And here I was about to rip you for your "quiet" significant overhead! <wink>
-Ben- Ben M. Schorr, MVP-Outlook, CNA, MCPx3 Director of Information Services Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert http://www.hawaiilawyer.com > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 9:33 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: High Physical Memory Utilization > > > Before you guys rip me a new one.... I meant to say NASD not > ANDS! Sorry for the typo. > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 1:31 PM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: High Physical Memory Utilization > > > Exactly. You make a recommendation based on an appropriate > solution to handle present needs in addition to future needs. > Basing your buying decisions on the hope that prices would > go down is like purchasing a small cap stock that trades on > the ANDS. You have no idea what the prices of hardware are > going to be 6 months from now. My original Exchange system > has seen 3 mergers, and has continually been given new > "responsibilities" without requiring additional hardware or > hardware changes because I planned accordingly. One of those > responsibilities added recently is to service our 1,000,000 > plus donor recipients with monthly announcements from my > Oracle Database. This responsibility adds quiet a > significant overhead....However, it's only once a month. Of > coarse, some of you might argue the overhead would be caused > from the WAN connection. This could be true I suppose, > however, this is not the case because I have a dedicated T3 > for my mail. But hopefully you see my point. Even though the > additional "overhead" may not adversely affect the amount of > RAM being utilized by the Information Store it does > significantly affect your Disk IO performance if not > configured properly. This equates to a higher processor > utilization. My recommendation takes all of this into > consideration. Hopefully this answers the question pondered > earlier about the dual processor role. > > But listen guys... I believe in democracy. It appears that > the majority of you believe in the least amount to perform to > current expectations. So, I will limit my opinions whenever > possible on this subject. > > Besides, I don't want to spend what's left of my vacation > creating enemies in a discussion group I wish to participate > in. However, there is something to be said for > disagreements. At least it allows me to contemplate a > different mind set when it comes to certain issues. For > this, I thank you. > > Thanks for your time again. > Murphy > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 12:39 PM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: High Physical Memory Utilization > > > > Secondly, getting what you want from upper management is a > skill and > > requires good salesmanship and good political tactics. I > would think > > you guys and gals would consider this an asset. > > In my experience, I have found that my upper management > trusts me to recommend appropriate solutions for the simple > reason that I don't waste their money by buying too big of a > server for our needs. They know that it will cost less real > money to buy what we need (with a bit of growth allowed) and > then upgrade later when component prices have come down. If > I get a great deal on some mondo equipment, great, we're > golden, but otherwise I choose my money battles wisely. > > Also, "critical" >< "big" or in the case of your > recommendation, "abso-fscking-HUGE". > > -Mich�le, MOS+BP, TSCSP, soon to be a California Girl > Immigration site: <http://LadySun1969.tripod.com> The Miata > has gone to live with Grandma for a little while: > <http://members.cardomain.com/bpituley> > Tiggercam: <http://www.tiggercam.co.uk> > --------------------------------------------------------- > "You're telling Chris how to unsubscribe? Now that's funny." > - Andy David, July 26, 2001 > --------------------------------------------------------- > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 10:35 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: High Physical Memory Utilization > > > I guess it depends on your situation. If policy dictates > that Exchange Server is classified as a critical system I > would think you would want to spec the system appropriately. > > Secondly, getting what you want from upper management is a > skill and requires good salesmanship and good political > tactics. I would think you guys and gals would consider this > an asset. > > If I can get a nice, big, powerful server...I'm going to do it. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Tristan Gayford [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 9:29 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: High Physical Memory Utilization > > > Don - lack of experience - ouch! > > The real world has to adapt. I could spend far too much money > on a server that should last 5-8 years. But then I would > rather spend money on a server that suits the company needs > now and for the next 3-4 years and replace it with one after > that time. And if I ask for silly money now, I am not going > to get it for anything else that may need it (you never know > what's around the corner). > > Its experience that is showing all of us that we don't need a > server with a spec that high. If a change occurs that should > suddenly change your user base or policies, then use it for > some more money to upgrade/replace your server. > > ---------------------------------------------------- > Tristan Gayford > Deputy Systems & Network Manager > Cranfield University at Silsoe > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: 11 January 2002 15:22 > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: High Physical Memory Utilization > > So because you cannot afford to spec a server appropriately > you decide it's best to flame everyone else that can. > > If your read the original post correctly you would have seen > that I was making a recommendation. The recommendation > allows for future growth of the database and the least amount > of hardware problems. The fact that you consider the > hardware to be overkill shows you lack of experience. I > recommended a system that should last 5-8 years. What good > does it do to spec a system that barely meets your current needs? > > In addition, you are chastising me for convincing higher ups > to purchase a system that is in your opinion an > overkill....Wouldn't this be considered an asset? Maybe you > should evaluate your own tactics with upper management. > > -----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----- > X-Sybari-Trust: 829a1b0f 48e161ad a34ec95d 0000000c > 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]
