Ok, So my 266Mhz 512 KB server with a 38GB IS is an overkill ? ;)
/P ----- Original Message ----- From: "Don Ely" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 11:48 AM Subject: RE: High Physical Memory Utilization > Well, I have found something that we both agree on. I am very much a fan of > Dell Servers. In fact, every server room I touch is covered in Dell Blue > and Cisco Green. > > As for your infrastructure theory, that is what most of us are paid for. > I'm not satisfied if I don't get 99.999% uptime out of my network. I don't > do downtime and I certainly don't tolerate downtime. Neither do most of the > folks here. We do like to have a life outside of our jobs so we make sure > we place the correct hardware in our infrastructure. That does NOT mean, we > place the most powerful server we can buy for 400 users. At one of my > previous jobs, we ran close to a 1000 users on a PII 400 with 256MB of RAM. > Never had any downtime or performance issues... > > As has been stated, YMMV, but I seriously doubt all that hardware was > necessary for your 400 users.... > > D > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 8:47 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: High Physical Memory Utilization > > > Yes. I agree with the first paragraph. That's why I chose to apologize. > > However, make "correct" decisions can be based on your specific environment. > Given the same problem we might all solve it a little differently. Some > problems only have one answer. However, when it comes to hardware > preference does matter. You might use Compaq whereas I prefer Dell, someone > else might preference IBM. I prefer to "throw" more hardware at the > solution. > > As for the auditing, my department is audited 4 times per year by an > internal audit group and once per year by an external audit group. Every > year I pass with flying colors. Why, server uptime and stability, > application availability, services availability, etc.... Downtime reports > are seldom to say the least. However, I'm not bragging. I'm simply trying > to add credibility to my proposal for appropriate hardware solutions. > > It does not stop with the servers. I purchase the best cabling, best patch > panels, best switches, best security options, best monitoring options, > etc... that I can. In my opinion, if your having a problem with a system > it's always a good time to evaluate your infrastructure and hardware to keep > these problems from occurring in the first place. > > Thanks for the time. > Murphy > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Don Ely [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 10:23 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: High Physical Memory Utilization > > > 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] > > _________________________________________________________________ > 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]
