I'm using GMail.  Fixes would all be client side and since I see the
content in the mail I send, I doubt it's client side. Else it's highly
consistent client-side issues.  Tony might be the person to contact
about some of this, but I think there're also some server side issues
possibly at GMAIL, possibly at the receiving end.

Al

On 5/5/06, Susan Bradley, CPA aka Ebitz - SBS Rocks [MVP]
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Okay dumb questions to folks..

E-Bitz - SBS MVP the Official Blog of the SBS "Diva" : OWA fix on
Microsoft Update:
http://msmvps.com/blogs/bradley/archive/2006/04/28/92884.aspx

Are the folks that are sending blank emails .. have you deployed 911829?

Kevin Gent wrote:

> i'm seeing lots of blanks over the past week
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Douglas M. Long"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[email protected]>
> Sent: Friday, May 05, 2006 4:05 PM
> Subject: [ActiveDir] OT: Blank messages to lists???
>
>
> 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/

Reply via email to