Hmm. Well I guess the difference is I don't have to convince my wife to allow me to purchase something I just purchase it and let her know.
As for management, I guess it comes down to track record. If you have a good track record with upper management and users it because easier every year to obtain what you want. Notice I said "what you want". This is where the opinion of hardware is key. If you get to this point in life and decide to purchase an AMD system I suppose that's your choice..... -----Original Message----- From: Veitch, Michael [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 10:13 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: High Physical Memory Utilization 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] _________________________________________________________________ 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]
