Yes Don, now stop using other peoples computers to read this list and get
back to that coffee making....

;0)

Regards

Mr Louis Joyce
Network Support Analyst
Exchange Administrator
BT Ignite eSolutions




-----Original Message-----
From: Don Ely [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 11 January 2002 15:32
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: High Physical Memory Utilization


Yeah, I'm soo lacking in experience...  I tell ya...

-----Original Message-----
From: Tristan Gayford [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 7:29 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: High Physical Memory Utilization


Don - lack of experience - ouch!

The real world has to adapt. I could spend far too much money on a server
that should last 5-8 years. But then I would rather spend money on a server
that suits the company needs now and for the next 3-4 years and replace it
with one after that time. And if I ask for silly money now, I am not going
to get it for anything else that may need it (you never know what's around
the corner).

Its experience that is showing all of us that we don't need a server with a
spec that high. If a change occurs that should suddenly change your user
base or policies, then use it for some more money to upgrade/replace your
server. 

----------------------------------------------------
Tristan Gayford
Deputy Systems & Network Manager
Cranfield University at Silsoe


-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: 11 January 2002 15:22
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: High Physical Memory Utilization

So because you cannot afford to spec a server appropriately you decide it's
best to flame everyone else that can.

If your read the original post correctly you would have seen that I was
making a recommendation.  The recommendation allows for future growth of the
database and the least amount of hardware problems.  The fact that you
consider the hardware to be overkill shows you lack of experience.  I
recommended a system that should last 5-8 years.  What good does it do to
spec a system that barely meets your current needs?  

In addition, you are chastising me for convincing higher ups to purchase a
system that is in your opinion an overkill....Wouldn't this be considered an
asset?  Maybe you should evaluate your own tactics with upper management. 

-----Original Message-----
From: Don Ely [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 8:45 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: High Physical Memory Utilization


Someone would have to be on some good drugs to over-spec a server like that.
I guess we're the unfortunate bunch with actual "real" world budgets to work
with...  ;o)

D


-----Original Message-----
From: Joyce, Louis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 6:42 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: High Physical Memory Utilization


Ha ha ha ha LOL.

Crack pipe. Nice one Don.

Regards

Mr Louis Joyce
Network Support Analyst
Exchange Administrator
BT Ignite eSolutions




-----Original Message-----
From: Don Ely [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 11 January 2002 14:36
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: High Physical Memory Utilization


What crack pipe are you smoking out of?  Those specs are way beyond what's
necessary!

D

-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2002 12:48 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: High Physical Memory Utilization


400 Mailboxes and 1 gig of Ram does not sound right.  Your primary problem
is hardware.

This is my minimum recommendation for your hardware requirements.

Dual Pentium III 550 +
Separate Raid Controller running in Raid 5 config.  (2 partitions logical) 2
Gig physical memory. 3 Gig Page File on second partition Run optimizer and
move the databases and log files to 2nd partition.


-----Original Message-----
From: Frazer J Clark [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2002 11:09 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: High Physical Memory Utilization


One of my colleagues recently reinstalled a 5.5 SP4 Exchange Server on NT4
SP5 (only Exchange was reinstalled) and have noticed that the Physical
Memory Utilization sits at around 99% (prior to the rebuild it was around
60%).  The server has about 400 mailboxes on it and has 1Gb of physical
memory and 1Gb page file.  It is the same spec as 4 other servers in the
site which all sit at around 60% utilization.  As it is a 24x7 service we
offer on our server, down time is very limited.  Is there any way I can
check the performance optimizer settings without stopping the store? Or are
there any other pointers that anyone can think of I can check?



_________________________________________________________________
List posting FAQ:       http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Archives:               http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp
To unsubscribe:         mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:    [EMAIL PROTECTED]

_________________________________________________________________
List posting FAQ:       http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Archives:               http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp
To unsubscribe:         mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:    [EMAIL PROTECTED]

_________________________________________________________________
List posting FAQ:       http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Archives:               http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp
To unsubscribe:         mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:    [EMAIL PROTECTED]

_________________________________________________________________
List posting FAQ:       http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Archives:               http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp
To unsubscribe:         mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:    [EMAIL PROTECTED]

_________________________________________________________________
List posting FAQ:       http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Archives:               http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp
To unsubscribe:         mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:    [EMAIL PROTECTED]

_________________________________________________________________
List posting FAQ:       http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Archives:               http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp
To unsubscribe:         mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:    [EMAIL PROTECTED]

_________________________________________________________________
List posting FAQ:       http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Archives:               http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp
To unsubscribe:         mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:    [EMAIL PROTECTED]

_________________________________________________________________
List posting FAQ:       http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Archives:               http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp
To unsubscribe:         mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:    [EMAIL PROTECTED]

_________________________________________________________________
List posting FAQ:       http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Archives:               http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp
To unsubscribe:         mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:    [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to