I for one want to know how he got management to pay for it.

Then maybe I could use the same methods to talk my wife into letting me buy
a dual AMD 1900+, 2 GB RAM,
2x 120 GB disks (RAID of course), 18" TFT, 64 MB Ti 500 video card (or ATI
8500). 

PS. From what I have just read it should be just about suitable for playing
Serious SAM.

PPS Also like to be working there, his spec for a workstation would probably
be the same as above...

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: 11 January 2002 15:44
> To:   Exchange Discussions
> Subject:      RE: High Physical Memory Utilization
> 
> 
> Exchange Stores on 10 year old spindles 
> 
> ::SHUDDER::
> 
> Thinking about MTBF, you probably would have replaced the drives before
> the
> got that old.
> Thinking about replacing drives, I wonder about the odds of getting a
> *new*
> drive for a five year old server.  eBay refurbished maybe...
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tristan Gayford [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 10:38 AM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: High Physical Memory Utilization
> 
> 
> Yes Exchange is critical and it the money is given accordingly. To spec a
> machine for 10(!) years would probably require us to either reduce
> services
> elsewhere or lose a member of staff as there is a finite budget. If I need
> something and can justify it with sensible business sense, I normally will
> get it.
> 
> A server to last 10 years can simply not be justified.
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------
> Tristan Gayford
> Deputy Systems & Network Manager
> Cranfield University at Silsoe
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
> Sent: 11 January 2002 15:35
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: High Physical Memory Utilization
> 
> I guess it depends on your situation.  If policy dictates that Exchange
> Server is classified as a critical system I would think you would want to
> spec the system appropriately.
> 
> Secondly, getting what you want from upper management is a skill and
> requires good salesmanship and good political tactics.  I would think you
> guys and gals would consider this an asset.  
> 
> If I can get a nice, big, powerful server...I'm going to do it.  
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tristan Gayford [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 9:29 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]
> 
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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