Word of advice -- put "SBS" in the subject line and you'll get SBSlady
from the get go :-)
"By design" SBS is maxed at 75 users/devices.
As you have already stated....do not do a /3GB (let me repeat that
again) DO NOT do a /3GB on a SBS box. It's not necessary and doesn't
impact a thing.
Remember with SP2 we now have 75 gigs to play with so plan accordingly
(and no snickers from the terrabyte people)
SBS is pretty tuned as it is.. set your page files to be 1.5 and I have
mine spread on two drives. What is more important is the layout of
those partitions..and boy... did a recent blog post bring out a lot of
comments http://msmvps.com/blogs/bradley/archive/2006/05/02/93249.aspx
Set the crash dump to minidump or even full dump... when that sucker
blows (and it's not that often and kinda fun when it does as you can use
the debugger tool) you want that dumpfile to be there and juicy.
Exchange 'by design' will suck down the memory and release when needed.
Honestly Exchange ..while being a hog.. isn't the annoyance on my
boxes.. it's MSDE that is the troublesome child.
After applications of SP1 (if it is not integrated that is) you need to
rerun the SBS monitoring wizard to get rid of a bogus STORE memory alert.
Now then.. about that MSDE.
The SBS health monitor function is set to warn you with an allocated
memory alert when the use is above 2 gigs..when you have a 4 gig
box..that 2 gig limit is a bit stupid. So step one is to monitor your
box.. see where it hovers at. I bumped mine up a bit.
Next... the problem children. ISA running on MSDE 'by design' will be
like Exchange and suck up all RAM and release when needed... sorry ISA
.. you don't need to do that (and before Joe has the inevitable heart
attack of a firewall on my DC.. it's in all honesty my 'second' firewall
as I have a hardware one in front..but I like the monitoring and with
Dana Epp's Scorpion Software Firewall dashboard tool, the GUI pie charts
of the firewall hits that 'do' hit my domain controller are way
cool....I know, I know... it's the GUI..just shake your head and walk away).
SBSMonitoring 'can' and 'has' on my box and others in the community
gotten too 'hot' on my box as well. So for both ISA and SBSmonitoring
there's a command (yes Joe, I did command line) to stomp on those msde
instances and make them behave
http://msmvps.com/blogs/bradley/search.aspx?q=allocated+memory&p=1
This is the ISA
http://msmvps.com/blogs/bradley/archive/2005/05/22/48500.aspx
This is SBS montoring
http://msmvps.com/blogs/bradley/archive/2005/02/04/34984.aspx
So for memory optimization... forget about Exchange.. it behaves.. but
be prepared to stomp on those MSDE's
...and we're using a lot of RAID 5's down here (and even SATA drives)
Al Mulnick wrote:
yeah, there would be some general disagreement from me. Why? Only
because this is SBS box vs. an enterprise Exchange server hosting 5K
users.
My laptop (crud that it is) could host 20 heavy exchange users with
usable/good performance with that amount of memory. I don't think the
focus of a machine that will only ever have <75 users should be
optimized for more than space in most situations. It would be a waste
of money that could be spent on other things like better backups,
better coffee, etc.
I don't believe there's any value in buying a system such as SBS and
then having to make adjustments to things like pagefile size. That's
counter to the product's reason for being.
Saying that, Dave is correct that optimizing the disk layout has the
biggest benefit, but it's SBS and as such it's "special". Just ask
SBS-Lady ;)
Al
On 5/4/06, Dave Wade <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
If you have 4gig of RAM then you should get minimal paging. (I know
this is a great generalization)
1) Log file access is sequential, database is random
2) Keeping Log files write queue down is key to performance
3) log files are write only
4) raid-5 tends to have poor write performance (again greate
generalization).
So I would try and get another drive in the box so I could have a
mirrored pair for OS & LOGS, and a mirrored pair for Databases. .
Putting these on seperate drives will do far more for performance
than changing the page file. RAID-5 is a real bad performer on write.
These days I woudl avoid as far as possible...
I am sure other folks may disagree...
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Dan
DeStefano
Sent: Thu 04/05/2006 21:36
To: [email protected]
Cc:
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Optimize Exchange Pagefile
Yes, far less than 100, on this box it is under 20.
You do not think it is necessary to mess with the page file,
even if only to make it static?
Dan
_____
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dave Wade
Sent: Thursday, May 04, 2006 4:06 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Optimize Exchange Pagefile
There is no point in messing about with memory config if you
only have a three drive RAID 5 array. Disk config is critical. How
many users do you want to put on this box. less than 100?
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Dan
DeStefano
Sent: Thu 04/05/2006 20:16
To: [email protected]
Cc:
Subject: [ActiveDir] Optimize Exchange Pagefile
I was wondering if anyone can point me to any MS
document that discusses optimizing the page file on an Exchange box.
I found http://support.microsoft.com/kb/815372, but this article does
not discuss the page file. I am running SBS 2003 on a 3 GHZ Xeon with
4GB physical memory and a 3-disk RAID5 array with 2 logical drives. I
plan on installing the Exchange binaries on the first logical drive
(which will also contain the system and boot partitions) and the
Exchange databases, logs, queues, etc on the second logical drive.
The way I normally set the pagefile on my systems is
to set it to be static and 1.5x physical RAM. I also create a
pagefile on each disk and let Windows choose the best one (which will
be the second logical drive). I do not want to disable the pagefile
on C: because, from what I understand, this will disable crash dumps,
which I do not want. However, I set the crash dump to kernel only,
not the entire pagefile. That being said, would it be appropriate to
set the pagefile on C: to something small like 256MB since the OS
will be using the one on the second drive anyway?
Also, other than not using the /3GB switch, are there
any other differences between the memory/pagefile settings on a
regular Exchange box running WS2k3 and the SBS2k3 version?
I would appreciate any guidance.
Dan DeStefano
Info-lution Corporation
www.info-lution.com
MCSE - 2073750
**********************************************************************
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and
intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to
whom they
are addressed. As a public body, the Council may be required
to disclose this email, or any response to it, under the Freedom of
Information Act 2000, unless the information in it is covered by one
of the exemptions in the Act.
If you receive this email in error please notify Stockport
e-Services via [EMAIL PROTECTED] and then permanently
remove it from your system.
Thank you.
http://www.stockport.gov.uk
**********************************************************************
Dan DeStefano
Info-lution Corporation
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.info-lution.com <http://www.info-lution.com/>
Office: 727 546-9143
FAX: 727 541-5888
If you have received this message in error please notify the sender,
disregard any content and remove it from your possession.
Dan DeStefano
Info-lution Corporation
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.info-lution.com <http://www.info-lution.com/>
Office: 727 546-9143
FAX: 727 541-5888
If you have received this message in error please notify the sender,
disregard any content and remove it from your possession.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
��V�r�y�&�-��4���i�b��b���/===
--
Letting your vendors set your risk analysis these days?
http://www.threatcode.com
List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx
List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx
List archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/
