Exchange Server 2016 Architecture


Exchange Server 2016 builds upon the architecture introduced in Exchange Server 2013, with the continued focus goal of improving the architecture to serve the needs of deployments at all scales.

Building Block Architecture

In Exchange Server 2016, there is a single building block that provides the client access services and the high availability architecture necessary for any enterprise messaging environment.

e16
Figure 1: Building Block Architecture

In our continuing quest to improve the product’s capabilities and simplify the architecture and its deployment, we have removed the Client Access server (CAS) role and added the client access services to the Mailbox role. Even without the CAS role, the system maintains loose coupling in terms of functionality, versioning, user partitioning and geographical affinity.

The Mailbox server role now:

  1. Houses the logic to route protocol requests to the correct destination endpoint.
  2. Hosts all of the components and/or protocols that process, render and store the data.

No clients connect directly to the back-end endpoints on the Mailbox server; instead, clients connect client access services and are routed (via local or remote proxy) to the Mailbox server that hosts the active database that contains the user’s mailbox.

Mailbox servers can be added to a Database Availability Group (DAG), thereby forming a high availability unit that can be deployed in one or more datacenters. DAGs in Exchange Server 2016 do have a few specific enhancements:

  1. DatabaseAvailabilityGroupIpAddresses is no longer required when creating a DAG. By default, the failover cluster will be created without an administrative access point, as this is the recommended best practice.
  2. Replay Lag Manager is enabled by default. (released in CU1)
  3. Lagged database copy play down can be delayed based on disk latency, thereby ensuring active users are not impacted. (released in CU1)
  4. Database failovers times are reduced by 33% when compared to Exchange Server 2013. (scheduled for a future CU)

Removal of the separate CAS role does not affect how communication occurs between servers. Communication between servers still occurs at the protocol layer, effectively ensuring that every server is an island. For a given mailbox’s connectivity, the protocol being used is always served by the protocol instance that is local to the active database copy.

island
Figure 2: Inter-server communication in Exchange 2016

The load balancer configuration is also not affected by this architectural change. From a protocol perspective, the following will happen:

  1. A client resolves the namespace to a load balanced virtual IP address.
  2. The load balancer assigns the session to a Mailbox server in the load balanced pool.
  3. The Mailbox server authenticates the request and performs a service discovery by accessing Active Directory to retrieve the following information:
    1. Mailbox version (for this discussion, we will assume an Exchange 2016 mailbox)
    2. Mailbox location information (e.g., database information, ExternalURL values, etc.)
  4. The Mailbox server makes the decision to proxy the request or redirect the request to another Mailbox server in the infrastructure (within the same forest).
  5. The Mailbox server queries an Active Manager instance that is responsible for the database to determine which Mailbox server is hosting the active copy.
  6. The Mailbox server proxies the request to the Mailbox server hosting the active copy.

The protocol used in step 6 depends on the protocol used to connect to client access services. If the client request uses HTTP, then the protocol used between the servers is HTTP (secured via SSL using a self-signed certificate). If the protocol used by the client is IMAP or POP, then the protocol used between the servers is IMAP or POP.

Telephony requests are unique. Instead of proxying the request at step 6, the Mailbox server will redirect the request to the Mailbox server hosting the active copy of the user’s database, as the telephony devices support redirection and need to establish their SIP and RTP sessions directly with the Unified Messaging services on the Mailbox server.

e16cc
Figure 3: Client Protocol Connectivity

Now many of you may be thinking, wait how does authentication work? Well for HTTP, POP, or IMAP requests that use basic, NTLM, or Kerberos authentication, the authentication request is passed as part of the HTTP payload, so the Client Access services within each MBX server will authenticate the request naturally. Forms-based authentication (FBA) is different. FBA was one of the reasons why session affinity was required for OWA in previous releases of Exchange – the reason being that that the cookie used a per server key for encryption; so if another MBX received a request, it could not decrypt the session. With Exchange 2013, we stopped leveraging a per server session key and instead leveraged the private key from the certificate that was installed on the Client Access server. With Exchange 2016, we now leverage the organization certificate that is configured for the organization’s authorization configuration. This means that any Exchange 2016 server can decrypt the cookie.

And yes, the Edge Transport server role will ship in Exchange Server 2016 (and at RTM, to boot!). All the capabilities and features you had in the Edge Transport server role in Exchange Server 2013, remain in Exchange Server 2016.

Why did we remove the Client Access server role?

The Exchange Server 2016 architecture evolves the building block architecture that has been refined over the course of the last several releases. With this architecture, all servers in the Exchange environment (excluding Edge Transport) are exactly the same—the same hardware, the same configuration, and so forth. This uniformity simplifies ordering the hardware, as well as performing maintenance and management of the servers.

As with Exchange 2010 and in Exchange 2013, we continue to recommend role co-location as a best practice. From a cost perspective, the overall goal is to ensure that the architecture is balanced for CPU and disk. Having separate server roles can result in long-term cost disadvantages as you may purchase more CPU, disk, and memory resources than you will actually use. For example, consider a server that hosts only the Client Access server role. Many servers enable you to add a given number of disks in a very economical fashion—when you are deploying and using that number of disks, the cost is essentially zero. But if you deploy a server role that uses far less than the given number of disks, you’re paying for a disk controller that is either under-used or not used at all.

This architecture is designed to enable you to have fewer physical Exchange servers in your environment. Fewer physical servers mean lower costs for a variety of reasons:

  • Operational costs are almost always higher than the capital costs. It costs more to manage a server over its lifetime than it does to purchase it.
  • You purchase fewer Exchange server licenses. This architecture only requires a license for one Exchange server and one operating system, while breaking out the roles required multiple Exchange server licenses and multiple operating system licenses.
  • Deploying fewer servers has a trickle-down effect across the rest of the infrastructure. For example, deploying fewer physical servers may reduce the total rack and floor space required for the Exchange infrastructure, which in turn reduces power and cooling costs.

This architecture ultimately distributes the load across a greater number of servers than deploying single-role servers because all Mailbox servers also handle client access because:

  • You’re distributing the load across a greater number of physical machines, which increases scalability. During a failure event, the load on the remaining servers only increases incrementally, which ensures the other functions the server is performing aren’t adversely affected.
  • The solution can survive a greater number of Client Access role (or service) failures and still provide service, which increases resiliency.

Key Architectural Improvements

Exchange Server 2016 also includes a number of architectural improvements, beyond the server role consolidation, including search enhancements, document collaboration improvements, and more.

Search Improvements

(scheduled for a future CU): One of the challenging areas for on-premises environment was the amount of data that was replicated with each database copy in previous releases. In Exchange Server 2016, we have reduced bandwidth requirements between the active copy and a passive copy by 40%. This was accomplished by enabling the local search instance to read data from its local database copy. As a result of this change, passive search instances no longer need to coordinate with their active counterparts in order to perform index updates.

Another area of investment in search has been around decreasing the length of time to return search results, especially in online mode clients like OWA. This is accomplished by performing multiple asynchronous disk reads prior to the user completing the search term, which populates the cache with the relevant information, providing sub-second search query latency for online mode clients.

Document Collaboration

In previous releases of Exchange, OWA included document preview for Office and PDF documents, reducing the need to have a full fidelity client. SharePoint 2013 had a similar feature, however it used the Office Web Apps Server 2013 (now rebranded as Office Online Server) to accomplish this capability. Within Office 365, we also leverage Office Online Server to provide this capability, ensuring uniform document preview and editing capability across the suite.

In Exchange Server 2016, we leverage Office Online Server to provide the rich document preview and editing capabilities for OWA. While this was a necessary change to ensure a homogenous experience across the Office Server suite, this does introduce additional complexity for environments that don’t have Office Online Server.

The next generation of Office Online Server will not be supported for co-location with Exchange. Therefore, you must deploy a separate server farm infrastructure. This infrastructure will require unique namespaces, and will require session affinity to be maintained at the load balancer.

While Exchange supports an unbound namespace model, the Office Online Server will require a bound namespace for each site resilient datacenter pair. However, unlike the bound namespace model within Exchange, Office Online Server will not require any namespace changes during a datacenter activation.

oos
Figure 4: Office Online Server Connectivity

Extensibility

(scheduled for a future CU): Office 365 introduced the REST APIs (Mail, Calendar, and Contact APIs), and now these APIs are available in Exchange Server 2016. The REST APIs simplify programming against Exchange by providing a familiar syntax that is designed with openness (e.g., open standards support JSON, OAUTH, ODATA) and flexibility (e.g., granular, tightly scoped permission to access user data). These APIs allow developers to connect from any platform, whether it be web, PC, or mobile. SDKs exist for.NET, iOS, Android, NodeJS, Ruby, Python, Cordova, and CORS for use in single page JavaScript web apps.

What about Exchange Web Services (EWS)? All existing applications that leverage EWS will continue to work with Exchange Server 2016. We are, however, focusing new platform investments on the REST APIs and the apps for Office extensibility model. We expect to make significantly fewer investments in EWS so that we can focus our resources on investing in a single modern API that will, over time, enable most of the scenarios that our partners currently use EWS.

Outlook Connectivity

Introduced in Exchange Server 2013 Service Pack 1, MAPI/HTTP is the new standard in connectivity for Outlook. In Exchange Server 2016, MAPI/HTTP is enabled by default. In addition, Exchange Server 2016 introduces per-user control over this connectivity model, as well as, the ability to control whether the protocol (and Outlook Anywhere) is advertised to external clients.

Note: Exchange Server 2016 does not support connectivity via the MAPI/CDO library. Third-party products (and custom in-house developed solutions) need to move to Exchange Web Services (EWS) or the REST APIs to access Exchange data.

Coexistence with Exchange Server 2013

In Exchange Server 2013, the Client Access server role is simply an intelligent proxy that performs no processing/rendering of the content. That architectural tenet paid off in terms of forward coexistence. When you introduce Exchange Server 2016, you do not need to move the namespace. That’s right, the Exchange Server 2013 Client Access infrastructure can proxy the mailbox requests to the Exchange 2016 servers hosting the active database copy! For the first time ever, you get to decide when you move the namespace over to the new version. And not only that, you can even have load balancer pools contain a mix of Exchange Server 2013 and Exchange Server 2016. This means you can do a one-for-one swap in the load balancer pool – as you add Exchange 2016 servers, you can remove Exchange 2013 servers.

Topology Requirements

Exchange Server 2016 will only be supported on Windows Server 2012, Windows Server 2012 R2 and Windows Server 2016 operating systems.

From an Active Directory perspective, Exchange Server 2016 will require:

  • Windows Server 2008 or later Active Directory servers.
  • Windows Server 2008 or higher Forest Functional Mode and Domain Functional Mode.

Exchange Server 2016 will only support coexistence with Exchange Server 2010 SP3 RU11 and Exchange Server 2013 CU10.

The Preferred Architecture

During my session at Microsoft Ignite, I revealed Microsoft’s preferred architecture (PA) for Exchange Server 2016. The PA is the Exchange Engineering Team’s best practice recommendation for what we believe is the optimum deployment architecture for Exchange 2016, and one that is very similar to what we deploy in Office 365.

While Exchange 2016 offers a wide variety of architectural choices for on-premises deployments, this architecture is our most scrutinized one ever. While there are other supported deployment architectures, they are not recommended.

The Exchange 2016 PA is very similar to the Exchange 2013 PA. A symmetrical DAG is deployed across a datacenter pair with active database copies distributed across all physical servers in the DAG. Database copies are deployed on JBOD storage, with four copies per-disk. One of the copies is a lagged database copy. Clients connect to a unified namespace that is equally distributed across the datacenters in the site resilient pair.

However, the Exchange 2016 PA differs in the following ways:

  1. Exchange’s unbound namespace model is load balanced across the datacenters in a layer 7 configuration that does not leverage session affinity.
  2. An Office Online Server farm is deployed in each datacenter, with each farm having a unique namespace (bound model). Session affinity is managed by the load balancer.
  3. The DAG is deployed without an administrative access point.
  4. The commodity dual-socket server hardware platform contains 20-24 cores and up to 96GB of memory, and a battery-backed write cache controller.
  5. All data volumes are formatted with ReFS (with the integrity feature disabled).

For more information, please see the Exchange 2016 Preferred Architecture article.

Summary

Exchange Server 2016 continues in the investments introduced in previous versions of Exchange by reducing the server role architecture complexity, aligning with the Preferred Architecture and Office 365 design principles, and improving coexistence with Exchange Server 2013.

These changes simplify your Exchange deployment, without decreasing the availability or the resiliency of the deployment. And in some scenarios, when compared to previous generations, the PA increases availability and resiliency of your deployment.

Ross Smith IV
Principal Program Manager
Office 365 Customer Experience

Updates

  • 5/8/15: Added section on topology requirements.
  • 7/8/15: Updated topology requirements.
  • 10/1/15: Updated for RTM.
  • 10/12/15: Added Preferred Architecture link.
  • 3/15/16: Updated for deferred play down support in CU1.

Comments (73)
  1. Anonymous says:

    Thank you for this Article.

  2. Anonymous says:

    So from your post it look like all server role, except edge, will now resides in same box. So do we have any new features to come in 2016? Not enhancement of existing feature rather a whole new one. So the ISO of exchange 2016 is there?

  3. Anonymous says:

    @JamesNT, we will be talking migration/deployment at Ignite tomorrow. No fancy blog post prepped yet, but yes there is a path from 2010.

  4. Anonymous says:

    @Exchange Queries
    if you are using BB 10 or higher you dont’t need Mapi/CDO and i don’t think that BB will support Exchange 2016 on their BES 5.x

  5. Anonymous says:

    Thanks

  6. Anonymous says:

    Ross,

    Thank you for one of the best Exchange articles I have ever read. It looks like you guys are moving the bar up a few notches. And thank you to yourself and Microsoft for not throwing us Private Cloud/On-Prem guys to the wolves. 0365 is a wonderful thing, it
    just isn’t for us.

    Question: Is there a supported upgrade scenario from Exchange 2010? Most of the upgrade stuff you mentioned involved 2013.

    JamesNT

  7. Anonymous says:

    Ross :-) Thank you for this great Article. And Thank you for informing Exchange Server (On-Premises) customers worldwide.

  8. Anonymous says:

    As Jörd pointed out. Current versions of BES already can connect using EWS. CDO is so 80s.

  9. Anonymous says:

    @Sai Prasad Krishnan: Microsoft shared at the Ignite Conference they are working on the migration scenario from Exchange 2013 to both 2016 and Exchange Online.

    Public Folder are still there in 2016, don’t worry. :)

  10. Anonymous says:

    Thank you very much.

  11. Anonymous says:

    You can coexist/upgrade from 2010 SP3 to 2016 in the same AD forest, but not from 2007. Setup will not allow you to install 2016 if 2007 exists in the Exchange org. We will announce the required 2010 SP3 update rollup and 2013 CU for coexistence/migration
    closer to 2016’s release.

  12. Anonymous says:

    @ManashM With regards to architecture not that much has been changed. With 2010 and 2013 you would install all roles on a single server, per MS recommendation. With 2016 Microsoft prevents customer from deploying split-roles server by installing all components
    from the MB+CA roles in a single role, now named MB role. So the new MB roles actually contains all components from the 2013 MB and CA roles.

  13. Anonymous says:

    Regarding the load balancer questions:

    1. Windows Network Load Balancing will not be supported against Exchange 2016 for the simple reason that Windows Failover Clustering and Windows NLB cannot coexist. Therefore, a third-party solution must be deployed. it doesn’t have to be a hardware device,
    though. There are many software-based load balancing solutions available. Ultimately, it will depend on your requirements and the capability of the device.

    2. As to why the specific recommendation on the layer 7 architecture. With Exchange 2013 and later you have great flexibility in your load balancing architecture – session affinity is no longer required as we maintain it within the software stack. This opens
    up possibilities to use layer 4, however that comes with a price – per-server availability vs. per-protocol availability. Layer 7 without session affinity allows you to deploy a single unified namespace while also achieving per-protocol availability. I discuss
    all of the scenarios here –
    http://blogs.technet.com/b/exchange/archive/2014/03/05/load-balancing-in-exchange-2013.aspx. We feel that per-protocol availability provides better resiliency, hence the recommendation.

    Ross

  14. Anonymous says:

    Since many have asked why coexistence with Exchange 2010 was not mentioned in the article, it is because from an architectural standpoint, nothing there has changed between Exchange 2013 and Exchange 2016 – deploy enough MBX2016 to handle load, update
    load balancer configuration and have all traffic routed to MBX 2016, enabling MBX2016 to proxy to CAS2010.

    Brian does an excellent job of describing this in his session –
    http://aka.ms/e2016deployignite.

    Ross

  15. Anonymous says:

    Any word on upgrading/co-existing from Exchange 2010 SP3 to Exchange 2016?

  16. Anonymous says:

    TY!

    Is it too soon to ask about offering both certificate and password auth for Exchange 2016?
    In my org we offer both ( we have a namespace for Password auth and different namespace for Cert based Auth)

  17. Anonymous says:

    Q: Why do we need a "layer 7 configuration that does not leverage session affinity"
    Is it we will be using the same Mailbox HLB for OWAS as well.

    Q. "No clients connect directly to the back-end endpoints on the Mailbox server" and "added the client access services to the Mailbox role".
    Does it still behave like Multi-Role 2013, which has 25, 2525 like ports segregation for FE,BE Services.

  18. Anonymous says:

    This is exciting! Wonderful article. Thanks Ross for detailing this out for us.

  19. Anonymous says:

    Good Article…Two thing it concerns 1…" Exchange Server 2016 does not support connectivity via the MAPI/CDO library" …is the Blackberry will not get supported…2….Is there no other way company need to move and invest in HLB if they are staying
    in Windows NLB currently.. :(

  20. Anonymous says:

    @jackal2001
    should be possible, as far as i know, there is no path from 2007, but 2010 is ok

  21. Anonymous says:

    @island apple – For the past several releases we have only supported N-2 major versions in coexistence. This continues with the Exchange 2016 coexistence model. There are many factors that come into play here, including, but not limited to, support lifecycle,
    testing resources, code changes, etc.

    I recommend moving the 2007 resources to 2010 or to 2013.

    Ross

  22. Anonymous says:

    HI Team,

    1) Thanks for the info so that we can pre-plan for Exchange 2016 deployment.

    2) In regards to ‘Setup will not allow you to install 2016 if 2007 exists in the Exchange org’,
    is there any possibility to request a feature to allow Exchange 2007 in the Exchange Org with 2016.

    Our Org includes 2007,2010 and 2013
    Thanks

  23. Anonymous says:

    Ross,
    Thank you for this Article.
    Question: What you mean by load balancer. This is separated hardware/software or i can use Windows NLB service as before ?

  24. Anonymous says:

    Thanks Ross, Jorg & Thomas for your reply..

  25. Anonymous says:

    Thanks Ross for sharing such informative article.

  26. Anonymous says:

    What about Public Folders ? If they are still modern PF’s, I assume there will be an easier migration path from 2013 to 2016. This will open up a lot of Onpremise Exchange 2013 PF’s to migrate to Office 365’s next version. This was my hope since we still
    don’t have a way to migrate from Onpremise 2013 PF to Wave 15 O365 tenant.

  27. Anonymous says:

    Ross,
    Great Article and a good technical webcast. I like the part in the webcast when you stated that your DBs are moving to SQL, loads of the non technies clapped and I went WT…. lol
    But seriously, looking forward to test driving in Azure later this year, once available.
    Some of this things that stood out and super cool:
    * Database failovers times are reduced by 33% when compared to Exchange Server 2013!
    * Reduced bandwidth requirements between the active copy and a passive copy by 40%
    * The real cool aka smooth upgrade path from 2013
    * No more MAPI/CDO, about time, so old school :)
    * Layer 7 / no session affinity

    Although a die hard fan of Office 365 and Azure. This will be great news for all those onprep techs, still worried about the cloud or still trying to figure out what is best for their particular setup.
    Thanks Again !!

  28. Anonymous says:

    Ahhh! Good news! Never ever will I have to talk to customers why Mutli-Role Servers are the optimal solution. Never ever will I have to argue about why NLB is poor mans Load Balancing. The future looks bright :-) Thanks Ross for this first round of info
    about E2016! Christian

  29. Anonymous says:

    Ross,

    I was in MS Ignite 2015. Loved it. I do have one confusion. As you mentioned in your session that in an unbounded model outlook client hits Server A but the mailbox is in Server B in another physical site. In this scenario, Server A proxies the Outlook client
    connection to Server B. My question is, once the connection is established between Outlook Client and Server B does Server A hand over the connection completely to Server B or user continues to traverses through Server A to reach its mailbox in Server B?

    Can you please help me clarify my confusion?

  30. MadsD says:

    Wow – Very nice and interesting post! I love Exchange and this architecture post is just… nerdgasm-worthy :)

    1 question though: is an OWAS (Outlook Web Apps Server) a requirement or just a recommendation?

  31. Simon says:

    Will there be inbox Anti-Spam functionality in Exchange 2016 with the ability to run on an non-Edge server? Currently I have to run a separate 2010 instance, just for anti-spam.

  32. Great stuff Ross & good work from the Team. What about I/O Requirements? Any step further to the Zero I/O goal? :-)

  33. Simon says:

    (Continuing the previous comment): Will 2016 support "Connection Filtering" in the Anti-Spam agent on CAS/Mailbox servers?

  34. Sanjay Dubey says:

    Why ET in above architecture if EOP is there ?

  35. Richard says:

    How about 2013 V2 , before 2016 ?

  36. joe c says:

    Database copies are deployed on JBOD storage, with four copies per-disk. ……… typo?

  37. Mahmoud Hanafi says:

    Ross,
    You’re amazing, appreciate your effort.

  38. Ravi Chinnasamy says:

    Good to know Exchange is moving towards REST API in 2016 version .

  39. @ExchangeITPRo says:

    Would like to know more details on ReFS and impact on DB. Is the 40% imprivement due to ReFS or without it?
    Anything new related to MDM/Intune?

    Per user MAPI/HTTP – awesome – u listened to the customer :)

  40. Wes says:

    Very interesting to see ReFS in the PA!

    More importantly, will JamesNT be supported if he runs RAID0?

  41. Anuar says:

    Hi Ross,

    Thanks for this introduction,

    If CAS will be on MBX servers, in this case we cannot use NLB, becuase as I remember NLB and FSCS cannot live on same host?

  42. Pradeep Rajan says:

    Thank you Ross! for this great Article.

  43. Christoph says:

    Great article! Di you plan to create a big picture architecture poster again?

  44. OldSchooler says:

    And what about CAS NLB balancing? No separate CAS roles means that we must choose between NLB and DAG, correct? And if we have no hardware load balancing devices and need a DAG (which we usually DO need), we must create single points of failure when building
    client access infrastructure and configuring SMTP routes? Or should we deploy Exchange 2013 CAS servers jut for the purpose of building a NLB cluster?

  45. Martin Tuescher says:

    Hi

    I second Andrey Sidorenkos question: What exactly is that "load balancer" element. When we design new Exchange deployments, do we have to introduce HW LB hardware? Or is this a new feature/role yet to be anounced with the new Windows server generation?

    Cheers,
    Martin

  46. Josh Lavely says:

    Thank you for this very informative read. Going back to MS’ roots? I like it.

  47. Abdul says:

    Thank you for the wonderful article. Looking forward for the release.

  48. Frank S says:

    Excellent overview. Can you let us know your positioning/support around (hyper-v) virtualized exchange 2016 (likely more economic for smaller on premise deployments)

  49. Thanks for sharing this excellent information.

  50. JohnBH says:

    Really great article, Ross. Thanks!
    Very interested in Migration scenarios with Exchange 2010.
    I look forward to reading more.

  51. Terry Cleary says:

    Ross, lovely post and it is good to see real detail in the blogs now. I’ve read the load balancing points in the comments and agree with the preferred architecture but… can you confirm if:

    Layer 7 – single namespace – no affinity is preferred as the only con is SSL offloading on the LB and perhaps slightly more configuration initially?

    L4 / L7 / namespace / affinity decisions are unchanged with EX2016 and your previous post on LB remains valid (my though is it does)?

    Thanks again, good effort from you and your team

    TC

  52. Vinay says:

    Ross,
    Thank you for this Article.

  53. M says:

    Thx for this great article.
    Like Server 2016; Offie 2016; do we get an Exchange 2016 TP.. and when? :)

  54. Lyle says:

    There’s no mention of versions prior to Exchange 2013 on co-existence or any kind of migration path from in general. Is that coming soon? Also, will there be any minimal Office client versions?

    Thanks

  55. RyanM says:

    @Brain Day – Any news on Migration/Deployment yet please Brain?

  56. ExAdmin says:

    Nice to see Exchange 2003 architecture back!
    Now can we get the Exchange System Manager back :)

  57. bjp says:

    Ross, can you add a note about the AD forest level dependencies for 2016? I know it was mentioned in your PA talk, but would be great to have that in an article so we can point to that when we start the discussions with our AD managers.

  58. SMF says:

    Excellent Article as always :),
    Q: For multiple data centers in region, you recommend single name space, means load balancer in that reigon decides based on the incoming IP which data center it should go?

  59. Michael says:

    Will co-existence of both Exchange 2010 and Exchange 2013 simultaneously be supported?

  60. Shawn Harry says:

    Seems quite ironic to see Exchanges architecture evolve a complete full circle from 5.5 back to well erm 5.5, with a simple monolithic architecture. I for one think this is a great news. Plus the sooner Exchange 2016 is supported in Azure the better! Give
    me the server BITs already!!

  61. Aditya Mediratta says:

    Although exchange 2016 is a major architectural improvement over past any release so far however 2 things do strike me – firstly dependability on load balancer, what if i prior am not using any load balancer in my environment . Secondly when I have a option
    to go on-cloud O365 why would i migrate over to 2016 as ultimately goal is to reduce infrastructure cost ?

  62. Sameer says:

    is exchange 2016 us last version for On premises customer

  63. Peter Hutchison says:

    What is the minimum Windows Client and Office versions that work with Exchange 2016?

    Also, if CAS is on mailbox role, how do we avoid putting our mailbox servers on the DMZ, should we have separate windows proxy servers?

  64. Amit says:

    MS did a right move after Exchange 2003. Exchange 2007-2013 added unnecessary admin over head for administrator. Even MS struggle to support it.

  65. Ross ,

    Thanks for sharing the article.

  66. Great article Ross.

    (P.S. The note on MAPI/CDO needs to moved up to the section above on Extensibility. )

  67. Paul Ross says:

    Is this truly going to be the last on premises version of Exchange?

  68. snefi says:

    Hello
    exchange database why not compatible with 2013 db? why need always migrate large mailbox over network?
    I think need only simple copy 2013 db to 2016 and run som script to upgrade mailbox settings and done.

  69. @Gappuss – it is proxied for the life of that session.

    Ross

  70. Random Anonymous Name says:

    Regarding Topology requirements, specifically the Active Directory servers.. There is no statement that RODCs / ROGCs are unsupported. Has this changed from previous releases of Exchange Server?

  71. Satyajit321 says:

    "RODCs / ROGCs are unsupported." I don’t see any possibilities supporting them as Exchange does lots of Writes to the DC. Hence RODC wouldn’t be useful, until we have something like ReadOnly Exchange Servers.

  72. JeevanIM says:

    Thanks

Comments are closed.