-RAID10/'&gt;RAID5 v RAID10&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;img src="http://edge.technet.com/346/WebViewBug.aspx?EVT=0" height="1" width="1" alt="" /&gt;</description><comments>http://edge.technet.com/Forums/Perimeter/346-RAID5-v-RAID10/</comments><link>http://edge.technet.com/Forums/Perimeter/346-RAID5-v-RAID10/</link><pubDate>Wed, 05 Dec 2007 20:43:37 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">http://edge.technet.com/Forums/Perimeter/346-RAID5-v-RAID10/</guid><evnet:views>1561</evnet:views><evnet:viewtrackingurl>http://edge.technet.com/346/WebViewBug.aspx?EVT=0</evnet:viewtrackingurl><evnet:previewtext>From what I can tell RAID 5 is better for redundancy where as RAID10 or RAID 1+0&amp;nbsp;has better performance.
I know with RAID5 if a drive fails then the sever will still boot...&amp;nbsp;Which is what&amp;nbsp;I think is the great need.
What I'm not sure about is, is that the case with RAID10, if a drive&amp;#8230;</evnet:previewtext><dc:creator>Wayne Taylor</dc:creator><slash:comments>15</slash:comments><wfw:commentRss>http://edge.technet.com/Forums/Perimeter/346-RAID5-v-RAID10/RSS/</wfw:commentRss><trackback:ping>http://edge.technet.com/346/Trackback.aspx</trackback:ping></item></channel></rss>