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]

Reply via email to