Now If each of those users could find 4 more users, and those new users
could all find 2 more users, and so on. You could have your self a nice
network there.

Milton R Dogg
Of The Dogg Foundation..

-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Martin
Blackstone
Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 10:16 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: High Physical Memory Utilization


I have 60 users....

-----Original Message-----
From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 10:08 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: High Physical Memory Utilization


Let's see - I have about 10 servers around the world that are 1GB
machines with 300-500 users on them - with 100MB limits.

His hardware is fine.

------------------------------------------------------
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 11:52 AM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: High Physical Memory Utilization
> 
> 
> 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]
> 

_________________________________________________________________
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]



_________________________________________________________

Do You Yahoo!?

Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com




_________________________________________________________________
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