Additional OWA sites redirects to OWA (default web site) - Exchange2016

Евгений Котляревский 81 Баллы репутации
2026-06-10T15:59:04.6033333+00:00

Hi.
I have topology as mentioned at picture below

Scheme

So, I have (all servers Exchange 2016):
4 Exchange servers that a part of 2 DAGs. Exchange servers located at Site A - is the "main" and contains active DB copies.
Exchange servers located in Site B - is for failover, and contains passive DB copies.
Servers Ex5 and Ex6 are part of DAG1 and DAG2 to, but does not contains any DB copies.

Server Ex7 is not a part of any DAG and contains DBs for archive mailbox (slow server with slow storage)

I needed additional namespace to separate user access to owa and ecp.

I've created additional OWA and ECP virtual directories on servers Ex1, Ex2, Ex3, Ex4, Ex7 according to this article:
https://techcommunity.microsoft.com/blog/exchange/configuring-multiple-owaecp-virtual-directories-on-the-exchange-2013-client-acce/611217
And almost everything worked for me, but there is problem.
The load balancer distributes connections to servers Ex1,Ex2,Ex3,Ex4 according to a specific algorithm.
When connection is distributed to Server Ex1 or Ex2 (where user mailbox database active copy is located), no issies happens, user after logon stays at external url of additional owa virtual directory (https://mail.compB.com/owa at my picture).
But if connection is distributed to Server Ex3 or Ex4 (where mailbox database passive copy is located), after logon user redirected to external url of default web site owa (https://mail.compA.com/owa at my picture).
I've tried to disable "RedirectToOptimalOWAServer" option at additional OWA virtual directories - no luck, connection still redirect to default web site OWA external url.
I don't even know what could be done anymore.

How can I prevent redirection to default web site OWA external url? Any ideas?

Exchange | Exchange Server | Прочее
Exchange | Exchange Server | Прочее

Надежная платформа электронной почты, календаря и совместной работы, разработанная Microsoft, предназначенная для корпоративного общения и управления данными.Другие темы, которые не попадают под определенные категории.

Комментариев: 0 Без комментариев

1 ответ

Сортировать по: Наиболее полезные
  1. Анонимные
    2026-06-11T01:39:34.3533333+00:00

    Please note that this is the ru-ru forum. We kindly recommend posting your question in Russian so that more community members can assist you. Alternatively, you may consider posting in the en-us forum if you prefer to use your English. We sincerely appreciate your understanding.

    Hi @Евгений Котляревский

    Please note that we're not Microsoft support, this is a user-to-user support forum. Moderators here don’t have backend access to Microsoft systems, so we can only provide technical guidance based on the public resources.

    Based on the behavior you described, this appears to be expected Exchange 2016 behavior rather than a misconfiguration of the additional OWA virtual directories.

    The key difference in your environment is that Ex1 and Ex2 host the active mailbox database copies, while Ex3 and Ex4 only host passive copies.

    When a user initially connects to Ex1 or Ex2, Exchange can service the OWA session locally, so the user remains on the namespace they originally used (https://mail.compB.com/owa).

    However, when a user connects to Ex3 or Ex4, Exchange detects that the mailbox database is active on another server and proxies or redirects the session to the server hosting the active copy. During this process, Exchange generates the destination URL based on the target server’s OWA configuration, which explains why users are redirected to the default namespace (https://mail.compA.com/owa).

    Depending on the scenario, Exchange may either proxy the request transparently or issue an HTTP 302 redirect. If you capture a browser/Fiddler trace and see a 302 response with a Location header pointing to https://mail.compA.com/owa, that confirms Exchange is selecting that namespace during routing.

    The RedirectToOptimalOWAServer setting is often assumed to control all OWA redirection behavior, but it does not override Exchange’s core client access routing logic. As a result, disabling that setting does not prevent the namespace change in this scenario.

    The fact that the issue only occurs when users initially connect to Ex3 or Ex4 is a strong indication that the behavior is related to Exchange routing the session toward the active mailbox server rather than a problem with the additional OWA virtual directory itself.

    Before making architectural changes, capturing a trace as mentioned above can help confirm whether Exchange is issuing a redirect versus a proxy response.

    From a design perspective, this behavior aligns with how Exchange 2016 client access services are implemented. Microsoft guidance emphasizes simplifying namespace design and reducing the number of namespaces in modern Exchange deployments. The Exchange Preferred Architecture further recommends standardized designs and notes that while other configurations may technically work, they are not the recommended practice.

    In practice, Exchange 2016 is designed around a simplified namespace model (typically a single namespace such as mail.contoso.com). While multiple namespaces are technically possible, maintaining separate OWA namespaces across mailbox routing scenarios is not part of the recommended architecture and can lead to behavior like the redirection you are observing.

    References:

    So, the most reliable approaches are typically:

    • Use a single OWA/ECP namespace across all Exchange servers, or
    • Implement any namespace separation at the load balancer layer rather than relying on multiple OWA virtual directories.

    Based on your description, there is no indication that your additional OWA virtual directories are misconfigured. The behavior you are seeing is consistent with Exchange 2016 routing logic when the initial connection is made to a server that does not host the active mailbox database copy.

    I hope this explanation provides some useful insight into the current behavior. In the meantime, you may also consider starting a new discussion in the Tech Community, where other administrators can share feedback and practical suggestions based on their real production environments and experience.


    If the answer is helpful, please click "Accept Answer" and kindly upvote it. If you have extra questions about this answer, please click "Comment".    

    Note: Please follow the steps in our documentation to enable e-mail notifications if you want to receive the related email notification for this thread. 

    Этот ответ помог вам?


Ваш ответ

Автор вопроса может устанавливать для ответов пометку "Принято", а модераторы — пометку "Рекомендуется". Благодаря этому пользователям становится проще понять, какой из ответов помог решить проблему автора.