Exchange 2003 and above with Outlook 2003 and above put a heck of a lot more data in each buffer and they compress it. Thus, due to a more efficient use of bandwidth, the latency can increase and still have reasonable performance.
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2006 3:00 PM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Remote Exchange Access and Timing That definitely gives me something to zero in on. Now to find this caching mechanism. At one time I thought (maybe Exchange 5.5) the magic number was somewhere around 50ms. Thanks! Brent Eads Employee Technology Solutions, Inc. Office: (312) 762-9224 Fax: (312) 762-9275 The contents contain privileged and/or confidential information intended for the named recipient of this email. ETSI (Employee Technology Solutions, Inc.) does not warrant that the contents of any electronically transmitted information will remain confidential. If the reader of this email is not the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any use, reproduction, disclosure or distribution of the information contained in the email in error, please reply to us immediately and delete the document. Viruses, Malware, Phishing and other known and unknown electronic threats: It is the recipient/client's duties to perform virus scans and otherwise test the information provided before loading onto any computer system. No warranty is made that this material is free from computer virus or any other defect. Any loss/damage incurred by using this material is not the sender's responsibility. Liability will be limited to resupplying the material. "Michael B. Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 12/12/2006 12:31 PM Please respond to [email protected] To <[email protected]> cc Subject RE: [ActiveDir] Remote Exchange Access and Timing I tell my customers 200 ms or better. In cached mode, Outlook 2003 and Outlook 2007 work just fine with that latency (depending, of course, on how much data you are moving, but “in general”). If you are “live” and no cached, you really want 80 ms or better, but I don’t recommend it. From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2006 12:27 PM To: [email protected] Subject: [ActiveDir] Remote Exchange Access and Timing All; This may be slightly off topic. Does anyone remember how fast Exchange needs the line speed to be for remote access? I am working with a client that is having time out issues with a 248ms (average) packet time. With some static routing I might be able to get this number down to say 125ms but my fear is that will likewise be too slow. From a networking (routing) side of things I can see some peering loss in Europe so there is no really easy answer save building special static routes or PPP connections, etc. Thanks! Brent Eads Employee Technology Solutions, Inc. Office: (312) 762-9224 Fax: (312) 762-9275 The contents contain privileged and/or confidential information intended for the named recipient of this email. ETSI (Employee Technology Solutions, Inc.) does not warrant that the contents of any electronically transmitted information will remain confidential. If the reader of this email is not the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any use, reproduction, disclosure or distribution of the information contained in the email in error, please reply to us immediately and delete the document. Viruses, Malware, Phishing and other known and unknown electronic threats: It is the recipient/client's duties to perform virus scans and otherwise test the information provided before loading onto any computer system. No warranty is made that this material is free from computer virus or any other defect. Any loss/damage incurred by using this material is not the sender's responsibility. Liability will be limited to resupplying the material. Message scanned by TrendMicro Message scanned by TrendMicro Message scanned by TrendMicro
