Dr. Dogg and myself are definitely two different people.  While you say
"Sometimes I can be too direct.", I am direct all of the time, I leave no
room for interpretation.  It's not to say either of us is correct, but you
were very much incorrect in the way you made your "definitive statement" and
it wasn't just to Dr. Dogg, you told others that their configs were wrong
too.

I'm sure all of us would like to have the most powerful servers alive in our
server room, but we get paid to make the "correct" decision and we are
trusted to make the "correct" decision.  What if your company had a third
party come in and analyze your network, then report to your management that
your network was over spec'd.  Your level of trust has just been dropped.

My senior management trusts me to make good decisions and I frequently get
asked if I'd bank my job on those decisions.  My reply to that is I'll bank
my job on any technical decision I make...

I understand you think you're making a good decision, but there are always
other ways to accomplish things...

D

-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 8:16 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: High Physical Memory Utilization


Unless Don and Dr. Dogg are the same person I do not see your relevance.

I made a definitive statement (accusation).  Which, in hindsight, was
inappropriate.  Sometimes I can be too direct.  I officially apologize to
Dr. Dogg for that inappropriate statement.

-----Original Message-----
From: Hunter, Lori [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 9:53 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: High Physical Memory Utilization


You know, had you not sent out that quickie sharp comment "no you don't"
when faced with Dr. Dogg's server specs, your "opinion" might hold some
water.  But when you start out the conversation confrontationally, basically
accusing the fine doctor of lying to us all, you gets what you deserves.
Your comment was not an opinion - Don's was.




-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 9:31 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: High Physical Memory Utilization


And another comment Mr. Ely.....

Let's keep this in mind next time you decide to flame me or someone else on
the list.

I'm simply giving my opinion.  Acceptance is optional.  I'm giving my
opinion of a server spec for exchange server that in "my opinion" has giving
me the best level of performance and least amount of headaches over a 10
year period.  Whether you choose this type of hardware is irrelevant being
that I'm the one stating an opinion. 

You have the option of lending your alternative option to the discussion.
This would give the person whom made the original post more alternatives.

Second, I have never claimed to be the foremost expert on Exchange Server. I
am here with an open mind and willing and needing to learn just like
everyone else.  However, I do intend to post my opinions.  

Thanks for your time.


-----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