Oversized does not equate to appropriate. Appropriate means the right sized equipment for the job. It's fine to anticipate growth and plan accordingly. Your philosophy, as you have stated it, goes well beyond that. Your day will come when your manager (or his manager) calls a third party in to audit your operations.
Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP kcCC+I Tech Consultant Compaq Computer Corporation Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups! -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of [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]
