Nope.  Disagree.  This problem could have been avoided with proper
implementation of hardware..... "In my opinion".

My solution is not to throw hardware at a problem.  My solution is to
implement a proper hardware solution in the beginning!  I was not trying to
solve the person's problem.  I simply made an statement reflecting my
opinion that they should evaluate their hardware.

400 users and 1 gig of ram did not seem like an appropriate solution that
would provide current stability and room for future growth.  Besides, who
wants to replace their Exchange Server Hardware every 2 years?  What's wrong
with building a system that will last 3-4 years reliably?  Are you guys
saying this is a bad thing?  It sure seems that way.

-----Original Message-----
From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 10:34 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: High Physical Memory Utilization


No - you were not giving an opinion. You were giving an ill-conceived
solution to a stated problem.

People who have been here pick up on who to listen to and to whom they
should not listen. Not everyone has been here that long. 

Fortunately, for the person who originally asked the question, a few of us
who do know good solutions addressed to the specific problems. It would
appear that your first solution is to throw hardware at the problem. I used
to think the same thing. 5 Years ago. Before I learned a LOT about this
stuff.
Roger
------------------------------------------------------
Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE
Senior Systems Administrator
Peregrine Systems
Atlanta, GA
http://www.peregrine.com


> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
> Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 10:31 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]

Reply via email to