Al, I still think that interesting (i.e. BAD) things might happen if the RAID-5 ever flips into degraded mode(i.e. runs on two drives.) The first proper Exchange Server I built (yes it was 5.0 RTM) was designed for a similar situation. We were a small business without about 20 people and the server was a Dual Pentium Pro (I guess with NT4) with a third party raid card (I can't remember the make). Any way I built it the same way as Dan proposes, and it ran fine for a while. However we had some issues with temperature control in the server room and we lost a drive from the array. These days I would have taken the server off line and allowed the re-build to complete. I didn't and the RAID card could just not cope with re-building the array and the minimal load we placed on it. To cut a long story short I spent a long time sorting out the mess it made of the databases .....
Since then I have been very wary of such configs. In " theory" they should work. In my experience, and yes it was a long time ago, and hardware should have improved, it may not. Dave. -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Al Mulnick Sent: 05 May 2006 19:06 To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [ActiveDir] Optimize Exchange Pagefile 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] Vry&-4ibb
