Anyone else receiving blank emails? The reply from Al (below Susans email) and a couple of others I have got over the past couple of days have had empty bodies.
-----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Susan Bradley, CPA aka Ebitz - SBS Rocks [MVP] Sent: Friday, May 05, 2006 2:53 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [ActiveDir] Optimize Exchange Pagefile 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/ 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/
