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".
> 
> -Michèle, 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]

Reply via email to