Given the scenario, if the company decided to add another 1000 BlackBerry device users spread over three more Microsoft Exchange Servers in the London office, what would be the most cost effective…

Question

Options

• AAdd all of the users to the BlackBerry Enterprise Server instance at the London site
• BAdd another BlackBerry Enterprise Server instance to the London site and add all the new users to
• CAdd another BlackBerry Enterprise Server instance to the London site and split the usersbetween
• DAdd 400 of the new users to the New York BlackBerry Enterprise Server instance, and the
• EAdd all users to a new BlackBerry Enterprise Server instance at the Vancouver site

• A
  76% (26)
• B
  3% (1)
• C
  6% (2)
• D
  3% (1)
• E
  12% (4)

Explanation

Option A is correct because a single BlackBerry Enterprise Server (BES) instance can connect to multiple Microsoft Exchange Servers simultaneously - the addition of three new Exchange Servers does not require a new BES instance. If the existing London BES has sufficient user capacity (BES supports up to ~2000 users per instance), absorbing all 1000 new users there avoids any new hardware or licensing costs.

Why the distractors are wrong:

• B & C both involve deploying an additional BES instance, which incurs unnecessary hardware and licensing costs when the existing London BES can handle the load across multiple Exchange connections.
• D routes London users to the New York BES, introducing unnecessary WAN latency, increased bandwidth usage, and cross-site complexity - all of which are more costly and less efficient.
• E is even more geographically inappropriate, placing London users on a Vancouver server with the highest possible latency and no logical justification.

Memory tip: Remember the rule - one BES, many Exchange Servers. BES is Exchange-server-agnostic in terms of count; think of it as a hub that can fan out to multiple mail servers. If capacity exists on the current BES, always reuse it before spinning up a new instance.

No community discussion yet for this question.